Entertaining vs. Engaging Our Students

by Jacky Vaniotis

Published in the Fall 2002 edition of the Maine EMS I/C News

Greetings fellow instructors! This quarter I’d like to consider the question of whether one has to be an entertainer to be an effective instructor. I read an editorial piece in the Portland Press Herald recently exploring the distinction between engaging students and entertaining them. It was written by Mary Tracy, who is a training instructor for The Great Books Foundation. Ms. Tracy began by giving us a definition from the Random House Dictionary for each of the two terms. To entertain, she quoted, is “to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse,” while to engage is “to occupy the attention or efforts of.” She suggested that, after having worked a long hard day, a person may choose to be entertained, which allows for enjoyment, pleasure, even distraction, but doesn’t require engagement. On the other hand, there are times in which a person would choose to be engaged, to be fully absorbed in or occupied by an activity. The result of the engagement is lingering, causing the person to revisit, reconsider, remember.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen my fair share of teachers who believe we should entertain our students to catch their attention. I once saw a college professor stick pieces of chalk in each nostril before beginning his class. This same professor ended his class by tearing his shirt off. I remember the entertainment—but I have no idea what his point had been. I would have to say I wasn’t exactly engaged.

I’ve seen EMS instructors do the same thing. I went to an EMS conference one time and watched as an instructor did his presentation wearing a clown’s nose, standing on a chair, after having ceremoniously donned underwear over his clothing. Again, it caught the class’s attention, but to what end? Understandably enough, this man’s classes filled up quickly—being entertained is a pleasurable experience, and people knew they would be entertained when they went to hear him speak. I’m sure he got great evaluations as well. But did he teach anything? Did his students come away with material to ponder or ideas to consider further? Or did they just laugh and have a good time; in other words, were they just entertained?

I don’t know how many of you have attended any of the presentations done at the Samoset by Michelle Norton, the mother of the two teenage boys who were both killed in an automobile accident here in Maine a couple of summers ago. This was certainly not an “entertaining” topic, but it was definitely riveting. Nobody’s mind wandered, everybody was fully occupied by her talk. And we brought it with us for the rest of the weekend, and, for many of us, well beyond. Her presentation was simple, straightforward, serious. Her demeanor was similarly simple, straightforward, and serious. There were no bells, no whistles. And nobody who attended that program could deny having been fully engaged for the duration.

Sometimes entertainment has value, but should just entertaining be what we want to do for our students? Do we not want to engage them as well, have them leave our classroom pondering the topic of the evening, discussing it, revisiting, reconsidering, and remembering? Or are we satisfied only to have gotten good evaluations and made people laugh?

As instructors we must not mistake entertainment for engagement. We must attempt to fully occupy our students’ attention or efforts rather than simply to divert or amuse them.