Image shows diverse schoolchildren raising hands indicating high student engagement.

What Does Student Engagement Really Look Like?

One of the keys to teaching in a way that sticks is to aim for high levels of student engagement. But not all engagement is the same. Everybody might participate in call and response, for example, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re engaged in much thinking. They might be simply following along compliantly, not doing much real cognitive work. On the other end of the spectrum, there’s engagement where everyone is involved, and their brains are working hard.

Which kind of student engagement do we want?

Well, both.

There is absolutely a place for the lower thinking level kind of engagement. Choral response types of engagement fall under the category of low level thinking.

Students must know definitions, for example. It’s also the kind of instruction that’s perfect for retrieval practice of previous learning. This is going to be something like you providing a definition for a word, and students saying the word aloud. It might be repeating a phrase that you just asked them to say. It might be naming something like a type of figurative language after providing an example of it. Or you might name the type of figurative language and students recite its definition aloud.

This is exactly the kind of engagement Anita Archer demonstrates in the lesson in the video below.

This kind of student engagement is a great way to ensure that all s are students are focused on the lessons and that everyone is with you. There’s not much chance for anyone to fall asleep or have time to allow their mind to wander. So important, as we of course want students to know the basic levels of a concept before taking it deeper.

But it does run the risk of becoming boring for students, especially if whatever the lesson is about is something a child has long ago mastered. Which means they might well be going through the motions, but their brain may be checked out.

Yes, this is engagement. But it is low level.

Why? Because students are just providing straight words or phrases easily retrieved. These are things that we definitely want students to remember, so it’s also a powerful way to help them do that. But as these kinds of responses live primarily in a DOK level one, there is no deeper thinking involved here. All students are active, but they are not doing much thinking. And that means that although all students may be responding, they may not all be truly engaged.

That’s why this is not where we stay.

To really ensure student engagement, kids have to be thinking.

Not just recalling (although this is still important!), but truly thinking. Deeper student engagement means we need to engage their minds.

They need to think. Grapple. Process. Discuss.

For example, discussing what the lesson in a story was, in ways to ensure that all students are having that conversation, is highly engaging because everyone is contributing. But it also requires a lot of thinking. When students talk about their respective ideas together, the thinking level ramps up even further.

This example is the kind of thing that falls under the higher levels of depth of knowledge.

Below are two excellent examples of full engagement, where students are not only going through the motions of engagement, they are very actively–and deeply–thinking at the same time.

It’s this intersection where bodies and brains are working in tandem, where deep engagement lies.

Asking students to critique, summarize, and explain requires them to think deeply to synthesize information. This is high level cognition.

When everyone does the work, it’s also highly engaging. This is what the authors of Total Participation Techniques talk all about–moving students toward 100% participation while also thinking deeply.

Which kind of engagement should we aim for?

In terms of differentiating instruction for a classroom full of a wide variety of readiness, it’s helpful to keep both types of engagement in mind.

There is absolutely a need for lower cognitive demand, choral-response-type engagement.

And we also need to aim for the kind of deeper engagement that involves higher levels of cognitive demand.

It’s a way to support all learners.

And both offer teachers important formative assessment feedback.

Let’s go back to the figurative language example to see what it might look like when considering both levels of engagement for teaching.

Let’s say that you have been teaching metaphors. You have taught students what they are and why they are used.

Because you know how to get more mileage from your read alouds, you pull a piece of text from your latest book that has an example of a metaphor. You enlarge it under the document camera, point it out to students, and ask them to correctly name what type of figurative language it’s an example of.

This is a perfect opportunity for the entire class to chorally respond with the term “metaphor.” As you listen, you may notice some kids say the wrong type of figurative language. This is your cue to not go on, but stay there a moment to clarify. That small check for understanding by having everybody correctly respond helped you to know that there was some confusion.

After you clear up the confusion, you might ask students to chorally respond to what the definition of a metaphor is. This is another opportunity for you to listen to check for understanding, ensuring that everybody is with you. If they;re not, of course you pause here for another moment to clear up confusion.

But we don’t stay there.

Maybe you ask a deeper level question for all students to think about. After all, very few state standards say that we need to have kids simply label or define metaphors. Most standards ask that students apply the concept in text.

So you might ask students to think about why the author used that specific metaphor in that paragraph. Or you might ask students what kind of image it evokes. You might even ask how it would be different with another type of figurative language, or without any at all.

Students would then think about it for a moment to process what you’ve asked because this is a much deeper level question than simply naming or defining. You might then have students discuss this quickly with a partner. This would be an example of a think, pair, share. You might then even have two partnerships group together to discuss what they think in a small group. With this simple move, now you are asking students to think together to grow ideas in even deeper ways.

Everybody is engaged. Highly engaged. This took some thinking.

This was much more than a simple choral response of a word or phrase. This application and critique piece means a much deeper level of cognition at play.

And that is the kind of engagement that we also want to aim for.

When designing lessons, it’s important to include both kinds of engagement. They both matter. They both have a place. But participation does not always equal engagement. But participation does not always mean students are thinking. That’s the distinction to consider.

Coach from the Couch offers virtual coaching for literacy instruction.

Who is Coach from the Couch?? I’m Michelle Ruhe, a 25+ year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach. I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can.