I have realised that it has been a while
since I last blogged. I have been writing up sections of my literature review
in order to help me identify and understand the current theories and debates on
the topic is engagement in education. This process has also helped me to
understand my own opinions on the literature, and whether it correlates or
contradicts what I have discovered in my own inquiry thus far, particularly in
observations and interviews. Inspired by Lisa’s blog, I have decided to
briefly list my ‘guests’ to my literature review dinner party, so far, and the
reason I have invited these researchers:
Reschly and Christenson (2012): the authors
have co-edited, ‘The Handbook of Engagement in Education’ which includes
chapters of the views representing many significant researchers. The book
provides a good outline of current debates, whilst at the same time offering a
clear overview of engagement in education.
Fredricks, Blumenfled and Paris (2004): the
researchers have published a key text, which is often referred to when defining
engagement. There is debate on whether there is one true definition of
engagement, however the majority of authors identify that engagement is
multifaceted, definable in three ways: behavioural, cognitive and emotional.
Furrer and Skinner (2003): both are
noteworthy researchers in the field, with decades of research behind both. They
highlight that teaching directly impacts upon engagement. Argue the importance
of ‘relatedness’ and teacher-student relationships
Roorda et al (2011): states that teachers
warmth and support is vital in engaging students. They write specifically about
how adolescents are as reliant, if not more reliant, than younger students on
teacher-student-relationships (TSRs).
Kelm and Connell (2004): introduce the idea
that care is important but so is structure in a classroom environment.
Skinner and Belmont (1993): have written a
key text in the literature of engagement, which is referred to by many other
authors in the field. They explain why structure is so important.
Jang, Reeve and Deci (2010): all of the
researchers have published independent work and are all significant
contributors to the vital theory of ‘autonomy support’ in engagement. They
theorise that autonomy support increases engagement. They also identify that
structure is not the same as control. Independently, Reeve (2009) has
identified why teachers adopt a more controlling style over autonomy support;
these include reasons such as pressures from above and below as well as control
being perceived as good behaviour management.
Ainley (2012) and Darr (2012): both
individual researchers argue that motivation is not inextricably linked to
engagement (unlike the researchers above), arguing that motivation is not
essential to achieving engagement in activities.
Janosz (2012): this authors questions
whether engagement can be studied as an independent construct, as engagement is
so reliant on the environment in which the learning activity is taking place
and is mainly human in its nature.
I
have decided to post some sections of my literature review on my blog because I
believe that they are important in my inquiry, especially as my first inquiry
questions is: Using subject specialists’ perceptions and
literature, what is student engagement in the teaching of English and Drama? In the sections below, I have
tried to outline the current debates in the literature, whilst relating this to
my inquiry so far.
... Reschly
and Christenson (2012) state that the subject of engagement, although a fairly
new term in educational discourse introduced in the 1980s, has become a highly
researched topic in recent decades that has ‘captured the interested and
curiosity of international researchers from a range of discipline’ (p v).
Reschly and Christenson (2012) conclude, in alignment with many scholarly
theorists, that engagement in indistinguishably linked to effective learning,
which is a key determiner for academic success. Therefore, it engagement offers
important insight into the understanding of student learning (Reschly and
Christenson 2012). A key fact that arises in the literature is that student
engagement decreases as children progress through their education (Assor 2010).
... Defining
‘engagement’ has become one of the most controversial debates within the
literature itself. Reschly and Christenson (2012) state that ‘The study of
engagement is hindered by lack of consensus in both the number of subtypes and
the definitions of student engagement’ (p 11). This key flaw in the research
has made defining my inquiry considerably difficult. From studying the
literature, it has become evident that the work of Fredricks, Blumenfeld and
Paris (2004) has become paramount in the definition of engagement for most
researchers in the field. They identify that engagement is multifaceted and can
be defined in three ways, ‘Behavioral
engagement draw on the idea of participation’, ‘Emotional Engagement encompasses positive and negative reactions to
teachers… and willingness to do the work’ lastly, ‘cognitive engagement… incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness
to extert the effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult
skills’ (Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris 2004 p 60). The majority agree that engagement
is a multidimensional construct, however the
lack of clarity in the facilitators and indicators of engagement has meant that
research in this field has lost precision (Reschly and Christenson 2012). In
terms of my inquiry, the most detailed and concise definition derivers from the
work of Reschly and Christenson, who have evaluated the theories and debates of
thirty-five published researchers, many of whom are experts in this field:
‘Student
engagement refers to student’s active participation in academic and
co-curricular or school-related activities, and commitment to educational goals
and learning. Engaged students find learning meaningful, are interesting in
their learning and future. It is a multidimensional construct that consists of
behavioral (including academic), cognitive and affective subtypes. Student
engagement drives learning; requires energy and effort; in affected by multiple
contextual influences; and can be achieved by all learners’ (Reschly and
Christenson 2012 p 816-817).
... Furrer and
Skinner (2003) theorise that ‘relatedness’ is a key concept in successfully
engaging students. Relatedness can also be referred to as ‘connectedness’ or
‘belonging’, and this process includes, ‘views about the self as loveable (or
unworthy of love) and about the social world as trustworthy (or hostile)’ and
has been used to explain, ‘the long-term effects of secure versus insecure
attachments to caregivers’ (Furrer and Skinner 2003 p 148). Furrer and Skinner
(2003) hypothesize that relatedness is a key contributor to engagement in
classrooms when children are exposed to challenge. They further argue that
children who feel supported by their teachers become more engaged as they feel
valued which in turns results in positive emotions (Furrer and Skinner 2003).
