The terms ‘relevance’ and ‘engagement’ have been widely used by schools and teachers in the pursuit of solving a range of perceived problems. Students will be more interested in your subject if it is ‘relevant’ to their lives; students will be better behaved if they are ‘engaged’.
Crucially, ‘engagement’ has also been used as a proxy for learning; ‘relevance’ sometimes as a substitute for differentiated and appropriate learning.
I am increasingly convinced none of this is true, but a few years ago I spotted a slide shared from a Brilliant Club presentation outlining key definitions for relevance and engagement. I’ve since shared them time and time again. They’re best summarised, with clarification, as stating:
- Engagement isn’t fun and games; it means the curriculum is structured so students can access it, it has clear purpose and is ambitious (novel and challenging).
- Relevant isn’t ‘down with the kids’; it links to other topics in the curriculum and other subject areas, and students are introduced to current academic thinking on the topic, even if simplified.
What, where, and why?
I was never trained in curriculum design during my teacher training, or even beyond. I remember being asked to plan a scheme of work, of course, but this isn’t enough. If students are to be ‘engaged’, there needs to be a clear and precise overview of what they’re learning, designed by a real expert in the subject. Careful consideration is required about ‘what goes where and why?’ Understanding the knowledge you want to impart to students is a vital part of this.
When it comes to ‘relevance’, well, if we don’t believe the material we’re teaching is interesting and worth learning, then our students rarely will. Instead of trying to find hooks and links to popular culture we must accept that the content of the lessons has value in itself. It doesn’t need a pop song. It doesn’t need a football analogy. Believe it or not, thinking about hard and difficult ideas is appealing to students.
Students will be able to access and engage with material far better if we spend time ensuring they really understand specific definitions, concepts and ideas. If we’ve planned our curriculum well, and have built in sufficient practice and recall, students should be making clear connections to their prior learning. This helps them to think far more deeply, and gives them the ability to challenge the new ideas presented.
Something better
I fear that too often we create massive distractions in our schools and classrooms. We’re not clear enough in what we actually want students to learn from a particular lesson and therefore create distractions.
There are some great examples from David Didau (What If Everything You Knew About Education Was Wrong?) and Daniel T Willingham (Why Don’t Students Like School?) who cite teachers hunting for potatoes during a lesson on the Great Famine and baking biscuits for a session about the Underground Railroad. Through gimmicks like this, students may well learn and remember something – but all too often, it’s not what we intended to teach them that sticks.
It’s vital to remember that we’re not entertainers, we’re educators. We’re there to ensure students are taught – and remember – the very best that has been thought and said about our subjects. And we do that by aiming to be genuinely relevant and engaging.
Andy Lewis is an assistant headteacher and director of RE at St Bonaventure’s in East London. Follow him on Twitter at @andylewis_re.
