School administrators search for ways to define ‘student engagement’ and subsequently increase participation during classroom instruction.

by Nick Mourtoupalas ‘13

Since last year, Superintendent Joshua Starr has shifted MCPS’ instructional improvement focus toward better student engagement in the classroom. According to Starr, focusing on engaging students more actively in the classroom is the key to better teaching, yet Sherwood’s Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) has been struggling to find and use a concrete definition of the term.

“That is the million dollar question,” said social studies teacher Christine McKeldin, who is also an elected faculty representative on ILT. “It’s very difficult to describe what engagement looks like, because the idea of student engagement is really going against the stand-and-deliver style of teaching that has become prominent because of standardized testing.”

Teachers have become increasingly mindful of the term and begun observing other teachers in an attempt to gain a better understanding of what gets students engaged during lessons.

In regard to identifying engagement he has observed, social studies resource teacher Joe Sangillo said, “There are often times when you enter a classroom and you can feel that energy formed by body language and tone.”

Similarly, Principal Bill Gregory says he can see the difference between engaged faces compared to gazing ones. “Identifying student engagement is difficult and it’s something that we’re working on. As a former math teacher, I can tell by facial expression if people are engaged or not,” said Gregory. He believes in constructing lessons around bringing students in rather than the material an instructor needs to teach.

Despite the varying interpretations of student engagement across Sherwood’s different departments, members of the ILT agree that much of the engagement they have observed has been a result of good relationships between the student, teacher and content.

“Dr. Starr talks about the instructional core: the relationship between the people and the content,” said Gregory. “In order for students to learn, they have to be the people who are most connected to the instruction, not the teacher. Teachers are planning to become more of the facilitator than the deliverer of knowledge.”

At times, lack of teachers personal compatibility with students is an obstacle to their ability to engage them. “We’re all attracted to different types of personalities, so you’re not going to mesh with everybody,” said McKeldin. “But maybe those issues with personality wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the student found the class more engaging on their own creative level.”

“Kids aren’t robots,” said Sangillo. “When a student is never engaged in class, teachers have to consider to what extent they are responsible. I also think that we need to ensure enough opportunities to engage the student are provided to them and a good relationship is built.”

This year’s series of classroom observations by the ILT are intended to shed some more light on the indicators of student engagement.

“The leadership team is working on a process called instructional rounds where the department heads talk about the instruction in classrooms, discuss what was working in terms of engagement and where we need to grow,” said Gregory.

“Engagement means that the students are actively engaged with the material, perhaps through silent close reading, working together in a group or listening to a lecture,” said English resource teacher Shelley Jackson. “The action it takes may vary a lot, but the key is that students are thinking about and working with the material.”

Sangillo believes that “it’s problematic that some teachers interpret more engaging instruction as little to no lecturing or that students need to be in groups with construction paper and scissors in order to be engaged.”

After surveying a group of AP Psychology students on what they believe best engages them in class, McKeldin said, “students agreed that a clean and comfortable teaching environment contributes to better engagement. In terms of instruction, students liked that the class was predictable and understand what is expected of them.”

Instructors’ understanding of student engagement differ with their respective departments, yet their observations, between people and content slowly yield valuable information that can work toward the improved student engagement that Starr has spoken so much about.

“I think student engagement varies by subject,” said Sangillo. “To find one definition of student engagement is something that couldn’t and shouldn’t, be done.”