Child Engagement: An Important Factor in Child Learning
What is Engagement?
Engagement refers to the amount of time a child is actively participating in an activity in
a contextually appropriate manner (Bailey & Wolery, 1992; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992,
1995; McWilliam, Trivette, & Dunst, 1995; Risley & Twardosz, 1976). Contextually
based learning refers to learning that takes place in everyday, real-life settings and
activities that provide a child the basis for acquiring functionally meaningful and
culturally relevant behavior. Contextually based learning is learning that occurs in the
same place where the behavior that is learned is typically used.
The following are examples of child engagement in typical activities:

An infant sitting in a high chair who is eating bites of cereal placed on the high
chair tray,
 A child who is pointing to a picture in a book during a shared reading activity,
 A child in a sand box who is shoveling sand into a bucket,
 Two or more children involved in peer-mediated interactions, and
 Children on a playground involved in some type of play activity.
Engagement is typically manifested in terms of intense involvement in an activity,
persistence in completing a task, intense concentration, fascination with people or
materials, and absorption in play.
Why is Engagement Important?
Engagement is important because unless children are actively involved in different kinds
of learning opportunities, there is little or no opportunity to practice existing skills or to
learn new skills nor is there an opportunity for adults to use systematic instructional
practices to support child learning. In contrast, when children are actively involved in
activities that are contextually appropriate, not only do children have the opportunity to
practice existing skills and learn new skills, but adults have the opportunity to interact
with the children in ways that encourage and support the children’s learning.
Figure 1 shows an example of one way in which this process works. The
foundation of the model is interest-based learning opportunities. The way in which
children’s interests (choices, preferences, etc.) function as a factor (Bronfenbrenner,
1993; Wachs, 2000) that influences learning and development can be explained as
follows: Persons, objects, and events that are interesting to children are what captures
and maintains their attention (Fogel, 1997), encourages them to interact with people
and objects (Rusher, Cross, & Ware, 1995), and promotes participation in social and
nonsocial activities (Göncü, Tuermer, Jain, & Johnson, 1999). Interest-based playing,
interaction, and participation provide a starting point for children’s learning through their
engagement (McWilliam & Ware, 1994) in everyday activities. When children are
actively engaged in everyday activities, they have the opportunity to practice existing
1
skills, perfect emerging skills, and acquire new competence (Farver, 1999). Activities
that afford children opportunities to express competence are ones that are more likely to
encourage and support child learning and exploration (Wachs, 1979). As a result of
exploration, children come to learn the relationship between their behavior and its
consequences, thereby enhancing and strengthening their sense of mastery (MacTurk
& Morgan, 1995). A sense of mastery, in turn, reinforces existing and promotes new
interests, encouraging yet further engagement with people and materials.
How do Recommended Practices Impact Engagement?
The majority of the child-level DEC Recommended Practices either explicitly or implicitly
emphasize child engagement as the context for both child learning opportunities and for
adults to use instructional practices to promote child learning in the activities. An
example from the Instruction Recommended Practices that explicitly focuses on child
engagement is “Practitioners use explicit feedback and consequences to increase child
engagement, play, and skills.” Another example from the Instruction Recommended
Practices that implicitly focuses on engagement is “Practitioners plan for and provide
the level of support, accommodations, and adaptations needed for the child to access,
participate, and learn within and across activities and routines” where engagement is
implied by the opportunities for children to participate fully in activities. Figure 1 also
shows how the appropriate use of Recommended Practices influences children’s
engagement in learning activities.
What is the Research Evidence?
Research indicates that higher levels of child engagement with adults, peers, and
materials during the early childhood years are related to the learning of children both
with and without disabilities (e.g., Blair, Fox, & Lentin, 2010; Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini,
& Clarke, 2004; Fantuzzo, Sekino, & Cohen, 2004; Greenwood, Carta, & Dawson,
2000; McWilliam & Bailey, 1992, 1995; Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes, & Reiser, 2007;
Strain, Danko, & Kohler, 1995;Williford, Vick Whittaker, Vitiello, & Downer, 2013).
Research also demonstrates that among children at-risk for poor outcomes there is a
link between engagement and children’s learning. Hart and Risley (1995), for example,
2
documented the cumulative effect of high levels of engagement, multiple learning
opportunities, and positive consequences on children’s language learning. Focusing on
increasing the level of children’s engagement, therefore, is a useful outcome for the
ECTA work with States that is likely to enhance the learning of children with disabilities.
References
Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Wolery, M. (1992). Teaching infants and preschoolers with
disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Blair, K.-S. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior support to address
the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood
program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(2), 68-79.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental
evaluation of positive behavior support in a community preschool program.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 143-168.
Fantuzzo, J., Sekino, Y., & Cohen, H. (2004). An examination of the contributions of
interactive peer play to salient classroom competencies for urban Head Start
children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 323-336.
Farver, J. A. M. (1999). Activity setting analysis: A model for examining the role of
culture in development. In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world:
Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 99-127). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Fogel, A. (1997). Information, creativity, and culture. In C. Dent-Read & P. ZukowGoldring (Eds.), Evolving explanations of development: Ecological approaches to
organism--environment systems (pp. 413-443). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Göncü, A., Tuermer, U., Jain, J., & Johnson, D. (1999). Children's play as cultural
activity. In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world: Sociocultural
perspectives (pp. 148-170). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Dawson, H. (2000). Ecobehavioral assessment
systems software (EBASS):A system for observation in education settings. In T.
Thompson, D. Felce & F. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology
and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 229-251). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
MacTurk, R. H., & Morgan, G. A. (Eds.). (1995). Mastery motivation: Origins,
conceptualizations, and applications. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3
McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1992). Promoting engagement and mastery. In D. B.
Bailey, Jr. & M. Wolery (Eds.), Teaching infants and preschoolers with
disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1995). Effects of classroom social structure and
disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 123147.
McWilliam, R. A., & Ware, W. B. (1994). The reliability of observations of young
children's engagement: An application of generalizability theory. Journal of Early
Intervention, 18, 34-47.
McWilliam, R. A., Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (1985). Behavior engagement as a
measure of the efficacy of early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 5, 59-71.
Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Reiser, M. (2007).
Preschoolers' academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship
play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 407-422.
Risley, T. R., & Twardosz, S. (1976). The preschool as a setting for behavioral
intervention. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of behavior modification and
behavior therapy (pp. 453-474). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rusher, A. S., Cross, D. R., & Ware, A. M. (1995). Infant and toddler play: Assessment
of exploratory style and development level. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
10, 297-315.
Strain, P. S., Danko, C. D., & Kohler, F. (1995). Activity engagement and social
interaction development in young children with autism: An examination of "free"
intervention effects. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 108-123.
Wachs, T. D. (1979). Proximal experience and early cognitive-intellectual development:
The physical environment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25, 3-41.
Wachs, T. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufficient: The respective roles of single and
multiple influences on individual development. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Williford, A. P., Vick Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V. E., & Downer, J. T. (2013). Children's
engagement within the preschool classroom and their development of selfregulation. Early Education & Development, 24(2), 162-187
4