PUPIL ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION: A MEANS FOR INCREASED ACADEMIC ABILITY, WELL-BEING AND SOCIAL COMMITMENT
This is not a question that is handled very adequately in the literature. Very few studies exist that explicitly complete analyses, in which pupil engagement is the dependent variable. This meagre part of the literature deals with the themes in very superficial terms, which, among other things, is by identifying the changed conditions in the framework, and general supplementary training for the teachers, as important variables. The studies are mostly focused on the institutional framework and limitations associated with the schools. In that regard, some studies identify an array of interesting institutional barriers, i.e. the problems of changing ingrained and traditional teacherpupil roles in relation to pupil engagement. All in all, the literature is hardly dealing with specific initiatives, which could theoretically increase pupil engagement (Ruddock and Fielding, 2006: 226-229; Fielding, 2001: 129-132; Holdsworth, 2000; Lodge, 2005; Cook-Sather, 2006 and 2007; Mitra, 2008: 318-332). Upon reviewing the literature, it is possible to find a few arguments of a theoretical nature. In some cases, these relate to how pupil engagement can, specifically, be increased in the schools (Shier, 2001; Hart 1992; Fielding, 2001; Flutter and Ruddock, 2004: 23-77; Oldfather, 1995: 131-133). The first argument in this regard, relates to the idea that the development of academic abilities is not simply an individual process, in which the teachings can be compared to a broadcast, which the pupils themselves are responsible for receiving and learning. The education should be viewed as a social constructivist process, in which the pupils are considered as co-players, who participate in the education by taking part in constructing their own educational environment. The education is, thusly, viewed as a social process, in which the direct interaction between pupils and teacher is crucial for the outcome of the teachings (Oldfather, 1995: 131-133). If we, in continuation to the social constructivist way of thinking, explore some concrete examples on how pupils can participate in constructing an educational atmosphere, which academically and socially support the pupils, and contributes to strengthening their competencies; we cannot circumvent the so-called “ladder of participation�. The model is developed in 1992 by Roger A. Hart, Professor of Environmental Psychology, but has continuously been updated and modified by Hart himself, and other academics in the field (see among others: Hart, 1992; Shier, 2001: 109-110; Hart, 2008: 19-31). In its original edition, the model was developed as a typology over different degrees of participation, in various projects in and outside of the school and the classroom. The model extends from manipulation of the pupils on the lowest step, to complete engagement on the highest step. The pupils take the initiative here, and decide, in cooperation with the teacher, which activity should be completed first (Hart, 1992: 8-15). This model, however, has reaped quite a lot of criticism, which, among other things, is due to an observation of considering it as a ranking ladder with a clear hierarchy, in which the lowest step, with manipulation, is the worst, and every step upwards signifying an improvement until the
38