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.
Insisting on using some observable behavior distracts us and our students
from our goals and intents. I agree that overt behavior appearing to be
engagement is very gratifying to us as teachers and gives us something to
"work with" in real time, but this also can be superficial and _not_
indicative of the engagement we _really_ desire.
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.
There is also the 'problem' that we cannot and should not require
'engagement' of every student at all times in our classes. We have neither
the moral nor the practical right. We have to accept that not every
student is engaged all the time. Again, I am not advocating that we do not
encourage engagement all the time in all the students, but that we have to
guard against vestages of "behavioral" notions to lead us to be
totalitarian in our methods of trying to generate this engagement.
My view:
Engagement is a state/process of the learner generated by the learner. As
teachers our job is to create settings conducive for and inducive of this
state in the learners. It cannot be caused or required by the action of a
teacher alone. Engagement is not always accompanied by observable
indicators when this state exists.
I teach in a setting which requires about 150 students and I to be in the
same room several times a week. Not what I would like, but what we have to
live with. It is the case that I have experienced evidence of engagement
after the fact in students with no apparent signs of engagement at the time
of class. Could this have happened after class? Maybe, but not in 100% of
the cases. Would this outside of class engagement have happened if class
had not occurred as it did? Again, probably not in 100% of the cases.
Might there have been observable behavior indicating this engagement
outside of class? Maybe, but again not 100% of the times.
> But something bothers me here: we are back to defining learning and
>education as something unobservable that goes on inside people's heads;
>we present material, and hope that something will happen to the listener
>in the process of presentation. Where is the "social" aspect of this
>model of learning? It seems to be already internalized: the listener
>dialogues inside his or her head as he or she hears a lecture. Perhaps
>my understanding of the theory here is inadequate as I attempt to
>translate it into highly pragmatic concerns.
Again, 'leave us not' allow behaviorist views to muddle our thinking here.
One cannot consider individuals engaging without considering individuals as
autonomous. This autonomy _does not mean_ social isolation or
non-interaction with culture. It does mean that there must be something
'internal' which happens. But, it is not unreasonable at all to imagine
observing behaviors/actions of one or more students in context (social and
cultural, necessarily taking into account the actions of others (students
and teachers) in the context and allowing that context to be as broad as
makes sense to the observer) in order to make sensible meaning of what one
observes concerning to imagined internal processes and states of the
student(s). Hence, it is highly important to take into account the
'social' aspects, but to conclude from this that we should only consider
observable behavior and eschew considerations of possible 'internal' models
is to regress to the essence behaviorism.
I cannot dictate what others believe, but I for one am not interested in
taking this path (behaviorism), because I believe such ideas gotten
education to the state it is in now, and I find little of redeeming value
in the state of education as it is now.
A student in a class, regardless of the class, or at any other given time
does not exist independent of the impact of the social nature of human
beings and does not think without it either. The student's response is
autonomous, but not independent of culture and things social. It doesn't
make sense to me that _only_ the overt social activities _at some
particular time_ are accepted as the social impact on meaning making _at
that time_ of meaning making/engagement. (Before reading this next
statement, please know that I am an extrovert and happy and comfortable in
my state of extroversion. But...) I am wondering why the incessant babble
of extroverts must be pressed upon and required of everyone, and
incorporated as a required part of the model of everyone when it is
apparently not the natural state of everyone. Are we wise, does it make
the best sense, to incorporate this property of extroverts in so
fundamental a position in our thinking about models of learning or people
in general?
Dewey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++