Deconstructing Engagement

Abstract

The discourse of learner engagement has become prevalent in formal education research and practice in recent years. However, the term has multiple meanings and various constructions, particularly in the context of games and learning, where the coming together of two different disciplinary constructs creates ambiguity and tensions. The notions of 'engagement with education' and 'engagement with games' are not necessarily mutually compatible. This article starts by exploring the use of the term by deconstructing the idea of engagement, and highlighting issues with the way in which people use it in different contexts. Next, it discusses practical and theoretical limitations of the concept, such as the assumed link between engagement and learning and measurement of engagement. The core contribution of the article is a synthesis of the complex literature in this field presented as a model of engagement with learning based on six ways of constructing engagement: participation, attention, captivation, passion, affiliation, and incorporation. The article concludes by discussing the benefits and possible uses of this model, and highlighting necessary further research to forward the field of games and learning in this area.

The Process of Playful Learning in Higher Education: A Phenomenological Study

“…Most of the literature on play in learning exists within the early childhood setting. However, scholars who write about play at any level of education argue that play-based learning can serve as a vital tool (Barak, 1990;Barnett, 2007;James & Nerantzi, 2019;Sicart, 2014;Swank, 2012;Whitton & Moseley, 2014). Play can create an environment that is conducive to taking risks and experimentation that can lead to creativity and innovation (James & Nerantzi, 2019).…”

Impact of Smartphone Based Activities on EFL Students’ Engagement

“…From this, task engagement can be deconstructed into three realisations: 1) behavioural, which can be observed through a) initiation of the task, and b) sustained involvement in the activity, 2) cognitive, which includes concentration, and 3) generally positive emotions. This three strand interpretation has been accepted by the majority of those reporting on task engagement (see for example Chapman, 2003;Jimerson et al, 2003;Fredricks et al, 2004;Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006;Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006;Parsons & Taylor, 2011;Lee, 2012;Marks et al, 2013;Whitton & Moseley, 2014), even though, for various motivations, not all components are always measured (for example Skinner and Belmont (1993) themselves only measured behavioural and emotional engagement).…”

“…This paper reports the findings of that study, which will be preceded by outlining the theoretical basis for the research undertaken, including a definition of engagement and its measurement, followed by a review of the literature related to engagement utilising technology, and specifically, mobile technology. literature, several authors have concluded that this disparity is because the phrase is employed in reference to two related contexts (see Chapman, 2003, Fredricks et al, 2004Parsons &Taylor, 2011 andWhitton &Moseley, 2014). The first is a more comprehensive usage of the term student engagement referring to the amount of time and efforts students invest in their learning [generally] and other educationally focused activities (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2014), referred to more explicably as school engagement (Fredricks et al, 2004;Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003).…”

“…Further exploration of the literature reveals that task engagement is reported as existing upon on a continuum, ranging from intense behavioural, cognitive and emotional engagement, commonly referred to as "flow" (see the seminal work of Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), which culminates in a sensory loss of time and place (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), through to a more "superficial engagement" (Whitton & Moseley, 2014, p. 442) where an actor may be just behaviourally "going through the motions" (Whitton & Moseley, 2014). In the latter, such limited engagement can often regresses into disengagement, which is frequently labelled as "disaffection" (see Skinner & Belmont, 1993;Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009;Parsons & Taylor, 2011;Kearney, 2013), resulting in a student becoming behaviourally "distracted" (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004, p. 148) from the activity, and possibly accompanied by negative emotions such as boredom and anger (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).…”

Supporting Dialogue and Analysis on Trade-Offs in Climate Adaptation Research With the Maladaptation Game

“…As such, the game infringes the principles of positive engagement and motivation in environmental communication (O'Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009;Wibeck, 2014), in order to fulfil the aim of the game in this research and communication context. The game hence failed to create a flow, but did present choices and decisions that triggered engagement in line with Whitton and Moseley's (2014) engagement as commitment, referring to the willingness to pay attention, to engage in negotiations, disagreement and dialogue and, as such, contributed to a better understanding of the challenges that lie ahead in order to advance our preparedness to meet climatic changes in Nordic agriculture.…”