A Tool for Assessing Engagement in Instructional Contexts

ABSTRACT

Engaging activities are enriching ones. To determine whether an instructional activity is engaging, it helps to divide an activity into separate domains, and to rate the activity for the degree to which it fosters engagement in each of the domains. A tool made up of six domains of instructional practice is described in this article, based on the literature of teacher–child interactions in classrooms. The tool's domains are: the challenge of the activity, level of implementation, quality of instructional discussion, quality of instructional feedback, and quality of procedural and substantive involvement. The tool is offered as a way to evaluate and enhance engagement of children in classroom interactions as well as of adults in clinical interactions. After examining samples of engagement taken from children in classroom activities according to this construct, the observational tool is then applied to the analysis of a therapy session involving an adult with aphasia.

KEYWORDS

Engagement - collaborative problem solving - instructional discourse

REFERENCES

• 1 Fredricks J, Blumenfeld P, Paris A. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence.  Rev Educ Res. 2004;  74 59-109
• 2 Kelly S. Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement.  Soc Psychol Educ. 2007;  10 331-352
• 3 Smith K, Sheppard S, Johnson D, Johnson R. Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices.  J Engineer Educ. 2005;  94 87-91
• 4 Engle R, Conant F C. Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners' classroom.  Cogn Instr. 2002;  20 399-483
• 5 Engle R, Faux R. Towards productive disciplinary engagement of prospective teachers in educational psychology: comparing two methods of case-based instruction.  Teach Educ Psychol. 2006;  1 1-22
• 6 Barrows H, Tamblyn R. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York, NY; Springer 1980
• 7 Kimbarow M. Integrating life participation approaches to aphasia treatment with adult learning theory: a synergistic approach.  Top Lang Disord. 2007;  27 318-323
• 8 Choi J, Hannafin M. Situated cognition and learning environments: roles, structures, and implications for design.  Educ Technol Res Dev. 1995;  43 53-69
• 9 Simmons-Mackie N, Damico J. Access and social inclusion in aphasia: Interactional principles and applications.  Aphasiology. 2007;  1 81-97
• 10 Simmons-Mackie N, Elman R, Holland A, Damico J. Management of discourse in group therapy for aphasia.  Top Lang Disord. 2007;  27 5-23
• 11 Brown A L. Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.  J Learn Sci. 1992;  2 141-178
• 12 VanDerHeyden A, Snyder P, Smith A, Sevin B, Longwell J. Effects of complete learning trials on child engagement.  Top Early Child Spec Educ. 2005;  25 81-94
• 13 Hull G, Rose M, Eraser K, Castellano M. Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. In: Zamel V, Spack R Enriching ESOL Pedagogy Readings and Activities for Engagement, Reflection and Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 2002: 159-193
• 14 Mezirow J. Transformative learning as discourse.  J Transform Educ. 2003;  1 58-63
• 15 Brandt D. Literacy as Involvement: The Act of Writers, Readers, and Texts. Carbondale, IL; Southern Illinois University Press 1990
• 16 Nystrand M, Gamoran A. Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. In: Newmann F Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York, NY; Teachers College Press 1991: 63-177
• 17 Simmons-Mackie N, Damico J S. Social role negotiation in aphasia therapy. In: Kovarsky D, Duchan J, Maxwell M Constructing Incompetence: Disabling Evaluations in Clinical and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 1999: 313-341