Student engagement, a response to @ewilliams65

by | Sunday, January 27, 2013

In a couple of previous blog post (Student engagement in school, the tale of 2 graphs and Understanding student engagement) I wrote about  the findings of a recent Gallup Poll on student engagement. The first post was concerned with how the data were represented and the second focused on the actual items to measure student engagement.

@ewilliams65 (Eric Williams, a friend and a Superintendent in Virginia and one of the more innovative and forward-looking administrators I know) wrote a blog post (Gallup’s five questions regarding student engagement) in which he takes me to task (mildly, I must add) for questioning whether “the five items that Gallup used were the best measure of student engagement.” Now I respect Eric a great deal and when he questions me, I look inward, since I know he comes at his conclusions extremely thoughtfully — and also because his blog is titled Promoting Student Engagement, which makes him an expert on the topic, more than what I can say about myself :-).

In brief, Eric argues that (a) measuring student engagement is important in that “asking students about their level of engagement can provide rich information to guide our efforts to engage students in meaningful work.” and (b) that the items do measure what is important regarding student engagement.

As it turns out I strongly agree with point (a). I think it is great that Gallup has chosen to focus on student engagement. Just seeing my kids as they move through school, has highlighted for me just how important engagement is. So no disagreement there.

Also, I agree with all the points that Eric makes regarding the items. I see the five items as being necessary for student engagement. If the student does not feel safe in school or does not have a friend there, there is little chance of engagement. However, I doubt that these are sufficient. The other three items get at the complex issue of engagement a bit better – and Eric makes a good argument for each (with a pertinent caveat to the item on teacher recognition/praise could possibly being a double-edged sword) and somewhat agrees with me on the importance of valuing schoolwork but possibly asking students directly about it rather than in terms of “teachers making [them] feel that it is important.”

The item I feel most comfortable with, and one that gets to what I think is the core of engagement is the one that seeks to find out if students “have the opportunity to do what [they] do best every day.” This connects with intrinsic motivations as being drivers of engagement and as Eric rightly says, “we can build engagement with opportunities for students to experience a sense of mastery, a sense of being in the zone.”

So do Eric and I agree completely on everything. I think it is just a question of degree than substance. My criticism of the Gallup’s questions is really about my sense that the questions did not go far enough to probe student engagement. There were no questions about their engagement with learning, about forming deep-relationships with subject matter /content they were learning (which also connects with their developing identities), about being challenged but at the right level (the idea of Flow and being in the Zone, Eric mentioned) and so on.

So if I have any criticism of the study is that the 5 items used in the study, barely scratch the surface of a complex construct and that we need to do better if we have to truly get a measure of student engagement. I think that Eric would agree with me on the points I have made above. I say this with some confidence after reading some of the other blog posts he links to at the end of his posting which indicate a sophisticated and complex take on the idea. In particular I recommend these two:

Consider for instance these quotes, taken form the second link above

Engagement in learning “happens when students are passionately connected with the learning.”

When I think of engagement, I think of flow–completely losing yourself in what you are doing because it’s so engrossing or challenging.

Authentic engagement leads to deeper, longer-lasting understanding. This occurs because students are more likely to analyze, synthesize, and apply information rather than just memorize it. They ask better questions and make better connections. They persist when work is difficult, leading to greater understanding.

It is words like passion, flow, deeper longer-lasting understanding, persistence that I do not see reflected in the items currently. This in no way undermines the value of what Gallup has done here. This is a great first step and I would hope that with time we would develop better instruments that probe these issues a bit deeper.

Topics related to this post: Learning | Psychology | Research | Teaching | Worth Reading

A few randomly selected blog posts…

TPACK newsletter #33, June 2017

TPACK newsletter #33, June 2017

TPACK triplet design by Punya Mishra The latest version of the TPACK newsletter (#33) can be found here (pdf). All previous issues are archived here. A shout-out to Judi Harris for all the work that goes into this.

EduSummIT 2017: An update

EduSummIT 2017: An update

I just returned from participating in EDUsummIT 2017, the fifth International Summit on Information Technology in Education. EDUsummIT is a global knowledge building community of researchers, educational practitioners, and policy makers committed to...

Koehler & Mishra (2005)

One of the important papers in the TPACK sequence is Koehler & Mishra (2005). In this paper we developed and administered a survey to measure the evolution of TPACK as people engaged in a design task. This research complements our previous empirical work (Koehler,...

TPACK Newsletter, #43 April 2020

TPACK Newsletter, #43 April 2020

Here is the latest pdf version of the TPACK Newsletter (#43, April 2020), as curated and shared by Judi Harris and her team. (Previous issues are archived here.) This issue includes titles, abstract and links to 76 articles, 2 chapters, and 10 dissertations...

Computational Thinking paper wins Outstanding Paper

Computational Thinking paper wins Outstanding Paper

A paper co-authored with Jon Good and Aman Yadav, building on Jon's practicum study has received the Outstanding Paper Award at the SITE 2017. Complete reference, link to article and abstract given below. Good. J., Yadav. A., & Mishra, P....

TPACK Newsletter 8 (Feb 2011)

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #8: February 2011 Welcome to a new year and to the eighth edition of the TPACK Newsletter! Please forgive our long delay in getting this “mega-issue” to you. We’ll do a lot of “catching up” with what has been happening with TPACK worldwide in...

PersonalDNA & cool survey tricks

I just created a personalDNA map for myself. Turns out I am a Benevolent Inventor... beats being a benevolent dictator I say! However, this posting is concerned not with what the survey found out about me but rather about what I learned about the survey. Let's get the...

Academic novels

I have been reading Moo by Jane Smiley, off and on for a while now. It is a satire of academia set in a fictional Mid-western university called Moo U. It has been suggested that Moo U is a stand in for Iowa State, an university I know well since Smita went to school...

Happy New Year, from the College of Education, MSU

The college of Education at Michigan State University just came out with a video titled Year in Review. You can see the video below. I would like to point out that a couple of projects I am involved with made it into the video. They include the project with the Azim...


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *