Assessing Student Engagement

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.12 No.2

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 12 NUMBER 2 June 2015
Table of Contents
Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools ..........1
B. Jean Mandernach, PhD
The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons .............................. 15
Costică Lupu
The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting, Facilitating
Discourse, and Direct Instruction .......................................................................................................................................26
Jamie Costley
Change in the Era of Common Core Standards: A Mathematics Teacher‟s Journey .................................................. 48
Laura B. Kent
Cooperative Learning Effectiveness in the Bureaucratic School: Views of Greek Secondary Education Teachers 64
Konstantina Koutrouba and Ioannis Christopoulos
Peer Tutoring as an Approach in Analysing Case Studies in a Business English Course .......................................... 89
Siew Fong Lin
A Case Study Exploring Junior High School Students’ Interaction Behavior in a Learning Community on
Facebook: Day and Time...................................................................................................................................................... 99
Chun-Jung Chen and Sheng-Yi Wu
Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership............................................................... 107
Brian Vassallo
The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle School Students .............................................................................. 121
Hua Zhang, Jinhui Cheng, Xinyu Yuan and Ying Zhang

1
@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-14, June 2015
Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher
Education: A Synthesis of Literature and
Assessment Tools
B. Jean Mandernach, PhD
Grand Canyon University
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Abstract. Educational research increasingly highlights the importance of
student engagement and its impact on retention, learning and
persistence. Despite widespread agreement on the value of student
engagement, assessing engagement in higher education remains a
challenge. To effectively measure student engagement (and understand
its influence on the learning experience), it is essential that each
institution defines the scope of engagement within their unique context
and selects assessment metrics that align with the target definition. The
dynamic nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to
assessment that captures the interactive nature of the behavioral,
affective and cognitive dimensions comprising student engagement. The
value of various modes and tools for assessing student engagement in
higher education are discussed.
Keywords: student engagement; assessment of engagement;
engagement metrics; cognitive engagement
Introduction
With increased emphasis on promoting student engagement in postsecondary
classrooms (Barkley, 2010; Bowen, 2005; Günüç & Kuzu, 2014; Korobova &
Starobin, 2015), it becomes imperative that educators are able to gauge, monitor
and assess student engagement as a component of the overall learning
experience (Butler, 2011; Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Garrett,
2011; Kuh, 2001; Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Dailey-Hebert, 2011; Rust,
2002). While there is considerable evidence validating the importance of
engagement for fostering student learning (Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Cross,
2005; Guthrie & Anderson, 1999; Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan & Towler, 2005;
Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Skinner, Wellborn & Connell, 1990; Zhao & Kuh,
2004), promoting student retention (Braxton, 2008; Kushman, Sieber & Heariold-
Kinney, 2000; Woods, 1995), enhancing quality assurance (Banta, Pike &
Hansen, 2009; Coates, 2005), and impacting student persistence (Milem &
Berger, 1997), faculty and administrators still struggle to effectively assess
student engagement at both the institutional and course levels.

2
Much of the challenge in assessing student engagement comes from the lack of a
unified definition to define the scope, intent and parameters of engagement. As
highlighted by Bowen (2005, p. 4), “an explicit consensus about what we actually
mean by engagement or why it is important is lacking.” Yet, despite the
divergence of operational definitions, Shulman (2005) maintains that
postsecondary institutions must be diligent in fostering and monitoring
engagement as “learning begins with student engagement” (p. 38).
Defining Student Engagement
In its infancy, student engagement was defined primarily by students’ time-on-
task with educational activities (Brophy, 1983; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave,
Cahen & Dishaw, 1980; McIntyre, Copenhaver, Byrd, & Norris, 1983). While
most definitions of engagement still include students’ investment in learning
activities as a key component of engagement, current definitions of student
engagement have expanded to include interrelated cognitive and affective
components. Emphasizing that cognitive engagement involves not only a
behavioral investment of time, but also requires investment of attention and
intellectual vigor, Astin (1984, p. 298) defines engagement as “the amount of
physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic
experience.” Integrating the affective components of the learning experience,
Skinner and Belmont (1993, p. 572) define student engagement as “sustained
behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by positive emotional
tone.” Differentiating this type of engagement from satisfaction, Barkley (2010)
highlights that “…engaging students doesn’t mean they’re being entertained. It
means they are thinking.” (p. xii).
Other definitions emphasize that engagement rests not only in the choices made
by students, but in the opportunities available through the institution; as defined
by Natriello (1984, p. 14) engagement involves “participating in the activities
offered as part of the school program.” Kuh (2003) provides an integrated
definition encompassing the cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects of
engagement while highlighting the reciprocal responsibility of both the students
and the institution to fostering engagement; as explained in this definition,
student engagement is “the time and energy students devote to educationally
sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and
practices that institutions use to induce students to take part in these activities”
(Kuh, 2003, p. 25).
The range of definitions for student engagement converges to emphasize three
interrelated aspects of student engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and affective
(Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005). As outlined by Chapman (2003,
para. 6):
 cognitive criteria, which index the extent to which students are attending
to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered;
 behavioural criteria, which index the extent to which students are
making active responses to the learning tasks presented; and
 affective criteria, which index the level of students’ investment in, and
their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks.

3
Examining these indicators as the impetus behind measures of student
engagement, Butler (2011) differentiates typical assessment indicators along each
dimension; see Table 1 for examples.
Table 1: Examples of Assessment Items to Gauge Types of Engagement
Behavioral Cognitive Affective
Frequency of asking
questions in class
Proportion of coursework
emphasizing higher order
thinking strategies
Effort to work harder to
meet instructor’s
expectations
Frequency of group
projects or collaborative
work
Time spent on projects
requiring integration and
synthesis of ideas
Investment to better
understand someone else’s
perspective
Frequency of tutoring
others
Amount of coursework
requiring practical
application of knowledge
or skills
Time investment in
studying
Frequency of attending
events in the community
related to course material
Tendency to be prepared
(or lack preparation) for
class
Frequency of discussing
course material outside of
classtime
Understanding assessment of student engagement rests in an awareness of the
range and diversity of definitions for this concept. To effectively assess student
engagement, one must know what aspect (or aspects) of engagement are being
targeted. As outlined by Bowen (2005), student engagement can be defined in
four interrelated ways: 1) engagement with the learning process (i.e., active
learning); 2) engagement with the object of study (i.e., experiential learning); 3)
engagement with the context of study (i.e., multidisciplinary learning); and 4)
engagement with the human condition (i.e., service learning).
Inherent in assessment debates concerning the definition and scope of student
engagement is the subtle differentiation between engagement as a process versus
a product. While Bowen (2005) contends that most assessments of student
engagement emphasize the learning process, Barkley (2010) highlights that
“student engagement is the product of motivation and active learning. It is a
product rather than a sum because it will not occur if either element is missing”
(p. 6). While subtle, this distinction has important implications for assessment as
it defines the scope of the measurement; specifically, assessments of process
emphasize behaviors, activities and attitudes that contribute to student learning
while assessments of product emphasize engagement as a cognitive or affective
state resulting from the learning process.
Despite this subtle distinction, most measures of student engagement
incorporate aspects of both the process and product of student engagement by
examining students’ active role in the process of learning as well as their
resultant cognitive and affective positions. As such, not only do measures of
engagement examine students’ perceptions of the learning process, but include
an examination of the “frequency with which students participate in activities
that represent effective educational practices, and conceive of it as a pattern of

