Editorial: The challenge of student engagement: Beyond mainstream conceptions and practices

McGill Journal of Education, Spring 2003 by Butler-Kisber, Lynn, Portelli, John P

The context

"Student engagement" has become a popular catch phrase in education circles, both in schools and the academy. Although explicit references to student engagement may be viewed as a phenomenon that developed in the mid-1990s, the connection between engagement and educative learning has a much longer tradition. Such a connection has very often appeared in the discussion of other related educational or curricular issues. For example, in the Western world the issue of the justification of worthwhile educational content dates to the work of Plato and Aristotle and reappears in other periods as it is exemplified in Spencer's question, "What knowledge is most worthwhile?" The importance of the primacy of the student in the learning process is discussed by Augustine in his dialogue on education, the importance of the student's individual and social needs and environment is highlighted in the work of Rousseau, Montessori, and Dewey, and the topic of the necessity of praxis and democratic practices in education is raised by Freire and other critical as well as feminist and revolutionary pedagogues. All these issues, one could argue, involve a consideration of the connection between engagement and learning. Hence the issue of engagement, one could maintain, is not really a new one. What has been different though, since the mid-1990s, is the explicit focus on this concept and practices that are deemed necessary to bring about engagement.

But why the focus on engagement? At one level, one could respond that the importance of engagement is just inevitable or self-evident, for who would want to promote disengagement or lack of engagement. Engagement is simply a worthwhile educational aim. An alienated learner, just like an indoctrinated learner, is not what education (not schooling) implies or involves. While acknowledging this point, some have noted that the concept of student engagement is an elusive one that requires further clarification. Not all learners that seem to be engaged are necessarily really engaged. Hence another justification for focussing on engagement. The issue of clarifying this concept has practical and moral implications. For example, since different conceptions of engagement have been adduced, then one has to address the issue of what different practical implications emerge from them. Since some may have different and possibly conflicting implications, the issue of justifying which conception is more suitable or worthwhile leads to moral or ethical concerns. Moreover, just as Michael Apple argued for the importance of revising Spencer's question to read: "Whose knowledge is most worthwhile?" one could apply this to engagement by asking: "Whose conception of engagement is most worthwhile?" And this question inevitably takes us into the realm of issues of power and ideology which leads us to the question of "What is/are the purpose/s of engagement and who benefits or gets excluded from this purpose or these purposes?"

Most mainstream work on student engagement has been carried out from a rather technical and/or psychological perspective. From this perspective, engagement is conceived of as a neutral process or relationship and the aim of educational researchers is to "objectively" identify the qualities of this phenomenon so the conditions of learning can be changed accordingly to increase student engagement. Unfortunately, such a perspective begs the question of the meaning of engagement, and deflects one's attention from the complexities inherent in the differing conceptions and practices associated with student engagement, as well as the crucial moral and political aspects of engagement. In order to move beyond such mainstream work, the aim of this special issue is: to contribute to the understanding of student engagement and how it connects with existing theory and practice of schooling by examining issues that reflect the educational and political complexities. We believe that the essays presented here represent different ideological perspectives and raise a variety of topics that are crucial in our attempts to clarify and justify the importance of student engagement. In other words, these essays in general provide us with questions and inquiries that go beyond the purely technical and hence invite us to engage in theoretical, philosophical, sociological and practical issues.

The following are an indication of the kind of questions dealt with in the seven articles included in this issue. How might we conceive of student engagement in order to seriously include the goals of social justice and academic excellence? Why do ideological issues matter in an examination of engagement? What are some of the ethical dilemmas that arise with regard to student disengagement from a perspective that takes race and difference seriously? How does the pathologizing of students that do not fall within the "mainstream" distract us from a more complete understanding of disengagement? What equitable alternatives can be offered to deal with youth disengagement in schools? What conception of engagement is consistent with an inclusive curriculum? Why are critical pedagogy and antiracist multicultural education necessary for student engagement? What are the connections between school improvement and student engagement? Why does the serious involvement of students enhance their engagement, and in what ways? What should and could be the role of student voice in school reform? What impact will this have on student engagement and an engaged pedagogy? What are some metaphors that have been successfully used in meaningful engaging learning that takes the lived experience of students seriously? What are students' perceptions of the impact of the implementation of a recent school reform agenda in Ontario? What are some of the possible implications of such a reform on student engagement?