Pedagogical Engagement Myths

This week's blog, the third in a series about embodiment, the senses, and accessible pedagogy, is going to focus on engagement and the many myths that are connected to engagement that assume a certain kind of embodied existence for the learner. To start I would like you to take a moment and reflect on what engagement looks like for you? I use the word look specifically here because so much discourse about engagement is connected to the visual which as we discussed last week gives a sort of primacy to the looking in eduspace that is exclusionary. So what does engagement look like? Does it look differently depending on if you are facilitating a learning space that is on-campus compared to on Zoom or Teams? Okay second question, and the better question: what does engagement feel like? 

In order to get away from the many myths that exist in pedagogical space about engagement I think the first thing we need to do is move away from look towards feel. That way we are not only focusing on the visual when it comes to engagement. And why is the visual maybe a problematic measure for engagement? Well I am sure as you were reflecting you thought well engagement looks like all the learners looking at me, or if you are facilitating something online maybe the thought was it looks like all the cameras are on. We been having this same conversation since the start of the pandemic. That somehow cameras on means engagement, and many folk (including me many times in this very blog) have said how learners do not owe you cameras on. By paying tuition to attend a course, it does not mean the tuition comes with free insight into someone's living conditions. And yes from an instructor point of view I know how difficult it may be to teach to squares, I have taught to many squares in my lifetime. But there are many more trauma-informed ways that you can have a conversation about camera use online, but cameras on does not equate to engagement.

Similarly having learners stare at you in an on-campus lecture does not mean they are engaged either. In fact if they are staring they are probably not engaged. I had a faculty say to me a few months ago "I don't want them staring at me because that would make me so uncomfortable" and I nodded because same. We somehow have been told that engagement and "attention" means looking, and there is so much that is not great about that framing from a sensory and accessible pedagogy point of view. Some folk have anxiety which means they can't look at you, others may be blind or have low vision so they would actually not be able to look at you, also some neurodivergent and autistic folk can't do longer periods of looking at a person either.

Similar to conversations I have had about the cameras on mandates that some folk want to use in online delivery courses, I strongly encourage framing engagement as being something that is meaningful to the learner. From the very beginning of class a conversation or even a document that outlines a collective communication framework about engagement can be very helpful to classroom engagement. That conversation can list the many ways that engagement could feel for both the teaching team and the learners. For example (and these are for all types of modalities of course delivery so some will be applicable to some modalities and not others):

• Texting in the chat
• Participating in a synchronous prompting question online Form or discussion board set up for the lecture or tutorial
• Sending emojis or thumbs up of agree or disagree
• Using index cards with images or words on them to demonstrate agree or disagree or engage with course concepts
• Talking to a peer in class or in the chat
• Raising hands and talking in relation to a prompt provided
• Responding to low-stakes (no stakes) quiz questions about the course topic
• OR A way of engaging that is meaningful to the learner not listed here

The more we bring learners into the conversation about what engagement feels like to them, and what feels meaningful, the more we will get away from a default that engagement is looking or staring or that engagement only means there needs to be some sort of verbal engagement in the learning space. 

When classes went back to on-campus after emergency remote teaching, the one thing that most learners expressed missing was the chat. They wanted a real time way to express and engage that didn't necessarily involve raising hand and speaking because that felt too high stakes. Engagement is such an important pedagogical design consideration, because it requires an awareness of power dynamics in learning spaces, learner embodiment and ways of knowing, and what feels meaningful to learners and teaching teams. The best way to make engagement more inclusive is to not assume or mandate a single sensory way of engaging and encourage ways of engagement that are individually meaningful and sensory inclusive to learner's lived experience be that looking, speaking, typing, moving. As you start to prep for your fall courses and rethink some design elements moving from what does engagement look like to what does engagement feel like, may be one way to open the engagement conversations to different lived experiences and embodiments. 

I hope this has given you something to reflect on in relation to engagement and how we can move away from the myth that tethers engagement to looking or speaking only. Next week I will continue this series with a post on hearing, listening, and learning.