In sum, we argue that observing whether a student is watching a video, taking notes, writing summaries, or discussing with other students is not sufficiently reliable to gain insight into learning processes. It is crucial to systematically monitor and assess the covert learning processes to reach a certain learning goal. The ICAP framework, however, does not provide guidance on how to generate and use such diagnostic information on students´covert learning processes. In contrast, the systematic use of formative assessment techniques provides a flexible, scalable, generalizable, and evidence-based toolbox for practitioners. Systematic use of formative assessment may put a higher demand on practitioners’ shoulders than following the ICAP framework, but it will provide them with more valuable and valid information that they can use to flexibly adapt instruction to the classroom and effectively support students’ learning.

The goal of this comment is to critically discuss two core assumptions of the ICAP framework. The first is that different modes of cognitive engagement are to “be detected by overt behaviors”2. The second is that the four engagement modes are hierarchically ordered regarding their effectiveness for learning, with the interactive mode being the most effective1,2. We agree with the authors of the ICAP framework that communicating to practitioners on how to support students’ learning is of utmost importance. However, we argue that these two assumptions of the ICAP framework—detection via overt behaviors and hierarchical ordering of engagement modes—likely lead to wrong inferences in practice, and do not correspond well with research on effective learning and instruction. We first outline these two points of criticism, shortly scrutinizing their empirical basis. Note that this comment is not aimed at systematically reviewing empirical research on the ICAP framework. Rather, we take a look at specific studies that have been reported as strong support for the ICAP framework, and we bring up general insights from the last decades of educational research that question the validity of the framework. Afterward, we discuss potential steps forward.

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”, 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’). 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.