Research seminar on student engagement


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Research seminar on student engagement

  1. 1. Understanding student engagement as a multidimensional and dynamic concept Master's Thesis LET Master's Degree Program Aleksandra Lazareva
  2. 2. Defining engagement ● Emotions ● Interest ● Motivation ● Engagement (Fredricks, et al., 2004): – behavioral (participation, involvement) – cognitive (investment, thoughtfulness) – emotional (positive and negative reactions, willingness)
  3. 3. Engagement and self-regulation (Wolters & Taylor, 2012) ● How do students function at school? ● Different models sharing core elements ● Behavioral, cognitive, emotional aspects ● Mediating processes ● Their definitions often include concepts that are central to the other one ● Engagement results from the factors — self- regulation acknowledges the factors but focuses on the learner's efforts to manage own learning
  4. 4. Factors affecting student engagement ● Family, culture ● Educational context (Fredricks et al., 2004): – school-level factors – individual needs – classroom context factors ● Practical reason for studying engagement
  5. 5. Empirical study ● Focus on classroom context factors affecting student engagement: – task characteristics (the entertainment part of the task, autonomy support, meaningfulness + use of technology) – social interactions (teacher interference and peer regulation) ● Primary school in Northern Finland ● 11 4th grade students ● English language classroom ● 1 month intervention (6 lessons, 45 minutes each)
  6. 6. Data collection and analysis ● Video observations (each lesson) ● Learning diaries (each lesson) ● Students' products (one activity) ● On-task/off-task and phase-shift analysis: quantity and coherence of individual students' engagement — main descriptor ● Analysis of engagement from the point of view of the classroom context factors — establishing sources of engagement/disengagement
  7. 7. Some results: Task characteristics ● Use of technology increased students' situational interest in tasks → initiated engagement ● Technology started to be distracting if engagement was not supported by other task characteristics (e.g., challenging, meaningful) ● Meaningful tasks supporting autonomy resulted in higher engagement ● Autonomy has to be promoted explicitly by the teacher
  8. 8. Some results: Teacher interference ● Different types of teacher interference had different effects on student engagement – regulation of behavior – additional instructions – assistance ● Some students needed more attention from the teacher while others could coordinate their work themselves
  9. 9. Some results: Peer regulation ● Students had different success in regulating each other's engagement – turn-taking – use of support materials – drawing teacher's attention to help ● Emotional aspects
  10. 10. Practical implications ● Right combination of supports for individual students ● Individual students had different needs in teacher and peer support ● For some students it was easier to make connections to tasks (i.e., meaningfulness) and perceive autonomy than for others
  11. 11. References ● Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 ● Wolters, C. A. & Taylor, D. J. (2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 635–651). New York: Springer.