- If one student is not attentive in the lesson he might be having some problem either with understanding the topic or some distraction. It happens sometimes and normal.
- All the students may not be having equal IQ level as well. Still if he has understanding problem I should help him to understand it more easily.
- If more students are not participating it is crucial. The problem lies with the teacher/topic/method of teaching/atmosphere. The teacher should be bright enough to find the reason and he should eliminate the element of disruption.
- When a student/group is not participating in the lesson I will put him/group in a lead role for an activity and introduce him/them to classmates that he/is/they/are one of the studious and very intelligent student/groups in our class. I will explain the activity clearly and encourage them to do it.
- When they do the given activity perfectly I might name them ‘Lead of intellectual group/Group of intellectuals. Next time they will be participating with enthusiasm.
- Getting them directly involved in the lesson is a good practice for sometimes students don’t participate to gain attention. In this way their purpose is also solved and you will also be able to maintain the lesson flow without any disturbance.
When one or more students are not engaged in their learning, perhaps we need to look into our pedagogical practices. There must a reason for their behavioural patterns. Addressing their interest and adjusting our pedagogy accordingly may resolve it to a certain extent.
A good way to engage students is to ask them questions or relate the answers of other students, e.g., "Evan, what do you think about Susan's proposal?", followed by asking for reasons to why the students agrees or disagrees. (metacognitive strategy). In this way students 'get' very fast that they cannot disengage. To team composed of disengaged and engaged students would be the social solution.
How does one identify lack of participation or engagement? Are the clues we use adequate for accurately diagnosing this behavior?
Are students exhibiting the behaviors we identify as engaged really engaged, or are they just good at playing the school game?
Is it necessary to be engaged all the time? Is it possible? Is it a worthy goal?
Foucault's analysis of the control of activity in his study of Discipline and Punishment points out five aspects, three of which (1, 3 and 5) seem to me relevant to the question of paricipation and engagement:
1. Rigid timetable (based on the negative principle of "anti-idleness")
2. Temporal elaboration of acts
3. Correlation of body and gesture (the correct use of the body makes possible the correct use of time, nothing must remain idle or useless)
4. Body-object articulation
5. Exhaustive use (exacting as much as possible from time - maximum speed and efficiency)
Hartmut Rosa has focused on the alienating effect of acceleration in social life. Maybe the rigid control of activity in conventional school culture is responsible for dis-engagement? And if this control of activity and exhaustive use of time is alienating (which as an adult I find it to be - amazing, the resilience of young people!), then perhaps it is a sign of autonomy and independence if students dis-engage?
Just a few thoughts that are occupying me at the moment!
Regards,
Tanja
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching