Uncategorized27 Mar 2009 03:51 pm
Please provide your feedback on the proposed description and definition of “engaged learning” at Keene State College given here. The faculty and staff cohort members who worked to develop this definition include: Shari Bemis, Sue Castriotta, Mike Hanrahan, Wayne Hartz, Christine King, Bob Kostick, Mary McEntee, Mary Pleasanton, Margaret Smith, Karen Stanish, Peggy Walsh, Angela Yang-Handy. This site will be open for comments will be accepted until Friday, April 17, 2008.
Comments have been closed - April 20, 2009. Thanks to all who participated.
Engaged Learning deepens student learning by enhancing classroom education through authentic opportunities which put academic concepts into action and skills into practice. Engaged Learning at Keene State College takes various forms including service- learning, volunteer programs, research and creative endeavors, independent study, study away (national and international), internship, practicum, co-operative education, course-related collaborative activities, field trips and excursions, learning communities, peer tutoring, peer mentoring, and supplemental instruction. These opportunities provide student-centered, authentic, rigorous, and transformative experiences that support the pursuit of academic excellence.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Overall, I think it’s good…I understand the use of the word authentic but after a read or two I’m not sure about it. I think we want to say that students will have real world experiences that engage them and I think we are also trying to say that we are looking for experiences that go into the student’s world more to enhance that engagement…but I’m not sure authentic does that, but on the other hand I’m not sure I have a different suggestion. I was also wondering about technology…students engage with their and the world through technology…we may want to consider including how we envision technology engaging students in their Keene State College educational experience.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Yes, I agree that the use of the word “authentic” doesn’t really add much to the definition. I would also say at the end that these opportunities CAN provide “student-centered… transformative experiences.” There really are no guarantees. I am also wondering where technology fits into this. For example, I have my students doing blogging as a course-related assignment, and my goal and hope is that they become further engaged with the course material and with each other. Along those lines, how does “peer tutoring” and “supplemental instruction” (which you include in your definition) fit with engagement? Do these examples stretch the definition of engagement a bit too far? I think we need to keep some reasonable parameters or else the concept will lose meaning.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Makes sense but kinda wordy. Are there more umbrella terms to prevent having to list all
methods/tool of engagement…at least in a “definition”. Methods are something different. Although I suppose all bases have to mentioned to keep everyone happy.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I have said it before and–because I am being asked–I will say it again: there is no learning that is not engaged. Learning is learning, and you can’t learn without begin engaged. I have thought about this. I have read the literature. And I just don’t see a way around this contradiction.
The first sentence says that engaged learning is a supplement to what happens in the classroom. But then the language of the paragraph *implies* that classroom learning is not engaged learning. The last thing we should be doing is implying that any kind of learning is not engaged. (Or inviting someone to interpret some kinds of learning opportunities at the College in this way).
Isn’t there a more common sense way to communicate the value of the learning activities that take place outside of the classroom? Our students have a difficult enough time learning to practice the authentic opportunities of engaging themselves in the classroom. The last thing we should be doing is developing language that will reinforce the habits of mind that frame activities like thinking, reading, writing, memorization, recitation, quizzes, Socratic dialogue, lecture and test-taking as somehow disengaged.
Finally, who will enforce the distinction between an opportunity and an *authentic* opportunity? The rhetoric of authenticity is problematic in any domain of thought. Here the term defines itself against the presumably inauthentic. This is a debilitating way of thinking.
I’m afraid the language here is slipping and the rhetoric is diminishing the laudable goal of recognizing these activities.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am
All,
I agree with many of the comments noted and I understand Mark’s concerns. Two things that come to my mind in light of the above discussion would be to change the word “enhancing” classroom education to “supplementing” or “combining” (or another adjective of choice- but essentially to address Mark’s concerns, which I echo to some extent in that many faculty do a wonderful job of creating “engaged learning” within the context of the 4 walls. However, that said, we are attempting to show that learning does indeed happen outside the 4 physical walls and often times, it IS separate to what a student might be learning in a particular class. The examples of engaged learning can also be to identify one’s life calling, one’s purpose, one’s path. I think in addition to “academic excellence” in the last sentence, life purpose (life path, career exploration, one’s calling - whatever you’d like to call it) should be included. I’ve met numerous students who participated in an ASB trip or a service learning project or studied abroad and came back changed in what they wanted to do with their life, irregardless of what major they were studying.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Perhaps the term could be “complementing” or “complementing and continuing” classroom education?
I also think Mark makes an excellent point regarding learning in general. Is there a way to phrase this so it doesn’t discount the value of the engaged classroom experience?
Engaged Learning, or learning that is engaged outside of the traditional classroom environment (this probably isn’t the best way to phrase it either), deepens student learning by complementing and continuing classroom education through opportunities which put academic concepts into action and skills into practice.
Unless “authentic” really adds value and depth to the definition perhaps it should not be included.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:45 am
I count myself among the tireless champions of learning outside the classroom. I’ve been involved in outdoor education my whole adult life and, with Cristine, I see the classroom as one piece in a much more comprehensive life trajectory. I, too, work with students whose lives are transformed by learning outside of the classroom and I make it really difficult for any of my advisees to not take the study abroad opportunity seriously.