4
involvement in a variety of activities and interactions both in and out of the
classroom and throughout a student’s college career” (Barkley, 2010, p. 4). This
theoretical position provides the foundational basis of many of the institutional
assessments of student engagement that operationalize engagement as a product
of student investment in scholarly activities and institutional allocation of
resources to foster student engagement. Likewise, on a smaller scale, these same
principles can be applied to course-level engagement measures examining
engagement opportunities and students’ involvement in course-related
activities.
Assessment Approaches
The wide variability of engagement definitions and the complexity surrounding
student engagement mandates necessary diversity in measurement approaches
and techniques. Assessment of student engagement varies as a function of both
the accepted definition of engagement and the data collection methods. As such,
there are a number of avenues for collecting student engagement data
(Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Jennings & Angelo, 2006):
student self-report, experience sampling, teacher ratings of students, interviews,
direct observation, checklists and rating scales, work sample analysis, and
focused case studies. Table 2 provides an overview of each approach.
Table 2: Data Collection Methods to Measure Student Engagement
Data
Collection
Method Description Strengths Challenges
student self-
report
Students indicate
their engagement (as
a function of level,
agreement or
perception) in
response to specific
attitudes, behaviors
or experiences.
Practical, cost-efficient
approaches for group
and/or large-scale
administration;
provide a means of
measuring non-
observable, perceptual
or subjective
indicators of
engagement.
Concerns with
honesty and/or
accuracy of responses;
generalized nature of
items may limit the
value of responses.
experience
sampling
Used as an indicator
of engagement
“flow,” selected
students respond to
selected dimensions
of engagement (such
as current activities,
cognitive state and
affect level) in
response to an
electronic “alarm”
that signals at
various times.
Provides a means of
contextualizing
engagement track
engagement levels in
the moment as well as
across time and
situation.
Requires considerable
investment of time
and resources from
students in the
sample; examines a
limited aspect of
engagement.
teacher ratings
of students
Teachers provide
ratings of their
Valuable for
examining the
Valid perceptions may
be limited to the more

5
perceptions of
behavioral and/or
emotional aspects of
student engagement.
alignment between
student and teacher
perceptions of
engagement in the
classroom.
observable, behavioral
indicators of student
engagement.
interviews Students are asked to
discuss their
engagement in an
open-ended manner
Elicits a more
detailed,
individualized,
contextualized
understanding of
student engagement.
Concerns with
interviewer bias and
social desirability
factors may influence
accuracy of findings.
direct
observations
Structured technique
for monitoring and
recording students
behavior along pre-
defined indicators of
engagement.
Provides detailed,
descriptive accounts
of momentary time
sampling of student
engagement
Reliability may be
impacted by observer
bias; techniques may
be time consuming;
measurements limted
to observable
behavior.
checklists and
rating scales
Provides the
frequency and
investment of specific
target behaviors; may
be a self-rating or
observer-rating
Provides data on
behavioral indicators
of engagement
Lacks information to
explain the reasoning
behind behavioral
indicators
work sample
analysis
Utilizes samples of
students’ work to
assess for higher-
order thinking
Provides indication of
cognitive engagement
as a summative
indicator of the
outcome of various
behavioral factors
Concerns with the
reliability of scoring;
outcome may be
impacted by factors
other than student
engagement
focused case
studies
Large amounts of
detailed data are
collected in relation
to a small, select
sample of students
Rich data highlighting
behaviors, interactions
and contextual factors
May have limited
generalizability to
other student
populations
Measures of Engagement
As previously highlighted, student engagement is a complex phenomenon that
encompasses a range of behavioral, cognitive and affective components of the
learning experience; equally varied is the range of data collection approaches
available to gauge student engagement. The result of this diversity is a plethora
of assessment choices ranging from informal, course-based snapshots to highly-
structured, standardized tests of engagement. Selection of a specific approach
and measure of student engagement is driven by the parameters surrounding
the use and intent of the data. Broadly speaking, assessment data can provide
two types of information: 1) informal, formative feedback, or 2) formal,
summative data.
Informal measures of engagement provide formative data to guide instructional,
course or program development; informal assessments of engagement provide
feedback during the learning process in a manner that allows for adjustment in

6
instructional strategies or institutional initiatives to more effectively foster
student engagement. Formative monitoring is typically conducted at the course
level and relies on informal indicators of engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006)
including: instructor observations of student behavior, students’ self-reports and
administrative records.
 Instructor Observations of Student Behavior – There are a number of
behavioral indicators that provide a quick, visual assessment of students’
level of engagement in a given course. Kuh (2003) highlights four
effective behavioral practices that promote engagement: 1) collaborating
with peers, 2) interacting with faculty, 3) participating in learning
communities, and 4) devoting significant time to academic tasks. As a
function of these dimensions, Franklin (2005) emphasizes that engaged
students are more likely to actively listen, respond to questions,
collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class. Instructors may
informally monitor students’ behavior on these dimensions to gauge
engagement in response to various instructional strategies within a given
class.
 Students’ Self-Reports – To assess students’ engagement with course
material or institutional initiatives, self-report data can be collected
concerning course activity journals, focus groups or informal
questionnaires. Through direct self-report measures, engagement can be
analyzed via the affective (i.e., perceptions, attitudes), behavioral (i.e.,
activities), and cognitive (i.e., interest, active understanding) aspects of
the students’ learning experience. Information self-report measures of
engagement should be careful to differentiate between satisfaction and
engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006) by emphasizing time-on-task,
investment in course-related interactions and active involvement with
learning resources (Nauffal, 2010).
 Administrative Records – Administrative data (such as attendance,
assignment submissions, adherence to assignment guidelines and
participation in ancillary activities) can be examined as an indicator of
student engagement (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert,
2011). Using activity data as a proxy for motivation or interest, these
indicators provide evidence of the degree to which students have
invested in the process of learning.
Complementing formative feedback, formal measures of engagement provide
summative data to gauge effectiveness and institutional initiatives. While
informal measures are often collected during the learning process to provide
opportunities for reflection and revision, formal measures are typically
conducted at the conclusion of a learning experience to provide a metric of
program or course effectiveness. Formal measures of student engagement target
two discrete levels: institutional and course. “Institutional data determines the
extent of student engagement in the overall learning process, while course level
data determines the effect of learner-centered pedagogical methods on student
success” (Butler, 2011, p. 258). The value of student engagement as a pivotal
aspect of an effective learning experience has led to the emergence of a number
of standardized instruments to assess engagement at both the course and

7
institutional levels. The integration of any of these formalized measures must be
based on alignment between target dimensions of each instrument and the needs
(at the institutional or course level) driving the integration of the engagement
metric (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert, 2011). The following
sections highlight key engagement metrics including an overview of the target
dimensions, utility and relevance of each.
Institutional Assessment of Student Engagement
Institutional measures of student engagement are designed to “evaluate
students’ levels of engagement and the effectiveness of specific engagement
activities at the institutional level” (Butler, 2011, p. 259). The broad focus of these
measures makes them amenable for tracking institutional progress in fostering
engagement and/or comparisons between institutions. A number of these
measures are geared at an overall assessment of engagement encompassing
cognitive, affective and behavioral domains (i.e., NSSE); other measures target
specific institutional types (i.e., CCSSE) or student populations (i.e.,CSS).
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) measures institutional engagement over five dimensions of
engagement: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning,
student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences and supportive
campus environment (NSSE, 2009). Used extensively in the United States to
assess “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
educationally purposeful activities… [and] how the institution deploys its
resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get
students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are
linked to student learning” (About NSSE, 2010, para. 1). The NSSE provides a
global perspective of student engagement and is designed to measure student
involvement in educationally purposeful activities that directly impact their
learning and success in college (Kuh, 2001). Items on the NSSE require students
to assess their own level of engagement via behavioral indicators (NSSE, 2005)
including participation in class discussions, preparation of drafts prior to
submitting assignments, interactions with classmates outside of class on course-
related items, and integration of resources for course assignments.
College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). The College Student Experiences
Questionnaire (CSEQ) instrument is designed to measure the “quality of student
experiences, perceptions of the campus environment, and progress toward
important educational goals” (CSEQ, 2007, para. 1). The goal of the CSEQ is to
assess students’ perceptions of the overall learning environment to provide
instructors and administrators with diagnostic, formative feedback (Kember &
Leung, 2009; Kuh, 2007). The CSEQ aligns general issues of engagement
according to student-faculty contact, cooperation among students and active
learning (Koljatic & Kuh, 2001).
Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ). The Student Engagement Questionnaire
(SEQ) is designed to collect data on students’ holistic reflections of their overall
experiences rather than recent activities or a specific course (McNaught, Leung
& Kember, 2006). As a measure of the progression of engagement, the SEQ is

8
administered at key stages (end of first year and exit point from their
undergraduate program) to examine both cognitive aspects of engagement as
well as active involvement in the teaching and learning environment.
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). The Faculty Survey of Student
Engagement (FSSE) is an adaptation of the NSSE designed to assess faculty
perceptions of student engagement in relation to their overall student
perspective or focusing on a specific course (Ouimet & Smallwoord, 2005).
Recognizing the role that faculty play in fostering student engagement (Kuh,
Nelson, Laird & Umbach, 2004: Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004), the FSSE assesses
faculty views in relation to: 1) the frequency at which students actively
participate and engage in the learning process; 2) perceptions about the value
and relevance of various forms of engagement; and 3) the nature of faculty-
student interactions.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). The Community
College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was adapted from the NSSE to
specifically examine the unique missions, objectives and student populations of
2-year community colleges (Butler, 2011; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2006). As
such, the CCSSE targets: 1) active and collaborative learning; 2) student effort; 3)
academic challenge; 4) student-faculty interactions; and 5) support for learners.
College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ). The College Student
Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) is adapted from the CSEQ to target the
motivations and goals of new students in relation to college activities and
campus environment (CSEQ, 2007). As a companion measure to the CSEQ,
data can be longitudinally analyzed to examine the extent to which students’
preliminary expectations were met by the institution.
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE). Like the CSXQ, the
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) assesses engagement
dimensions of students entering college. The BCSSE examines the expectations
of beginning college students for participating in academic initiatives and
activities via six dimensions: 1) high school academic engagement; 2) expected
academic engagement; 3) expected academic perseverance; 4) expected academic
difficulty; 5) perceived academic preparation; and 6) importance of campus
environment (BCSSE, 2010). Data from the BCSSE may be used by institutions to
guide advising; used in conjunction with the NSSE, data can also provide
indicators of the extent to which institutions have met students’ expectations
regarding engagement in the academic community.
College Senior Survey (CSS). The College Senior Survey (CSS) is designed as an
exit survey for graduating seniors to assess a range of student perceptions
relevant to academic engagement, student involvement and resource use.
Specific to these objectives, CSS “connects academic, civic, and diversity
outcomes with a comprehensive set of college experiences to measure the impact
of college” (Higher Education Research Institute, 2013, para. 1). While the scope
of the CSS goes beyond student engagement, engagement is a key component
assessed within the measure.

9
Course Assessment of Student Engagement
Course level measures of student engagement provide valuable feedback to
gauge and enhance students’ investment in the learning process as a reflection of
the unique structure, pedagogy and design of a given course. In reflection of the
formative value of course level engagement metrics, Barkley (2010) explains that
“whatever means teacher use to assessment engagement in their classes,
gathering appropriate feedback can help close the gap between what teachers
think is happening in their classes and what students are actually experiencing”
(p. 44). In contrast to the broad focus of institutional indicators of engagement,
course engagement measures target students’ behavioral, affective and cognitive
reactions in response to a target course (Goldspink & Foster, 2013; Laird,
Smallwood, Niskode-Dossett & Garver, 2009).
Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE). Designed as a complementary
measure to the FSSE, the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE)
assesses student perceptions of engagement in a course (Ouimet & Smallwood,
2005). The student version of CLASSE metric measures the frequency by which
students engage in various educational activities, while the faculty version of
CLASSE gauges the importance of each of these indicators for facilitating
student success within a specific course (Smallwood & Ouimet, 2009). The
comparison of the two versions of CLASSE can be examined to identify
discrepancies between student and faculty reports of engagement at the course
level. Recognizing the formative focus of CLASSE, faculty using CLASSE
indicate that it prompts more reflective teaching, enhances communication with
students about learning opportunities, and fosters a more cooperative and
interactive classroom environment (Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005).
Student Engagement Index. Developed to identify specific measures of classroom
engagement aligned with each of the NSSE’s benchmarks (Langley, 2006), the
Student Engagement Index measure examines student engagement as a function
of: 1) level of academic challenge; 2) quality of student interactions with faculty;
3) active and collaborative learning environments; and 4) enriching educational
experiences and supportive campus environment (Langley, 2006). Within each
benchmark, key indicators are assessed:
 Level of academic challenge measures student effort, time investment
and interaction expectations with course-related activities.
 Quality of student interactions examines students’ access to contact with
the instructor, quality of instructor feedback, student-instructor
relationships, supportive classroom environment and instructor clarity
and organization.
 Active and collaborative learning focuses on student involvement in the
learning process via active and collaborative learning.
 Enriching educational experiences examines diversity issues, integration
and synthesis of knowledge, professional experiences and general
technology issues.

10
Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ). In contrast to the measures
adapted from broader engagement surveys, Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan and
Towler (2005) devised a measure of student course engagement (Student Course
Engagement Questionnaire; SCEQ) that breaks course engagement into four
distinct forms: 1) skills engagement; 2) emotional engagement; 3)
participation/interaction engagement; and 4) performance engagement. Broadly
encompassing behavioral, cognitive and affective aspects of engagement, the
SCEQ assesses each dimension of engagement in relation to students’ course
involvement:
 Skill engagement examines academic learning strategies and study
behaviors that promote academic success.
 Emotional engagement assesses affective components in which
students internalize learning through an emotional connection to
course material.
 Participation/interaction engagement measures students’ interaction
with the instructor and classmates in relation to course material.
 Performance engagement targets students’ perspectives and self-
efficacy in relation to mastering course content.
As highlighted by Handelsman et al. (2005) the SCEQ provides a more
comprehensive understanding of student engagement and fosters insight
beyond what is visible in behavioral observations of classroom engagement.
Student Engagement Survey (SE). The Student Engagement Survey is a short, 14-
item assessment that adapts target items from the NSSE survey for use at the
course level (Ahlfeldt, Mehta & Sellnow, 2005). The selected questions examine
student engagement as a function of: 1) collaborative learning; 2) cognitive
development; and 3) personal skills development. Respondents rate the
frequency of active learning strategies, interactivity, required depth of learning,
and skill development within the context of a target course.
Behavioral Engagement Related to Instruction (BERI). Designed to quantitatively
measure student engagement in large college classes, the BERI is a classroom
observation protocol emphasizing teaching behaviors that impact student
engagement (Lane & Harris, 2015). Conducted via an external observer, the
BERI provides formative information to guide instructors on instructional
techniques that foster increased student engagement.
Conclusion
Complexity surrounding assessment of student engagement is a natural by-
product of the dynamic, interactive nature of this phenomenon. Marcum (2000)
attempted to capture the intricacies of engagement via a conceptual formula in
which:
E = L(I+ Cp + Ch)x Inv (A + Co + Cm) => IK/Ef => E
In explanation, “Engagement = Learning (Interest + Competence + Challenge) x
Involvement (Activity + Communication + Commitment) producing Increased
Knowledge and Effectiveness which results, typically, in increased Engagement.
The process amounts to a dynamic evolving system” (Marcum, 2000, p. 59).
Echoing the dynamic relationship between engagement variables, Barkley (2010)

11
explains that “motivation and active learning work together synergistically, and
as they interact, they contribute incrementally to increase engagement… active
learning and motivation are spirals working together synergistically, building in
intensity, and creating a fluid and dynamic phenomenon that is greater than the
sum of the individual effects” (p. 7).
As highlighted by these conceptual defintions, student engagement cannot be
effectively defined or measured by a singular assessment strategy. The dynamic
nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to assessment that
captures the interactive nature of the behavioral, affective and cognitive
dimensions comprising student engagement. As student engagement is an
integral component of a successful learning experience, it is essential to select
assessment strategies that consider the range of interactive engagement
components, variability in purposes of engagement data, and differences in the
target level of analysis. Combining the information available through informal
and formal indicators of engagement at both the course and institutional level,
the assessment of student engagement provides vital data to inform pedagogy
and programmatic initiatives to foster engagement in support of students’
psychosocial growth, cognitive understanding and professional development.
References
Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student
engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of
instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5-20.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in
accreditation, planning, and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research,
141, 21-34.
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). Beginning College Survey of
Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://bcsse.iub.edu/
Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 4-7.
Braxton, J. M. (2008).Toward a scholarship of practice centered on college student
retention. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 101-112. DOI:
10.1002/tl.328
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-
215.
Butler, J. M. (2011). Using standardized tests to assess institution-wide student
engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith, & B.
Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques and
opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Available
from the STP web site: http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13).
College Student Experiences Questionnaire. (2007). General information. Retrieved from
http://cseq.iub.edu/

12
Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality
assurance.Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36.
Cross, K. P. (2005). What do we know about students' learning and how do we know it? Center
for the Study of Higher Education Research and Occasional Paper Series.
Retrieved from http://www.aahe.org/nche/cross_lecture.htm
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching
behaviours, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In
D. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Franklin, E. E. (2005). Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching
Artist Journal, 3, 148-157.
Fredricks, J. A. (2013). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis
of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson,
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY:
Springer.
Garrett, C. (2011). Defining, detecting, and promoting student engagement in college
learning environments. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal,
5(2), 1-12.
Goldspink, C., & Foster, M. (2013). A conceptual model and set of instruments for
measuring student engagement in learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3),
291-311. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.776513
Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of
technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-Class-
Technology Theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 86-113.
Guthrie, J. T., & Anderson, E. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated,
strategic, knowledgeable, social readers. In J. T. Guthrie & D. E. Alvermann
(Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17-45). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of
college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191.
Higher Education Research Institute (2013). College Senior Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/abtHERI.php
Jennings, J. M., & Angelo, T. (Eds.) (2006). Student engagement: Measuring and enhancing
engagement with learning [Proceedings of a symposium]., New Zealand:
Universities Academic Audit Unit.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for
technology-based teaching and learning, Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’
perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality
assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29., DOI: 10.1007/s10984-
008-9050-7
Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student
engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42,
351-371.
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement,
satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students.
Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72-85.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National
Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2).
Kuh, G. D. (2007). CSEQ: College Students Experience Questionnaire Assessment
Program. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/.

13
Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty and student
behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4),
24-31.
Kushman, J. W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me:
School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention
resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (pp. 471-507). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
Laird, T. F., Smallwood, R. A., Niskode-Dossett, A. S. & Garver, A. K. (2009). Effectively
involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 141, 71-81. DOI: 10.1002/ir.287
Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral
engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6),
83-91.
Langley, D. (2006). The student engagement index: A proposed student rating system
based on the national benchmarks of effective educational practice. University of
Minnesota: Center for Teaching and Learning Services.
Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E. & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing Course
Student Engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith,
& B. Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques
and opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
Available from the STP web site:
http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/.
Marcum, J. W. (2000). Out with motivation, in with engagement. National Productivity
Review, 18, 57-59.
McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student engagement and student
outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Austin, TX: University of
Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
McIntyre, D. J., Copenhaver, R. W., Byrd, D. M., & Norris, W. R. (1983). A study of
engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics
class. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 55-59.
McNaught, C., Leung, D., & Kember, D. (2006). Report on the Student Engagement
Project. Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong.
Milem, J., & Berger, J. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring
the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of
student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-400.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). National Survey of Student Engagement
2005 Annual Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and Planning.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). National Survey of Student Engagement
2009 Annual Report, Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement Over
Time. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
and Planning.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). National Survey of Student
Engagement: About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/.
Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement
from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14–
24.
Nauffal, D. (2010). Institutional effectiveness: Assessment of student engagement. Presentation
at the Higher Education International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ouimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). CLASSE: The class-level survey of student
engagement. Journal of Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher
Education, 17(6), 13-15.

14
Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 3(2): 145–158.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36-44.
Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school
and whether I've got it: The role of perceived control in children's engagement
and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.
Smallwood, R. A. & Ouimet, J. A. (2009). CLASSE: Measuring student engagement at the
classroom level. In Banta, E., Jones. E. & Black, K. (eds). Designing effective
assessment: Principles and profiles of good practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2004). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Paper presented at the annual forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.
Woods, E. G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. In School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS): Research you can use (Close-up No. 17). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Zhao, C. M. & Kuh, G. D (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement, Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.

15
© 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 15-25, June 2015
The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies
Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons
Costică Lupu
“Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacău, Faculty of Science,
Mathematics-Informatics and Science of Education Department, România
Abstract. This article demonstrates the relevance of using heuristic
problem-solving strategies in lessons of Mathematics, as a fundamental
requirement with multiple valences in building thought operations,
which leads to enhancing school performance. Our study aims at
elaborating a methodological model that may fully exploit heuristic
didactic strategies in the heuristic solving of problems. The organization
of the study will focus on improving the use and efficiency of heuristic
mathematical techniques by relating to heuristic problem solving. The
teaching strategy creates circumstances for building the students’
learning strategies and the learning methods determine the optimization
of the teaching strategies. Schematically, our aim is to build a learning
situation where the student learns (through guidance), builds (through
semi-guidance) or elaborates (independently) strategies for learning the
new content, solving strategies or even strategies for the self-guidance
and control of one’s own way of thinking. An essential element in
elaborating the teaching strategy is selecting heuristic methods and
procedures. Various methods were applied during the research:
conversation, experiment, analysis of activity products, the method of the
tests, statistical processing of the data. The research was conducted
during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two groups, each of them
comprising 24 students: experimental group – the 8th grade from
“Octavian Voicu” Middle School, Bacău, and a control group – the 8th
grade from “Miron Costin” Middle School, Bacău.
Keywords: ameliorative experiment; mathematical heuristic techniques;
teaching-learning-evaluation.
Introduction
The term heuristic comes from Greek: heuriskein – to find out, to discover.
Heuristic teaching strategies represent mental exploitation strategies supporting
the discovery of information, stimulate thought operations, the students’
judgement and reasoning, leading to active, conscious learning.

16
Traditional education, focused on the teacher and the learning content, has been
replaced by modern, student-centred education. To achieve this desideratum, the
teacher has to resort to heuristic teaching-learning strategies.
The heuristic strategy implies a wide range of methods. The most frequently
used heuristic methods include: the method of the analogy; generalization and
particularization; analysis through synthesis; selecting, searching for a related
problem; solving an auxiliary problem; rereading definitions; exploiting
properties; reformulating the problem; demonstrative reasoning (deductive,
inductive, analogical).
This strategy represents the result of the interconditioning between the two
components:
 the teaching strategy (elaborated by the teacher): the teacher’s ability to select
and combine, in a certain order, methods, procedures and training instruments,
groupings of students, select and organize the scientific content according to the
proposed objectives, opt for a certain learning situation that would be
experienced by the students;
 the learning strategy (elaborated by the student), that may be: - participation
strategies; - encoding strategies; - acquisition and reconstruction strategies; -
strategies for elaborating hypotheses; - strategies connected to problem solving.
By heuristic method we mean a specific way for solving a general problem. It
may include several procedures, these constituting details of the method, with a
more limited sphere of applicability. The heuristic procedures may be defined as
thought mechanisms that suggest and stimulate the generation of efficient
conjunctures while solving the problem, or enable the shortening of the problem
solving path.
Research description
Researcher objectives
The researcher has proposed the following benchmarks:
1. Knowledge of the heuristic teaching methods in order to be able to
heuristically solve problems by studying the reference bibliography and the
experience achieved during lessons of Mathematics;
2. Elaborating (initiating) a personal methodological process to fully exploit
heuristic teaching strategies;
3. Organizing and conducting the experiment (in order to achieve the proposed
objectives);
4. Analysing, processing and presenting the obtained results (in order to
demonstrate, in an efficient way, the heuristic methods used in problem solving);
5. Formulating conclusions (in order to understand the efficiency of the
experiment).
The research hypothesis
The organization of our experiment relied on the following hypothesis: If during
the act of teaching-learning there are efficiently used heuristic mathematical
problem-solving strategies, with multiple formative valences in building thought
operations, then these will generate an increase in school performance and the
students’ results will be much improved.

17
Sample of study
The research was conducted during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two
groups, each of them comprising 125 students: experimental group – the 8th A
grade from “Octavian Voicu” Middle School, Bacău, and 125 students: control
group – the 8th B grade from “Miron Costin” Middle School, Bacău.
The stages of the experiment
The stage of initial evaluation aimed at observing the students’ level of training
by applying initial testing which consisted of observation protocols and a
knowledge test (comprising different exercises and problems).
The stage of formative-ameliorative evaluation, during which there was
introduced the progress factor and there were varied the manifestation
circumstances by using active heuristic teaching methods, besides those used in
the heuristic problem solving process.
The stage of final evaluation consisted in a comparison of the results obtained in
the initial test, in order to highlight the students’ progress/ regress at lessons of
Mathematics, especially in problem solving.
The research variables are:
- the independent (introduced) variable, namely the use of active teaching
methods;
- the dependent variable that leads to enhancing the efficiency of heuristic
methods of solving problems and the students’ school progress.
The research methodology
The research is based on the following knowledge methods and techniques: 1.
The method of observation; 2. The method of conversation; 3. The psychological
analysis of the activity’s results/products; 4. The method of tests; 5. The
statistical-mathematical methods.
Specialized literature
Types of heuristic teaching strategies in problem solving
The teaching strategies highlight the teacher’s ability to select and combine, in a
certain order, training methods and procedures, groupings for students, select
and organize the scientific content according to the proposed objectives, opt for a
certain learning situation that will be experienced by the students.
The teaching strategy implies a certain way of approaching learning and teaching
that may be: analytical or synthetic, intuitive or deductive, creative or
algorithmic, theoretical or practical-applicative, frontal or individual, classic or
modern, interdisciplinary or monodisciplinary.
According to the selected strategy, the teacher searches for and associates those
operations (analysis, comparison, association, analogy, interpretation,
generalization, abstraction etc.) in order to reach the desired acquisitions
(knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviours, attitudes). In this respect, the students’

18
physical and mental activity is decomposed into a series of sequences, with a
view to organizing each moment of the lesson.
At the level of teaching, the strategy is part of the methodology, the teacher’s art
of leading, solving training situations. The teacher uses the elements of the
teaching-learning-evaluation process as a system, in order to achieve objectives
in a certain manner, a procedural option, a combinatory style, a coordination
style, a model for typical and optimal solving. Therefore, it is an act of
institutional management.
Characterized, essentially, as a way for combining and approaching teaching-
learning-evaluation, of organizing the process in order to achieve objectives, the
teaching strategy provides criteria for building training actions and situations by:
- selecting the orientation towards a certain type, form, way of teaching and
learning and of conducting them;
- selecting the best set of methods, means, forms of organization that circulate the
learning contents;
- indicating the conditions, minimal resources needed to reach a certain objective
or group;
- conceiving, designing teaching-learning-evaluation sequentially or in
compliance with a certain concatenation and order of these; finding the proper
solution for defining, selecting, correlating the situations resulted from relating to
previously established objectives;
- achieving various combinations of these elements of the process of training,
both at the global level (macro-design) and at the level of a concrete teaching,
learning (micro-design) situation, in relation to a certain operational objective;
- indicating a certain way for introducing the student into the created situation,
guiding him in solving the task, until its completion and evaluation;
- relating this combination to other determined conditions – the students’ initial
level of training, allotted time, moment of beginning, place among the other
situations, material circumstances;
- formulating a version, a solution resembling a decision, after having processed
the information accumulated in relation to the elements of the situation, such as
type, organization and conducting it;
- the possibility to particularize its elements into actions, delimited operations
(procedures) that may enhance the degree of precision, control, prevention of
deviations and streamlining;
- the teacher’s possibility to guide the situation’s evolution, to seize disturbing
factors and intervene, to find solutions for adopting or selecting another method
ad-hoc;
- to engage students according to their particularities, to assert creativity,
teaching style and how the teacher leads the action;

19
- indicating the proper way for putting the student into contact with the
objectives, contents, concrete tasks, achievement conditions, evaluation criteria,
the type of learning and exploiting previous experience;
- formulating even research hypotheses for optimizing training by introducing,
experimenting new methodological, organizational combinations;
- delimiting the degree and form for extending the guidance of students in
training, solving, generalizing results, involving them in specific learning
activities;
- supporting the teacher in finding answers to the questions he himself raises
while designing teaching, defining and combining the required training-
evaluation situations;
- unifying criteria, adjusting them to the establishment of the strategy for solving
the situation: the teacher’s design, objectives, informational content, the students’
type of experience, the rules that must be complied with, the teaching-material
resources, the allotted time.
Types of heuristic strategies in solving problems
a) according to the learning activity in the training process:
- algorithmic: - through imitation of given models; - through repetition, practice,
memorization; - through reception, reproduction; - through concrete-intuitive
knowledge; - through algorithmization, step by step;
- heuristic: - through unmediated observation; - by solving open problems ; -
through experimentation ; - through debates, heuristic dialogues; - through
group research; - through simulation, modelling, applications; - through
creativity techniques etc.
- mixed: - by combining all the other types.
b) according to the way of guiding learning: - step-by-step guidance; - semi-
guidance; - partial non-intervention.
c) according to the type of reasoning applied: - inductive teaching-learning; -
deductive teaching-learning; - transductive teaching-learning; - learning by
analogy; - combining reasonings.
Any strategy is simultaneously a technique and educational art, the selection and
use of any type of strategy decisively depends on the teacher’s training and
personality, since during a teaching activity the teacher may use a combination of
strategies, corresponding situations in order to enhance the efficiency of his
actions and the quality of results.
Research results
Initial evaluation
During the observational stage, we applied an initial evaluation test. The test was
elaborated by taking into account the objectives that had to be achieved by the
end of the 8th grade, in order to establish the student’s level of training.
Analysing the data from the tables, we may argue that:

20
- the results obtained by the students from the experimental class constitute
information on the knowledge of the respective student, as well as the student’s
knowledge gaps;
- the total score at the level of the class represents the sum of the points obtained
for each item plus one point from the office.
Following the recording of these data, our conclusions regarding the students’
initial training level are the following: - the students had difficulties in solving
problems; - the average of the experimental class is 7,3 , this representing the
starting point in conducting our research.
The initial test was meant to establish the students’ level of training. The test
helped us notice the fact that the most difficult item was I4 , whereas the best
results were obtained at items I1 , I2 , I3 . The data per student demonstrated
relevant differences between the students who had solved 2-3 tasks and those
who had solved all the tasks. We found that the level of the class is lower-
intermediate.
Applying the initial test enabled us to identify the students’ learning difficulties
in the initial phase and, in relation to their extent, a more prolonged focus on the
respective content until all the students have achieved a corresponding training
level.
Analysing the graphs that represent the results obtained by the students from the
experimental class, we found that from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the
mark VW (very well) representing 43%, 45 children obtained the mark W (well),
representing 36%, and 26 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing
21% of the participants.
Analysing the graphs that show the results obtained by the students of the class,
we found that in the initial evaluation, the results of the control group were the
following: from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the mark VW (very
well), representing 43% of them, 37 children obtained the mark of W (well),
representing 30%, and 20 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing
16%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark I (insufficient), representing 11 %
of the participants.
Analysing the results obtained by the students with poorer results, we found that
these are challenged by difficulties in solving the following tasks: - they do not
perform calculi correctly; - they do not solve problems completely; - they do not
compose problems following the given model; - they do not find the question
that they need to raise in order to solve the problem.
Following the results obtained by the experimental class, we have noticed the fact
that most students come across difficulties when solving problems.
Formative evaluation
The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled
the immediate knowledge of the students’ learning difficulties. In order to

21
eliminate the errors, we resorted to differentiating the activities. Following the
analysis of the tests, there were presented the unachieved operational objectives,
so that these may be aimed at during the proposed recovery activities.
Analysing the data, we may argue that although the students from the
experimental class did not record major leaps in terms of their marks, almost all
of them achieved better scores compared to the previous tests, therefore the
learning experience was a success. We have also noticed the fact that the most
frequent errors were those related to calculus, which indicates that the methods
used in the heuristic solving of problems are known and acquired by the
students of the class.
The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled
the immediate identification of errors and the students’ learning difficulties.
Looking at the tables with the data from the ameliorative formative tests and at
the graphs with the scores and marks obtained in the initial tests, we may notice
the fact that the school performance was improved as follows: - the average at the
initial test for the experimental group was 7,3 and at formative test no. 1 the
average was 8; - at formative test no. 2, there was a slight increase compared to
the first test, the average being 8,2.
This increase is due to surpassing the more serious difficulties related to the
contents of learning. The scores obtained were significantly higher than for the
previous test. The results obtained highlight the relevance of formative
evaluation tests applied during the learning activities and confirm the usefulness
of the heuristic methods used. The fact that the results of the students from the
experimental class were improved, with even the less industrious students
achieving a promotion level, determined us to interfere, when it was necessary,
with worksheets for repeating certain tasks, in order to achieve a more thorough
acquisition of knowledge.
The progress obtained by the students compared to the initial test cannot be
interpreted only as enhancement of percentages related to achieving objectives,
but also in relation to the use of heuristic working methods, which led to
activating the desire for performance or for increasing performance and,
implicitly, a more active, conscious participation of students.
Summative (final) evaluation
On June the 1st 2014, there was applied the final evaluation of students through
an evaluation test. In order to centralize and interpret the data, we have resorted
to analytical and synthetic tables, frequency polygons, histograms and diagrams.
The final evaluation test was designed in a similar manner to the initial one, so
that the results obtained may be compared, the knowledge included in the
syllabus being defined as operational objectives encoded as items.
The analysis of the analytical and synthetic tables of the histogram, the frequency
polygon and the circular diagram revealed the fact that in the final evaluation,

