Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework

Abstract

Closing the research-practice gap in education is an important aim. The ICAP framework (for interactive, constructive, active, and passive engagement modes) explicitly targets this aim and has gained broad attention. The ICAP framework is supposed to support practitioners in translating research findings into practice by distinguishing between four modes of student engagement. In this comment, we consider two central assumptions of the ICAP framework. First, the four modes of engagement are assumed to be “reflected in the overt behavior the student exhibits while undertaking an activity”1, and thus observable for teachers. Second, the ICAP framework assumes that the interactive mode of engagement is most effective for learning, followed by constructive, then active, and lastly passive modes (i.e. I > C > A > P, the so-called ‘ICAP-hypothesis’1,2). We argue that both assumptions are inconsistent with central tenets of empirical educational research. First, it is not sufficient to rely on overt behaviors as indicators of learning, because they are ambiguous with respect to the underlying learning process and do not reliably indicate them. Second, there is no “one size fits all”-order of engagement modes. Supposedly inferior engagement modes excel when used in the right way, on the right learners, and with the right timing regarding the learning process. We elucidate the use of formative assessment to gain insight into covert learning processes. Whereas the ICAP framework provides a seemingly plausible and easily actionable guide for practice, practitioners should not be advised to rely on ICAP for selecting effective interventions and assessing learning processes in the classroom.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.