 |
|
Go Ahead, by Xavier Donat ((Donat, Xavier. “Go Ahead.” Flickr. 10 May 2009. Web. 8 Jan 2010. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/xav/3519476035/>.)) |
I’m with Chris Lehmann concerning his sense of discomfort over our recent near obsession with “engagement.” He says, in a December 27 blog post (Engagement v. Empowerment…) that
“..first and perhaps most disconcerting, is that engagement too often got translated to ‘fun.'”
I agree with Chris that we’re going to lose that battle — and it’s the wrong battle. We have invaded childhood enough already, and venerating their hyper-connected, hyper-transparent culture as something we need to replicate in our classrooms results in a creepy tree house effect — which just makes us look foolish.
We want our children to learn and we tend to believe that if we see more engagement in them, then we will see more effective and perhaps more relevant learning. This is possibly true, though I can’t help but feel that the formula that ignites these results is far more complex. I pulled up the little dictionary app from my dock and read through the definitions of engage in its various forms, and nothing magical jumped out at me. In fact, most of the definitions seemed to treat the word from the observers’ point of view — we see another person occupied, unavailable, attracted, involved, employed, or having agreed to marry.
Engagement is the learner acting to learning.
Empowerment feels better to Chris, as it does to me. I see us contributing more to the actions of learning when we empower learners than when we engage them. It seems easier to facilitate as well. Lehmann says,
..that in the end, (empowerment) is the word — the idea — that sets us up for a more student-centered classroom because it is about what the students get from the experience once the class is done, not what happens during the class.
What my mind’s eye sees, when I think of empowered learners is that “..it is about what the students are able to do to get (some gain) from the experience once the class is done.” If students are empowered, as learners, to accomplish learning goals, instead of its being done to them, then fun simply stops being a factor. Chris writes about the empowering coach who is going to put the team through un-fun and sometimes grueling drills so that they will play their best basketball. The drill for skills and endurance is work and it feels like work — and, “It’s o.k.” says Lehmann.
..we have to understand that school is work… but that it can be meaningful, powerful, empowering (and even engaging) work.
But my notice that the definitions of engage seemed to be from the observer’s perspective applies here. The learning experience needs to be meaningful, powerful, and empowering to the learner. It is not something we should try to see or do, but something the learner should feel. It’s what fuels the work that enriches the learner in some self-realizing way.
I’m incredibly engaged by my work. I’m incredibly lucky, that way (see “U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades“). And much of my work is fun, though that’s not important. Fun can’t really be measured or handed out. What engages me is success, and what enables that success is empowerment (appropriate resources & tools), and what is fun is when my imagination is empowered to make success more certain and more interesting. ..but that’s me.
I just did a Twitter search for “fun” and before I’d read the first two tweets, that little yellow refresh notifier popped up, telling me that there were 63 more tweets with “fun,” then 132, then 349. Maybe we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of fun.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Hi Dave,
I thought this statement was interesting – “…if we see more engagement in them, then we will see more effective and perhaps more relevant learning. ”
I’ve always looked at it the opposite way – when you increase relevance, you increase engagement. I also believe we too often confuse entertainment and engagement. By differentiating them, I think we help define them. (See http://tinyurl.com/yhvanpr>.
Happy New Year to you and yours,
Doug
Doug, that is exactly the point that Chris makes in his blog article, about entertainment. But I do hear lots of conversations and even initiatives seeking to increase engagement — when, as you imply, engagement is simply a by-product.
Thanks!
Hi David,
I hadn’t thought of engagement as translatable to “fun”. In fact, I embarked on the journey towards more engaged learners particularly because I see a lot of middle years schools confusing learning with fun and the lack of boundaries. To me, an engaged learner is one who actually exhibits an interest in the text, topic, discussion of the moment. I honestly don’t believe rapping a Shakespearean sonnet, for example will do more than entertain students, while blogging about their connection or lack of connection with the language is evidence that they have thought critically about the text.
Good food for thought, though. And a definite red flag to keep track of.
I’m replying to this on purpose without first reading, part 2. I can appreciate the difference between engaging and empowerment, and I like Lehman’s part about, “what the students get from the experience once the class is done, not what happens during the class,” but I do have a few issues/questions.
Often, it’s difficult to get students to think about their futures, and thus the empowerment aspect of the debate. For example, I have 17 students who are preparing for a week long trip to The Hague in Holland to take part in a global Model United Nations activity. For months now, they’ve been researching, debating, and role playing their parts as delegated from Chad. It’s definetly an empowering activity b/c what we’re teaching them is preparation for the real world of this simulation which can also become a lifelong skill for these students. However, these are extremely motivated students who aren’t the norm. To me, it seems that going for empowerment assumes a student who not only knows what they want in life, but is ready to grab the bull by the horns.
I have a similar list as the above link detailing the difference between engaging and fun, but I think with most things, it’s a blend. Too much engagement probably does become too “fun” centered where too much empowerment can fly over the heads of most students. Finding that middle ground of both is key.
Now, on to part 2, where I’ll probably sound like an idiot here.
Hi David,
The comparison between engagement and fun is an interesting one. It is often assumed that to be engaged, one must be having fun. As I write this, it also seems a bit ridiculous. Of course school is work, and work is not always fun. To consider the importance of fun in school, I thought it would be interesting to look up the definition for “fun”.
Using http://www.thefreedictionary.com, fun is defined first as a “source of enjoyment, amusement and pleasure”. If we asked our students if they think our classes are enjoyable, amusing or pleasurable, I think we all know how they would respond. It’s not that they do not like our classes, but I am sure all teachers know where our students would rather be.
I was most amused by the third definition: “Playful, often noisy, activity”. Is this what we want in our classrooms? Probably not. So, while we want our students to be empowered, we should probably be careful with the “fun”. With all of that said, I do find parts of my job “very enjoyable”!