22
for the experimental group, the results were the following: from the 125 evaluated
children, 80 obtained the mark VW (very well), representing 64%, 36 children
obtained the mark W (well), representing 29 %, and 9 child obtained the mark S
(sufficient), representing 7 % of the participants.
The analysis of the analytical and synthetic table, of the histogram, frequency
polygon and circular diagram, revealed that in the final evaluation, the results for
the control group were the following: from the 125 evaluated children, 55 obtained
the mark VW (very well), representing 44%, 46 children obtained the mark W
(well), representing 37%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark S (sufficient),
representing 19% of the participants.
The comparative analysis of the data obtained in the initial and final
evaluation form
In order to highlight the progresses related to improving relations following the
conducted experiment and the applied methodology, we have proceeded to
performing a comparative analysis of the two series from the initial and final
evaluation.
MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation
VERY WELL 54 80
WELL 45 36
SUFFICIENT 26 9
INSUFFICIENT 0 0
Table 1: Comparative analysis for the experimental group
Figure 1: Frequency polygon comparative analysis of the results from the initial and final
evaluation for the experimental group
The comparison of the results obtained in the predictive and final test have
revealed the fact that throughout the school year, as a result of the systematic
application of active methods and differentiated learning during lessons, the
progress of students was both qualitative and quantitative. This fact was easily
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Very well Well Sufficient Insufficient
Initial evaluation
Final evaluation

23
seen in the ease and pleasure with which the students acquired a great amount of
knowledge, with which they operated in solving problems and problem-
situations (knowledge acquired especially through their personal effort), in the
pleasure with which they worked throughout the entire school year.
The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon revealed the
progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group. The
results obtained in the final evaluation show an obvious difference from the
scores obtained in the initial evaluation. This reveals the fact that the formative
stage was efficient, the results obtained demonstrating the improvement of the
results.
MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation
WERY WELL 54 55
WELL 37 46
SUFFICIENT 20 14
INSUFFICIENT 14 0
Table 2: Comparative analysis for the control group
The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon reveals, for the
control group, the fact that the number of students who obtained the mark VW
remained the same, the number of those who obtained the mark W increased, the
number of those with mark S did not increase but there increased the percentage
for mark I. The results obtained in the final evaluation test did not increase
significantly compared to the points obtained at the stage of initial evaluation.
MARKS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
VERY WELL 80 55
WELL 36 46
SUFFICIENT 9 14
INSUFFICIENT 0 0
Table 3: Comparative analysis between the two groups in the final evaluation
Figure 2: Frequency polygon comparative analysis for final evaluation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Very well Well Sufficient Insufficient
Experimental group
Control group

24
The comparative analysis of the histogram and frequency polygon reveals the
progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group.
Calculating the average between the two tests (initial and final) and drawing a
comparison between the two groups, there may be observed an increase in the
school performance for the experimental group as compared to the control
group.
Conclusions
In general, it may be said that solving problems constitutes the most appropriate
way for achieving the objectives of teaching-learning Mathematics. The activity
of Mathematics requires effort, focus and activation of all the components of the
human psychic, particularly thought and intelligence. The intellectual effort put
into composing and solving problems is, essentially, a continuous exercise that
results in building the students’ imagination and creativity.
From the instructive-educational perspective, solving problems constitutes the
application of acquired knowledge in relation to mathematical operations and
their properties, deepening and consolidating knowledge. In terms of practice,
solving problems represents the seizing and understanding of the relations
between sizes that we come across on a daily basis, for the solving of which it is
not enough to know only the calculus technique.
The main objective of each lesson should serve not just training, but also
education, an action where the leading role belongs to the educator. This should
avoid the formal nature of the lesson and ensure an atmosphere of constant
communication, the students participating with their own ideas, questions that
the educator should tactfully guide towards the proposed educational goal. At
the same time, he should aim at the accessibility of learning by challenging the
student, in a systematic, conscious, gradated way, with obstacles that the student
may overcome under his guidance.
Composing and solving problems will challenge students throughout the entire
school period as well as their entire life, but by being discreetly led towards
discovering the solution, they will be enthusiastic and encouraged to obtain more
and more performances.
The results obtained by applying the tests have generated the following findings:
- the data obtained highlighted the higher results from the final test compared to
the initial test, demonstrating the efficiency of the development thinking and
finding several alternatives for solving a problem;
- the continuous, sustained solving of problems also helped the students with
poorer results, removing their fear of failure and shyness;
- the systematic training of students in finding as many possible alternatives for
solving a problem leads to building the students’ creativity;

25
- involving the students in creative, active-participative activities gives the
teacher the possibility to know individual particularities better, the style of each
student, intelligence, will, temperament, behaviour, in a word, personality.
I believe that the proposed objective and hypothesis have been confirmed, our
work constituting a possible guide for teachers in their activity of solving simple,
composed or typical problems.
References
Aebli, H., (1998). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens. Eine allgemeine Didaktik auf
Kognitions psychologischer Grundlage (Twelve basic forms of teaching. An
approach to General Didactics founded on Cognitive Psychology; 1st.ed.:1983),
10th.ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Ausubel, D.P., & Robinson, F.G., (1981). Learning in the school. An introduction to the
pedagogical psychology (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing
House, Bucharest.
Cucoș, C., (1998). Psycho-pedagogy for teaching exams and grades completed, (in
Romanian), Polirom Publishing House, Iaşi.
Dumitriu, C., (2004). Introduction to pedagogical research, (in Romanian), Didactic and
Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest.
Gagne, R.M., (1975). Learning conditions, (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical
Publishing House, Bucharest.
Gagne, R.M., & Briggs L.J., (1977). Principles of design training, Didactic and Pedagogical
Publishing House, Bucharest.
Lupu, C. (2006), Teaching Mathematics, (in Romanian), Caba Publishing House,
Bucharest, Romania.
Lupu, C., & Săvulescu D., (2000). Teaching geometry, (in Romanian), Paralela 45
Publishing House, Pitesti.
Lupu, C. (2013). Establishment of Cognitive Functions trough Mathematical Education,
Quality and Efficiency in E-Learning, Vol. 1 Book Series: eLearning and Software
for Education Pages: 178-183.
Lupu, C. (2014). The Psiho-pedagogical Paradigm of Discipline Didactics, LAMBERT
Academic Publishing, OmniScriptum GmbHet Co. KG, Saarbrucken,
Deutschland/ Germany.
Lupu, C. (2014). The model object-product-cognitive operation through mathematical
education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 163, Pages 132 – 141.
Nyberg E. M., & Olander M. H., (2015). A study of formative assessment strategies in
teachers’ school-based in-service training, International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational, Vol.11, Nr. 1.
Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B., (2005).Training of self-regulatory and problem-
solving competence, Learning and Instruction, Volume 15, Issue 2, 123–139.
Postolică, V., & Lupu, C., (2015). Euclidean Geometry and Computers. Published online,
as Original Research Article in the International Journal of Applied Science and
Mathematics, Vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 1 – 6.

26
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 26-47, June 2015
The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on
Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting,
Facilitating Discourse, and Direct Instruction
Jamie Costley
English Education Department, Kongju National University,
Kongju, South Korea
Abstract. As more and more institutions are using asynchronous forums
as the main or only means for students to interact online, the need to
understand the effects of instructor intervention on learner discourse in
those types of learning environments has become more important. This
study will describe the effects of different types of instructor
intervention on learners’ levels of critical thinking and social presence.
The research involved taking 900 learner posts from three differing
experimental conditions and analyzing those posts for social presence
and critical thinking. The three experimental conditions were no
instructor posting, posts containing facilitating discourse, and posts
containing direct instruction. The results showed instructor posts that
facilitate discourse generate higher levels of social presence when
compared to the other two conditions, and instructor posts that contain
direct instruction increase critical thinking. These results are important
in general, because instructors must be aware of how their behavior may
affect how learners interact (and therefore learn) online. More
specifically, the types of discourse their learners create are of interest to
many instructors. Therefore, the ways instructors can manipulate
learner discourse is of great importance.
Keywords: Teaching presence; critical thinking; social presence;
direct instruction; facilitating discourse
1. Introduction
Asynchronous online forums are the most commonly used medium of
communication for learners in higher education settings (Johnson, 2007; Harman
& Koohang, 2005). Asynchronous online forums are generally easy to use for
general student-to-student communication and for more complex collaborative
tasks (Reid, Katz and Jacobsen, 2006). Regardless of the fact that student-to-
student interaction may be the purpose of many forums, instructors still have
responsibility to oversee and in some cases intervene in the learning
environment (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer; 2001). Furthermore,
studies have established the importance and effectiveness of instructor behavior
when students interact online (Andresen, 2009; Shea, Chun, & Pickett, 2006) and

