Читать книгу Student Engagement Techniques - Elizabeth F. Barkley - Страница 18

Some models of student engagement list “behavior” as a type of engagement. For example, Fredericks et al. (2004) suggest that there are three types of student engagement: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. This perspective has a ring of truth to it since we know from experience that engaged students often exhibit different behaviors from their disengaged counterparts. We, however, don't view behaviors as a type of engagement but rather as the outcome of engagement. Thus, we believe that student engagement leads to some specific learning behaviors. For example, students who are motivated to learn and are actively engaging intellectual effort in their learning will likely attend class, pay attention, take notes, participate in the discussion, turn in assignments, and so forth. The mental state of engagement and the physical act of learning behaviors are thus connected, but we see it as a causal relationship rather than a separate factor or type of engagement.

In his description of different levels of engagement, Schlechty (2011) offers some insight into the connection between mental state and behaviors. In particular, he describes five ways that students might respond to a learning task that illustrate different levels of engagement along with associated feelings, thoughts, and learning behaviors:

1 Engagement (high attention–high commitment): Students see that the activity is personally meaningful. Likewise, the students feel that their goal is to get the activity right and perform well, with or without extrinsic motivation. Students attend to the tasks they are engaged in, and they persist in the face of difficulty.

2 Strategic compliance (high attention–low commitment): Students see the value of the work and find the activity as worth doing, but only because of grades, approval, and class rank. Students are primarily seeking teacher recognition and peer appreciation. If the reward is removed, the students abandon the task.

3 Ritual compliance (low attention–no commitment): Students set learning at a low level of priority and are working only for the sake of compliance and on meeting the minimum requirements. They do the work only to avoid negative consequences such as getting a failing grade or mark. Their prime desire is to avoid teachers' reprimands and peer conflict. They do the bare minimum required of them.

4 Retreatism/noncompliance (no attention–no commitment): Students are disengaged in the task and activity and are emotionally withdrawn. They do not participate in the task, and feel unable to do what is asked and expected of them. They find ways to avoid the task that don't call attention to themselves. Schlechty says “they do nothing and bother no one” and they are skilled at “going to sleep with their eyes open” (p. 21).

5 Rebellion (diverted attention-no commitment): Students develop a negative attitude. They actively choose not to do the task and sometimes encourage others to rebel. They may instead listen to music or play a video game rather than complete the assigned task (pp. 15–21).

These five engagement levels show the interconnection between what students think and feel and how they may respond in kind with their actions. Through outlining these levels of engagement, Schlechty not only provides insight into learning behaviors that may signal different levels of engagement but also illuminates many ways in which students may or may not engage.

We note, however, that not all students who are engaged exhibit the behaviors described here, and not all disengaged students exhibit the same feelings about their learning. There are many issues that students face today that affect their willingness and ability to come to class, pay attention, and so forth. For example, students who are on the spectrum may not make eye contact, but they may be actively processing the information from a lecture. In addition, lack of engaged behaviors may not signal a lack of desire to engage. Overly tired students may want to engage, and may have the affect needed, but they may be physically unable to engage cognitively. So, while learning behavior can signal engagement, we can't assume that we can see engagement; mental states are by definition difficult to see and measure.