Student Engagement: What do we know and what should we do?

1991, as cited by Shernoff et al, 2003). Thus, in efforts to improve student enjoyment as a
quality of engagement, the theory of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) made its way into
educational dialogue. Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider & Shernoff (2003) explored
Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory,
presenting a further “conceptualization of student engagement based on the culmination
of concentration, interest, and enjoyment (i.e., flow)” (Shernoff, et al, 2003, p. 158).
The “Flow” experience research suggests that, because the flow state is intrinsically
rewarding, people seek to replicate flow experiences. The student and teacher must find
that niche and help students enjoy their learning – to find ways that help learners become
so engrossed in their work that they lose track of time. At this point, questions surface:
Should we create classrooms that feel good for students, or are we interested in learning
because learning is good? Must all learning feel good? In a culture increasingly founded
on “pleasure-seeking activities,” is it hazardous to ignore this emotional or affective and
seemingly personalized aspect of learning?
Concomitantly, personalized or individualized learning comes into our educational
vocabulary. As noted earlier, for the most part, differentiated adjustments and elements of
engagement were applied without changing the curriculum, teaching, assessment
methods, or the outcomes expected of students. The introduction of engagement concepts
such as “flow” and personalized “interest” in the classroom begins to interact with
curricular and pedagogical standards. As Bopry and Hedberg (2005) put it, we were still
“expert-centered and prescriptive” (p. 92) assuming we know what students need and
how they can get it best. But the confidence that education should be hierarchical was
about to be challenged and changed by the catalyst of educational thinking and research
on student engagement from 2000 onward.
To engage all students in learning about learning (and help them to enjoy
it!)
“One of the core functions of twenty-first century education is learning to learn in
preparation for a lifetime of learning.” (David Miliband, 2003, as cited in Claxton, 2007,
p. 1).
From about 2003 onward, studies around student engagement began to shift from student
engagement as compliance-focused teaching and classroom management strategies
(making sure students know and are engaged in what we want to teach them) toward
proactive improvements in learning pedagogy (or helping students understand how they
learn best, regardless of the subject). Articles about student engagement and learning
from 2004 on were also more process driven and “learning focused,” whereas previous
work was more about finding ways to make students interested in prescribed content.
Authors such as Dunleavy & Milton (2009); Harris (2008); Claxton (2006 & 2007); and
Meyer & Turner (2006) started looking at engagement as a means to help students both
improve in academics and participation, of course, and to build a genuine disposition
Student Engagement: What do we know and what should we do? 12