27
the effect of teaching presence on critical thinking and social presence in
particular (Prasad, 2009;Swan & Shih, 2005). The way learners interact with each
other is of core importance when assessing the quality of a learning environment
(Martyn, 2005). To effectively allow learners to collaborate there needs to be
some form of in depth interaction. This interaction is usually manifested in
either some type of written or spoken dialogue or discourse. The underlying
assumption that underpins this is that a community of learners is helpful for
learning, and necessary for higher order learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).
Online asynchronous forums, correctly administered and controlled, have the
ability to develop insightful socially connected learners (Harman & Koohang,
2005). When asked, learners respond that instructor involvement is crucial to
academic success and engagement (Hughes & Daykin, 2002; Rourke &
Anderson, 2002; Salmon 2002; Shea, 2003). This idea can be further developed as
showing that some degree of scaffolding and teacher control can raise the level
of discourse. This parallels research offline which shows that support develops
learners’ motivation and ability to complete tasks to a high level (Baeten, Dochy,
& Struyven, 2013).
This study investigates the effects of instructor posting on student
discussion in online threaded asynchronous forums. Direct analysis of student
discussions were used to develop a rich understanding of how instructor
posting can effect learner discussion. Measurements of social presence and
critical thinking within the learner discourse were used to evaluate the quality of
the posts that learners were producing. This paper will describe the effects that
varying types of instructor behavior have on the levels of social presence and
critical thinking within learner discussions.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Teaching presence, social presence and critical thinking
In an online environment, the way that a teacher interacts (or doesn’t
interact) is one of the key elements in manipulating the way that the learners
within the online learning environment will behave. Teacher behavior has clear
and direct relationships with satisfaction and learning (Shea, Fredrickson,
Pickett & Pelz, 2003). Teaching behavior is best conceptualized by Anderson,
Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001) as “teaching presence”. Teaching presence is
defined as, “…..the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social
presences for realizing personally meaningful and emotionally worthwhile
learning outcomes.” (Anderson et al., 2001, pg 5). They note that individual
learning without the aid of formal instruction can be effective. However, when
using any kind of online interactive medium or cooperative learning some kind
of guidance (teaching presence) is required. Anderson et al. (2001) seek to
identify the differing types of teaching presence so as to further our
understanding of how to smoothly run CSCL environments and how those
different parts of teaching presence can be measured.

28
Anderson et al. (2001) criticize a laissez faire or “guide on the side”
approach to online learning as not taking full advantage of the potential
contributions of instructors in guiding the discourse and giving instruction.
They argue for some degree of direct instruction and facilitation of learners as
they progress through learning tasks. Direct instruction is the process by which
instructors control pedagogical aspects of the learning environment. That is, the
instructors delivering information to the learners in terms of their experience
and knowledge. The facilitation of discourse as a part of teaching presence can
be easily overlooked in online environments but it is of vital importance for
keeping the course flowing and keeping the students committed to, interested in
and motivated towards the learning objectives of the course. If instructors fail to
adequately manage the interactions between learners, then those interactions can
break down (Shin, 2008). Facilitating discourse is very much intertwined with
the ways that learners interact with each other within the learning community
(Rourke et al. 2001).
The conceptualization of social presence began with Mehrabian (1969)
and his idea of immediacy. Immediacy refers to actions, which bring individuals
together and increase the intensity and/or frequency of interactions between
them. The concept of affinity is defined as an individual’s positive attitude
towards another individual, and high levels of it would increase levels of
meaningful communication between people interacting together (McCroskey &
Wheeless 1976). The lack of physical closeness or nonverbal behaviors would be
detrimental to individual-to-individual communication, which brings about a
problem when trying to develop most kinds of asynchronous communication
mediums online, as they lack any kind of nonverbal social cues. Regardless of
this, while nonverbal cues are lacking in asynchronous learning environments,
social dimensions of interaction can be met in other ways. Learners and
instructors tend to use a great deal of text introducing themselves, making jokes
and attempting to relate to others within the learning community (Rourke et al.
2001). These forms of interaction are required for the development of in depth
collaboration. It has been shown that higher levels of interaction lead to greater
knowledge development and stronger social ties online (Tan, Tripathi, Zuiker
and Seah 2010).
Critical thinking allows the learner to assess the quality of their current
knowledge and incoming knowledge; it also allows the learner to develop
knowledge of their own (Dewey, 1933). One of the main advantages of Dewey’s
framework of reflective thinking is that most forms of conscious cognition
(critical, abstract, inference for example) can be explained by the theory
(Garrison and Archer, 2000). The learner’s experience in an online learning
environment can also be modeled through the core of reflective thinking model.
The learner moves through imagination, deliberation and action towards
understanding of the material being covered (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). More
specifically, asynchronous written discourse is more strongly weighted towards
reflective thinking as opposed to most verbal discourse that is often spontaneous
and lacking in reflection (Garrison et al. 2003). More directly and powerfully, a

29
discourse with high levels of critical thinking has a strong positive relationship
with learning (Pilkington, 2001).
2.2 The effects of teaching presence on social presence and critical thinking
Instructor presence is important in developing the levels of social
presence students feel in online courses and an instructor’s style of intervention
affects how learners feel and the degree that they participate online. This can be
a positive experience, in that learners tend to judge instructors who intervene
more often higher than those who don’t. However, instructor intervention can
also lead to discussions being cut short (Swan and Shih, 2005; Mazzolini and
Maddison, 2002). Certain dimensions of social presence (social context, online
communication and interactivity) can be enhanced by instructor interventions
online. If instructors engage learners in social tasks and take steps to remove
layers of formality between themselves, then social presence can be improved
(Tu & McIsaac, 2002). More specifically some interventions instructors can use to
promote social presence are: contributing to discussion boards, promptly answering
e-mail, providing frequent feedback, striking up conversations, sharing personal stories
and experiences, using humor, using emoticons, addressing students by name, and
allowing students options for addressing the instructor (Aragon, 2003). Topics which
are more focused around personal issues, induce higher levels of social presence
and students with higher levels of social presence report that their instructors
had a more “personal tone” in their online interaction and that those instructors
spent time developing a sense of community. This is in contrast to learners with
lower levels of social presence who can often feel passive and bored when trying
to relate with the class content (Swan and Shih, (2005). Further to this, student’s
sense of community is also positively related to their levels of social presence.
Learners with high levels of social presence report a stronger feeling of
community toward the other learners they are interacting with (Shea, Li, Swan &
Pickett, 2005). It has been shown that facilitating discourse increases a learner’s
sense of connection with the course (Dringus, Snyder and Terral, 2010).
In Dewey’s (1933) work, he discussed the idea that the development of
higher order critical thinking skills, “ appeared in student discussions only when
prompted by specific instructional techniques” Pg. 9. Specifically, he claimed
that collaborative solutions tended to be introduced when the teacher or
instructor of the online course prompted the learners to move towards those
kinds of solutions. Teaching presence features, according to Dewey, contribute
directly to students engaging in a positive and meaningful way. This ties in well
with research that shows that teaching presence is positively correlated with
critical thinking (Prasad, 2009). Learners clearly value responsiveness and clarity
when trying to learn in an online environment (Sheridan & Kelly, 2010).This
further shows the need for instructor intervention when developing learners’
engagement with content online and their construction of a meaningful critical
learning experience.

