>>I see your point that it is indeed possible to participate silently,
>>and that teaching effectiveness cannot necessarily be measured by
>>amount of verbal participation by students. I do believe that students
>>learn better when they are actively engaged; the problem is how to
>>define active engagement--and also how to gauge its presence or
>>absence. I feel gratified when students verbally participate because
>>then I have something tangible by which to gauge what I take to be
>>"active engagement." I attempt to structure small group components
>>into my classes for the same reason.
>
>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
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
Patrick Dias
Faculty of Education
McGill University
3700 McTavish Street
Montreal, QC
Canada H3A 1Y2
Telephone: (514) 398-6960 (work)
626-3605 (home)
FAX (514) 398-4529
E-Mail: INAD who-is-at MUSICB.MCGILL.CA