I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PEDAGOGIESOF

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PEDAGOGIES
OF ENGAGEMENT
Russ Edgerton introduced the term “pedagogies of engagement” in his 2001 Education White Paper [1], in which he
reflected on the projects on higher education funded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts. He wrote:
“Throughout the whole enterprise, the core issue, in my view, is the mode
of teaching and learning that is practiced. Learning ‘about’ things does
not enable students to acquire the abilities and understanding they will
need for the twenty-first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement
that will turn out the kinds of resourceful, engaged workers and citizens
that America now requires.”
Prior to Edgerton’s paper, the widely distributed and influential
publication called The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education [2] stressed pedagogies of engagement in concept. Three
of the principles speak directly to pedagogies of engagement,
namely, that good practice encourages student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, and active learning.
More recently, the project titled The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) [3] deepens our understanding of how
students perceive classroom-based learning, in all its forms, as an element in the bigger issue of student engagement in their college education. The NSSE project conceives that student engagement is
not just a single course in a student’s academic career, but rather a
pattern of his or her involvement in a variety of activities. As such,
NSSE findings are a valuable assessment tool for colleges and universities to track how successful their academic practices are in engaging their student bodies. The NSSE project is grounded in the
proposition that student engagement, the frequency with which
students participate in activities that represent effective educational
practice, is a meaningful proxy for collegiate quality and, therefore,
by extension, quality of education. For example, the annual survey
of freshmen and seniors asks students how often they have participated in, for example, projects that required integrating ideas or information from various sources, used e-mail to communicate with
an instructor, asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions, received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic
performance, participated in community-based projects, or tutored
or taught other students. Student responses are organized around
five benchmarks:
1. Level of academic challenge: Schools encourage achievement
by setting high expectations and emphasizing importance of
student effort.
2. Active and collaborative learning: Students learn more when
intensely involved in educational process and are encouraged
to apply their knowledge in many situations.
3. Student-faculty interaction: Students able to learn from experts and faculty serve as role models and mentors.
4. Enriching educational experiences: Learning opportunities
inside and outside classroom (diversity, technology, collaboration, internships, community service, capstones) enhance
learning.
5. Supportive campus environment: Students are motivated and
satisfied at schools that actively promote learning and stimulate social interaction.
Astin’s [4] large-scale correlational study of what matters in college (involving 27,064 students at 309 baccalaureate-granting institutions) found that two environmental factors were by far the most
predictive of positive change in college students’ academic development, personal development, and satisfaction. These two factors—
interaction among students and interaction between faculty and
students—carried by far the largest weights and affected more general education outcomes than any other environmental variables
Pedagogies of Engagement:
Classroom-Based Practices
studied, including the curriculum content factors. This result indicates that how students approach their general education and how the
faculty actually deliver the curriculum is more important than the
formal curriculum, that is, the content, collection, and sequence of
courses.