30
3. Research Questions
The goal of this study was to examine how different types of instructor posting
affected the content of student posts within an asynchronous online discussion.
More specifically, the goal of this study was to examine whether student posts
that succeeded instructor posts of different types had higher or lower levels of
critical thinking, or whether the levels remained the same. To gather
information on this topic, posts were selected based on three different
experimental conditions.
No instructor posting: The posts from this condition were taken from threads in
which there was no instructor posting of any type.
Facilitating discourse: The posts from this condition were taken from threads
containing instructor posts that were designed to facilitate discourse.
Direct instruction: The posts from this condition were taken from threads
containing instructor posts that were designed to give direct instruction.
The following questions guided this study:
Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of social
presence in the learners’ discourse? If so, in what ways?
Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of
critical thinking in the learners’ discourse? If so, in what ways?
4. Methods
4.1. Subjects and Context
The 219 participants for this experiment were taking English classes
focused on preparing them for the Korean teachers entrance exam (im-yong-
gyo-shi) over three semesters in 2013 and 2014. This study takes the posts
generated by the users of an online forum as part of a blended learning
environment with the online posting meant to support and further develop the
students’ offline discourse and writing skills in the hope that this will develop
their ability to generate meaningful understanding of issues pertaining to class
management and delivering instruction. Offline course activities included
lectures, group work and presentations. The main online component of the
course was the students’ use of an asynchronous message board where they
could post their ideas and respond to others’ ideas related to the course
materials. The gender and major breakdown for the classes can be seen in table
1.

31
Table 1. The Gender and majors of the subjects.
Total
Gender
Male 77
Female 142
Major
English 112
Special 14
Business 4
Pedagogy 6
Art 8
Life Skills 15
Ethics 6
Early Childhood 6
Literature* 5
Social Studies 9
Calligraphy 2
Korean 7
Music 2
Tourism* 1
Chemistry 9
History 4
Earth Science 5
Economics* 2
Geography 2
Total 219
All majors were part of the college of education except those marked with an *
4.2 Experimental Procedures
This study was conducted over the course of a year and a half (3
semesters) and involves varying the types of instructor posts that learners
encountered. Instructor posting is defined and operationalized in Anderson, et
al. (2001) along two of their constructs, instructor posts containing direct
instruction, and instructor posts containing facilitating discourse. Furthermore, a
third condition of instructor posting was investigated, which included cases
where there was no instructor posting. In terms of delivering the posts of teacher
presence in this experiment, there was a degree of qualitative judgment in each
case. Instructor postings were made each Friday once a week for the duration of
the experiment. The posts were made over the course of the day as a great deal
of consideration had to be given to where each type of teaching presence would
be appropriate. There could be a concern that delivery would have to fall into
two categories. Either A) instructor posting would be somewhat haphazard, in
that postings could not be regular in timing and number, or B) postings would
have to be forced somewhat arbitrarily into the learning environment. The
reason for this is that a great many of the instructor posting types require a

32
reaction to something that the learners have written. The unpredictability of this
caused some concern at the outset. However, over the course of the experiment
there were no cases where it was a challenge to make instructor postings that
were appropriate.
To simplify my process in delivering the instructor postings, I simply
opened up and read all threads for that particular group. Once that was done I
made a judgment on which threads would most benefit from each particular
type of posting, then made the post. Inter-rater reliability for the instructor posts
were calculated using Cohen’s Kappa. Three instructors with experience in
online learning were asked to match 50 cases of instructor posting with the
indictors for direct instruction and facilitating discourse. The resulting Kappa of
.86 was considered acceptable, and we can accept that these posts represent
examples of those cases of instructor presence.
4.3 Facilitating Discourse
There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this
experiment to base the researcher’s facilitating posts around: identifying areas of
agreement/disagreement; seeking to reach consensus/understanding;
encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions; setting
climate for learning; drawing in participants, prompting discussion; and
assessing the efficacy of the process.
Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement: In this case the instructor was looking
for cases where the learners disagreed and that such disagreement may be
unnoticed and/or require addressing by the learners. Furthermore, this type of
facilitating discourse was used when it seemed that learners agreed but the tone
of the post was that of disagreement. Finally this type of post was injected when
learners agreed on an issue when it would be somewhat unusual for them to do
so.
Examples:
A) It seems like there are several issues regarding grade variation and between
country variation.
B) I think you agree with Clovereat and your example really supports his/her
idea. Also, I think you provided good advice for people looking to motivate
students.
Seeking to reach consensus/understanding: This type of post is similar to the above
case, but it involves the instructor attempting to build the discourse and connect
learners together. It was used in similar circumstances but as can be seen from
the examples below, it seeks to develop the learners’ ideas further and move the
discourse onwards.
Examples:
A) It is cool. Thighburger and Hyesoo are posting in the same threads together.
It is good that you guys share similar ideas. Is there any ground where you
disagree with one another?
B) I think in this case you both agree that Hanguel is important but for slightly
different reasons. Your main points are the same and that is what matters. In

33
that case, why don’t you see if there is a key area in which you both can agree
on?
Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions: These types of
posts are pretty simple and were introduced in cases where learners were
giving ideas that were different, posting for the first time, seemed to be unsure,
and seemed to need some encouragement.
Examples:
A) Interesting perspective Cozy Sonya. I think you have good ideas on this topic.
B) It is good that you guys were happy to try something different.
Setting climate for learning: As with encouragement, this intervention type was
introduced when learners required help or encouragement. It differs from the
previous posting type in that its specific purpose is to demonstrate and show the
type of learning environment the learners are participating in and what is and or
isn’t appropriate.
Examples:
A) You have said something useful; don’t feel like you need to hold back.
B) Don’t be embarrassed by your comment. I think it is a useful contribution to
the discussion.
Drawing in participants, prompting discussion: This type of instructor post is
similar to a type of direct instruction (presenting content/questions) however it
differs in that it does not seek to introduce new information or ideas into the
thread. This type of posting is used when learners have expressed an idea that
the instructor thinks will be of interest to other learners and/or learners have
expressed an idea that has a clear follow-up line of discussion. When students
beg the question, this type of posting is also used.
Example:
A) Good answer. It is interesting that you changed your mind over time. Just so I
can clearly understand you: Which test do you think is the most useful to study
for, TOIEC or TOEFL?
B: Good way of thinking. Do you all think that is the most important factor
though?
Assess the efficacy of the process: This type of facilitating discourse is focused
around judgment of the discourse and how the learners are interacting. This was
used in two main cases, where learners had very clearly developed an idea to its
conclusion, and where learners’ discourse had gone somewhat off track.
Examples:
A) It is OK to think outside the box, but remember, "facility" means something
physical like a building or a room. It doesn't really include teachers or teaching
methods. This is a case where we need to remember to keep our conversation
focused on the issues.
B) I agree with all of you. This discussion has really exposed our ideas and
conceptions of how teachers should behave.
4.4 Direct Instruction

34
There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this
experiment to base the instructor’s direct instruction posts around: presenting
content/questions, focusing the discussion on specific issues, summarizing the
discussion, confirming understanding and giving feedback, diagnose
misconceptions, and injecting knowledge. There is a seventh indicator for direct
instruction that was not used in this experiment: responding to technical
concerns. In this study, responses to technical concerns were handled offline.
Present content/questions: This posting type was introduced in cases where the
instructor had some insight or knowledge about the topic that could move the
discussion forward. If the learners had reached an impasse or if there was some
piece of information the instructor felt would further develop the ideas being
expressed, then this type of post was delivered.
Examples:
A) Great responses everyone. I think it is clear that a useful distinction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation depends on the context you try to apply it, as
opposed to a strict definition. Nearly all behaviors will have a mixture of the
two.
B) So oyster, teachers spend a lot of time standing up and presenting
information to students. If that is the case, would you say a teacher should be
extroverted?
Focus the discussion on specific issues: Posting of this type was introduced to the
learning environment when the discussion became too broad or when focusing
the discussion on a specific issue would bring the learners more understanding
of the topic. This was usually done by asking a question that directed learners
onto a more focused or specific issue.
Example:
A) This is good discussion but I would like to focus. Can anyone give an
example where a specific technique motivated you or another student?
B) This is a good explanation. Can you think of how you would change your
teaching style if you were in an ESL or EFL classroom?
Summarize the discussion: After the learners had contributed some ideas to the
topic being discussed (usually around 7 posts). The instructor summarized what
learners had written.
Examples:
A) To summarize what has been written: Classroom management
techniques were mentioned as a good area to focus on. Particularly having a
range of differing techniques, because of the range of possible situations a
teacher may find him/herself in. An example of this would be using multimedia
to keep students interested in class. Furthermore, it was mentioned that student-
teachers need to maintain their level of respect. This can be done by clearly
stating the position the teacher has in relation to the students. An example of this
was acting as if you were already a teacher even though you haven’t graduated.
Also it was suggested that student teachers need to believe in themselves and be
confident to help overcome difficulties. The usefulness of confidence has been
emphasized.

Assessing Student Engagement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Assessing Student Engagement

Similar to Assessing Student Engagement (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Student Engagement