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

classroom to classroom. In fact, “researchers and practitioners are voicing concerns about
the growing murkiness of the concept and arguing for the need to synthesize current ways
of thinking about student engagement into a more coherent – and multidimensional –
framework (Fredericks, 2004; Appleton, 2008; National Research Council, 2003) as cited
in Dunleavy & Milton, 2009). Harris (2008) concludes her report by suggesting, “there
cannot be any ‘assumed’ shared knowledge about student engagement among academics
or teachers. The variation present within literature reviewed and empirical data examined
shows the diverse range of meanings attached to the concept” (p. 75).
However diverse the definitions and underlying purposes of engagement, some common
categories or “dimensions” are used to describe the various types of student engagement
in the literature. We identify a number of these in the next section of this review.
“Empirical studies over the past twenty years have shaped the emergence of engagement
as both a strategy for improving educational achievement and as an independently
valuable outcome of schooling. Definitions and ways of measuring student engagement
vary a lot depending on different approaches to studying the topic, but the majority of
studies focus on one of two key dimensions: Social Engagement – participation in the
“life” of school, and Academic Engagement – participation in the requirements of
success in school” (Dunleavy & Milton, p. 7).
In brief, the research literature suggested a clustering of common themes for student
engagement. Definitions from various sources pointed to four or five similar categories;
but, again, the text within each article often hinted at differing purposes or meanings even
for the most common themes of student engagement. Harris (2008) suggests a solution:
“Synchronizing the ways it is talked about and understood by educational stakeholders
would increase its usefulness” (p. 75). Clarity would certainly help us make student
engagement a more “useful concept for talking about student experiences and learning”
(p. 75).
Dissenting voices or perhaps ‘the ghosts of classrooms past’?
Some critics suggest we are not enhancing learning by pursuing student engagement
practices by “wooing the restless youth;” instead, we are dumbing down or creating a
generation of spoiled, illiterate, or at least lazy writers and readers – with their “grab-andgo”
or “cut-and-paste” approaches to research and knowledge building. Are we in fact
diluting knowledge and disposing of standard measures of intelligence as we allow
students to explore their individual learning styles, goals and interests, as opposed to
learning prescribed curriculum or teaching students what we have always taught? Some
critics say “Yes!” (Carlson, 2005; Young, 2006; Carnivale, 2006; Bennett, Maton, &
Kervin, 2007).
Dunleavy & Milton (2009) also note that some researchers strongly suggest we need to
slow down or stop and take a deeper, more critical look at the “assumptions underlying
popular ideas about engagement” (p. 9). For example, their report suggests:
Student Engagement: What do we know and what should we do? 15