It is widely accepted by academics, in addition to professionals in my work
place, that the role of the teachers is significantly diverse (Anderson 2012).
Particularly in my role as an Academic Coach, it has become evident that
teachers become much more than simply a vessel to deliver facts to students to
pass exams.
... Roorda et
al (2011) hypothesised that the impact of TSRs would show a stronger
correlation with younger children, similarly to Furrer and Skinner’s (2003)
study. Yet, their findings evidenced that ‘in contrast with strong assumption
in the literature, affective TSRs remained important, or were even more influential, for older students,
even into late adolescence’ (Roorda et al 2011 p 520). These results are much
closer in configuration in terms of my own research and observations within my
work placement. Both studies shows that effective teacher-student-relationships
were important in engaging students, yet such contrasting findings suggest that
the impact of the teacher-student-relationship is variable across different
learning environments. In this way, my own observations may be as a result of
the specific social, cultural and organisational environment of my school and
not generalized across all adolescents in secondary schools.
... Jang,
Reeve and Deci (2010) interpret that autonomy support can be characterized by
the way teachers, ‘(a) nurture inner motivational resources, (b) rely on
noncontrolling informational language, and (c) acknowledge the students’
perspectives and feelings’ (p 589). This differs from control as the child is
at the center of the instructive approaches adopted by the teacher (Jang, Reeve
and Deci 2010). Jang (2008) queries whether the language used by teachers to
engage students in tasks and posits that ‘Do it because I said so’ (Jang 2008 p
802) is controlling and therefore does not engage students. Jang (2008) further
argues that rationales are important in engaging students in learning
activities, particularly in potentially boring and seemingly irrelevant
learning tasks. As Jang (2008) identifies, I have seen how teachers in English
and in Drama give rationales for completing tasks, often showing empathy and
listening to students’ objections about how they do not find a task interesting
or relevant. These discussions teachers have with their classes about why they
are being asked to complete and activity are often key factors in students then
engaging in particularly uninteresting tasks.
... Ainley
(2012) argues that ‘one way of distinguishing motivation and engagement is to
identify motivation as an underlying psychological process and engagement as a
descriptor for the level of involvement or connection between a person or
activity’ (Ainley 2012 p 285). Furthermore, Darr (2012) ascertains a similar
standpoint that, ‘motivation is understood as the ‘why’ are reason behind a
given behaviour’ (p 32) and ‘engagement as the actual partners of action and
involvement a person displays in tasks and activities’ (p 34). Therefore,
engagement in closely linked to motivation, yet these researchers argue that
motivation does not have to be present for students to be engaged.
Reference List
Ainley, M. (2012) “Students’
Interest and Engagement in Classroom Activities” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly
and C Wylie (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp.
283-302
Assor, A. (2012) “Allowing Choice
and Nurturing an Inner Compass: Educational Practices Supporting Students’ Need
for Autonomy” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie (2012) Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 421-439
Christenson, S. L., Reschly A. L.
and Wylie, C. (2012) “Preface” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie (2012) Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. v-ix
Christenson, S. L., Reschly A. L.
(2012) “Jingle, Jangle and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions
of the Engagement Construct” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie (2012) Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 3-20
Darr, C. W. (2012) “Measuring
Student Engagement: The Development of a Scale for Formative Use” in S L
Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie
(2012) Handbook of Research on
Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 707-723
Furrer, C. and Skinner, E. (2003) ‘Sense
of Relatedness as a Factor in Children’s Academic Engagement and Performance’ Journal of Education Psychology, 95 (1),
148-162
Jang, H. (2008) ‘Supporting
Students’ Motivation, Engagement, and Learning During an Uninteresting Activity’
Journal of Educational Psychology,
100 (4), 798-811
Jang, H., Reeve, J. and Deci, E. L.
(2010) ‘Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or
Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 588-600
Janosz, M. (2012) “Part VI
Commentary: Outcomes of Engagement and Engagement as an Outcome: Some
Consensus, Divergences and Unanswered Questions” in S L Christenson, A L
Reschly and C Wylie (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement
London: Springer pp. 695-703
Kelm, A. M. and Connell J. P. (2004)
‘Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and
Achievement’ The Journal of School Health,
74 (7), 262-273
Reeve, J. (2009) ‘Why Teachers Adopt
a Controlling Motivating Style Towards Students and How They can Become More
Autonomy Supportive’ Educational
Psychologist, 44 (3), 159-175
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, M. Y., Spilt,
J. L. and Oort, F. (2011) The Influence of Affective Teacher-Student
Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic
Approach Rrview of Educational Research,
81 (4), 493-529
Skinner, E. A. and Belmont, M. J.
(1993) ‘Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behaviour
and Students Engagement Across the School Year’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571-581
Skinner, E. A. and Pitzer, J. R.
(2012) “Developing Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping and Everyday
Resilience” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie (2012) Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 21-44
No comments:
Post a Comment