At the same time, I hasten to add, I can tell you about many students whose lives were changed by reading a book or by listening to a professor lecture about the holocaust for a semester. These moments where something happens take place both outside and within the classroom. Among the most exciting student stories I can tell, in fact, are of those students who are taking one of my courses (or another professor’s courses) as non-majors. These are the students who suddenly snap and realize that there is more to life than what they thought. This is why I cherish the liberal arts and why the mission of our college is so powerful. Students interested in biology should be studying poetry and students interested in poetry should be studying genetics. . . .
Thank you for taking all of my spirited criticism of the term “engaged learning” in this broader context. The challenge here is to imagine our common work as well as the ways our work with students is mutually reinforcing. I am arguing that the term “engaged learning” may work against the very thing it seeks to describe. For me, the term “engaged learning” exemplifies the pitfalls of academic jargon. I once again tested the term on a small group of friends who do not travel in academic circles. And once again they had no idea what I was talking about.
Engagingly yours,
Mark
March 31st, 2009 at 11:16 am
I sent this just to Angela after she sent the email to all faculty. She emailed me back telling me that Mark Long was saying the same thing so I should add my comments publicly, so here they are.
===========================================
I STRENUOUSLY object to the use of “engaged” in this way as it implies that the only kind of “engagement” is through some sort of “outside the classroom” activity. Not one item in the very long definition (which I think is so long as to become useless) suggests that students can be doing “engaged learning” in a “regular” classroom setting — reading, discussing, watching videos, listening to music, or whatever else we do inside our classrooms. In fact the definition seems to explicitly EXCLUDE being engaged IN the classroom in the first couple of lines of the definition. Would you please, please, please stop using the term “engaged” as if it is exclusive to out-of-classroom activities. (I have raised this issue before more than once, and I think others have too, yet those concerns are ignored and we keep getting the same sort of definition.)
Please don’t misunderstand — I think the things listed are important too, but they CLEARLY suggest that “engagement” is not something that happens in a classroom. I don’t know why we keep getting memos etc. that use “engagement” in this way, as if that is its new definition (news to me!!)? Is that how the term is being defined nationally these days? If so, can that be stated in these emails that are sent to all faculty? The word “engagement” seems to me to be a misnomer as used in the definition. Can we please come up with another word in its place, one that specifically focuses on learning OUTSIDE the classroom, as that’s what seems to be focused on here?
=========================================
-Karen Honeycutt, sociology & women’s studies
April 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Perhaps we need a “TM” for trademark to reflect that the term “Engaged Learning” is used as a less general bit of jargon. I find the definition to be inoffensive, but not very helpful. The key difference for me (because I have always done a lot of work on “putting academic concepts into action and skills into practice”) is the single word “authentic”. Perhaps if you key the definition more to that word, rather than all the rest, the description will be more helpful.
To me, It comes down to whether you do the academic work to answer a question that no-one cares about (even the instructor) or a question that at least someone does, and that preferably a lot of people do.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
A second comment to discuss the types of activities listed.
First, I would argue that, if well designed, laboratory and studio work belongs on this list. Just because we have been doing them for a long time does not make them less focussed on skills in action, or any less (or more) authentic. It is a challenge to make laboratories authentic, but it is possible.
Second, the list looks like a jumbled closet. I tried to put a bit of order on it–what do others think of these categories?
On-campus, within scheduled courses: course-related collaborative activities, field trips and excursions, peer tutoring, peer mentoring, and supplemental instruction
–I would add laboratories and studio work
On-campus, independent: research and creative endeavors, independent study
On-campus, in non-traditional settings: learning communities.
Off-campus: service-learning, volunteer programs, internship, practicum, co-operative education, study away (national and international)
As you look at these topics, it is probably a good idea to collapse items that are too similar. What’s the difference between an internship and a co-op experience?
April 15th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
The problem with some of these terms (”engaged learning” or “learner centered”) is that they become “buzz words” among education folks who promote them ad nauseum in workshops and lecture tours. At times, I actually like the terms, because they serve as a guide for new ideas…new approaches to teaching…but my big point is that we should not just accept “new stuff” because some ed. consultant tells us this is or that idea is the “latest thing.” My argument, is that we need to carefully “study” any new ideas and see if they really do work. Like Mark said, it may be best for a student in some cases to hear a spirited lecture on the Holocaust…or read a book…while for certain materials, keeping a blog or working in groups may (or may not) be helpful. Let’s remember to “go with the data.”
April 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Maybe this is spring cleaning season…but I am feeling the need to simplify.
Learning is learning, we need no extra words to say that. (thanks to Mark and others.) However, disengaged (absent in mind or body?) students are not learning. There are wonderful resources to help us solve that problem.
Students need information and a way to apply, debate, analyze, write, and talk it over - in and outside of the buildings.
We don’t need a list of examples in this definition. We need an invitation for professors and students to participate in the process of learning together. I think that captures engagement for me.
What do you think?
April 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am
I have only skimmed the previous posts because I am struggling to keep up with my work. I look forward to our development of the various facets of this idea. Some facets that interest me: (1) how can we get students to engage more deeply?; (2) what attitudes and skills do they need to engage more deeply?; (3) how can we get more faculty to be more skillful in their teaching; two simple example–there is ample research on what can make lectures engaging vs. boring; simple techniques like think-pair-share can have a significant difference in student engagement, even in a large lecture class.