Every learning tool, app, and game promises engagement. The word is attached to everything from digital flashcards to complex virtual worlds, leaving educators to wonder what kind of engagement they really bring to the classroom. If we’re going to move past marketing catchphrases and towards meaningful learning, we need to be more specific.

To do that, we first have to acknowledge two truths that exist at the same time:

Learning is fun.

And learning is hard work.

The “a-ha!” moment when a difficult concept makes sense is one of the most fundamentally joyful human experiences. But getting there requires effort. When a task is too easy, you aren’t learning. When it’s overwhelmingly hard, you’re just struggling. The sweet spot is what we call ‘positive struggle’. This concept echoes the work of psychologist Lev Vygostky, whose ‘zone of proximal development’ describes the ideal space for growth: the area just beyond a learner’s current abilities, where they can succeed with the right support.

So, where does engagement fit into this? A common view is that engagement is simply the start of the process, the figurative door to the room where learning happens. This explains why many learning apps measure engagement by how often you open the tool or how long you stay. But that’s not the whole story. Showing up is a critical first step, but it’s not enough for deep learning to occur.

True engagement is more than just a starting pistol; it’s the energy that powers the entire race. It isn’t the sugar-coating added to a learning activity simply to keep students on task. While gamified elements like badges and points can be motivating, their effect can diminish over time. This is because an over-reliance on external rewards can trigger the ‘overjustification effect,’ where a student’s own internal drive to learn is unintentionally undermined. 

Instead, real engagement is intrinsic; it’s the dynamic interplay between the student, the content, the classroom environment, and the learning process itself. This genuine interest is what fosters long-term commitment, creativity and higher achievement. It’s also a clear signal for EdTech companies to design features that support this real engagement, such as tools for collaboration and interaction, instead of over-relying on simple reward systems.

We can break this authentic engagement down into three overlapping parts, each essential for learning:

1. Emotional engagement (the “hearts-on” factor): the positive emotional state for learning, where a student feels safe, motivated, and confident
2. Behavioral engagement (the “hands-on” factor): tangible, active participation, that teachers can observe.
3. Cognitive engagement (the “minds-on” factor): The mental heavy-lifting, where the actual learning happens.

The foundation: emotional engagement

Before a student will embrace a challenge, they need to feel safe, motivated, and emotionally connected. You can’t ask for cognitive risks without first building emotional safety. This is the bedrock of engagement.

This principle is about creating a positive state for learning, where curiosity outweighs the fear of failure. It’s a combination of optimizing relevance, value, and student autonomy. When students see the ‘why’ behind their work and have some choice in the ‘how’, their emotional investment skyrockets.

Playful learning, game-based learning, or problem-based learning is often used to create this safe environment, where mistakes are reframed as learning opportunities. A 2024 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, showed that delivering learning through a gamified platform can increase motivation and positive attitudes, as well as ease assessment-related stress and anxiety. It lowers the stakes and allows students to try without a debilitating fear of failure. 

The action: behavioral engagement

With an emotional foundation laid, students are ready to act. Behavioral engagement is tangible; it is the active participation in the learning task. It’s what we see happening in the classroom.

This is where being intentional about our choice of tools becomes critical. A 2023 study by Barragán-Pulido et al. makes useful distinction between two types of learning tools:

• Serious games: these are pre-made, self-contained games designed to teach a specific skill, such as coding or digital citizenship. They guide students through a structured set of actions.
• Gamification tools: These are platforms like Kahoot!, and many others that allow educators to design their own content and activities. They offer a flexible canvas for creating different kinds of active participation.

By choosing the right tool, we can design for the specific type of action that matches our learning goal, whether it’s collaborative problem-solving or independent practice.

The goal: cognitive engagement

This is the destination. When students are emotionally invested and actively participating, they are positioned for the deep thinking that defines real learning. Cognitive engagement is the “minds-on” work, the mental effort of analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information. It’s where the positive struggle pays off in a lasting “a-ha!” moment.

When we cultivate a rich learning environment by creating emotional safety (“hearts-on”) and ensuring students actively interact with information (“hands-on”), we set the stage for powerful “minds-on” activity. When these building blocks are in place, the research shows compelling learning benefits. Another 2024 meta-analysis found that this kind of multi-faceted engagement can improve student learning outcomes by an average of 0.72 standard deviations. In real-world terms, that’s enough to move a student from the 50th percentile to the 72nd percentile. A testament to what’s possible when we engage the whole learner.

The educator is the architect

A tool, in itself, doesn’t create engagement; a thoughtful educator architects it. Selecting and using these tools effectively is a professional skill. When you design a custom quiz or integrate a serious game into your lesson, you are not only teaching students but also developing your own professional practice. The student is not a passive consumer of information, and neither is the educator. This dynamic relationship is something we can’t outsource to any app.

What we mean when we talk about engagement, then, is this intentional orchestration: building emotional safety and designing active participation, all for the ultimate prize of deep thinking and cognitive growth. Our role isn’t to eliminate the struggle, but to make it productive, accessible, and meaningful for every single learner.