I'm also very much 'behind' on reading my XMCA messages! I am trying to
catch up on the 'engagement' thread--I study adult FL learners, but am
interested also in how to capture this quality of 'engagement.'
Amy
***********************************************************************
Amy Snyder Ohta (aohta who-is-at u.washington.edu), University of Washington
Asian Languages & Literature, Box 353521, Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 543-6931 Message: (206) 543-4996 Fax: (206) 685-4268
On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 Betty.Zan who-is-at uni.edu wrote:
> (This is a reply to postings by both Dewey and Jay)
>
> Dewey wrote about engagement:
>
> >Our problem is that the engagement we _really_ desire is something we take to
> >be internal. It appears that there is not always observable behavior
> >indicative of engagement at the time of engagement. Thus, there is no
> >observable behavior which automatically indicates this engagement. . . Now I'm
> >not arguing that we just "give up," but I am suggesting that insisting on
> >"measuring" engagement at the time of class is a distracting and mis-leading
> >remnant of "logical-positivist/behaviorist" views of education.
> .
> First, I posted my question about active engagement before reading Dewey's
> comments. So I apologize if the timing of my question appeared a little odd.
> In fact, I feel caught in a sort of time warp, reading messages that were
> written a week ago, skipping to other messages with the same thread, wondering
> where the conversation has gone while I have been busy replying to old
> messages.
>
> However, to get back on topic, I think perhaps what we take to be indicators
> of active engagement may be different for adults in a lecture than they are for
> young children in a classroom activity. What I'm talking about here is not
> verbal participation. It's more a quality of activity. I recognize it
> when I see it, but I can't seem to put my finger on exactly what it is that I
> see. But Im not ready to give up on trying to assess it.
>
> >As teachers our job is to create settings conducive for and inducive of this
> >state in the learners.
>
> I absolutely agree, Dewey. However, often young children engage in
> activities, not out of their genuine interests and passions, but because the
> teacher told them to do it. What I want to be able to demonstrate is that
> there is a real difference in the quality of the activity when children engage
> in them freely, out of their interests and passions, rather than from a place
> of coercion. And also, I want somehow to show that they are "learning"--that
> they are constructing knowledge, figuring out relationships, etc.
>
> Jay wrote:
> >Call me Emile, but I really do believe that efforts to coerce this
> >learning/change
> >dynamic into the fixed and precharted courses of mass education curricula is
> >what produces the misery in our present system. When you coerce people, the
> >main thing (often the only thing) they
> >learn is how to cope with coercion.
>
> This is exactly what I am talking about, and I want to show how it happens with
> little kids. Thats why I am so interested in somehow capturing this elusive
> animal that I am calling, for lack of a better term, engagement.
>
> Betty Zan
>
>
>
>