Learner Engagement In Educational Psychology

• What is student Engagement? • Engagement and Contextual Influences

• Mesurements • Parental influence
• Why Does It Matter? • Teacher – student realtionship
• Types od Learner Engagement • Peer
• Behavioral Engagement • Automomy
• Cognitive Engagement • How Can we Improve Learner
• Emotional Engagement Engagement (Strategies)
• Engagement as linked to motivational • Interaction
variables • Exploration
• Goal Orientation Theory 1970 • Relevancy,
• Dweck’s social-cognitive theory of motivation • Multimedia,
1988  • Instruction
• Motivational Systems Theory • Authentic assessment.
• Self-efficacy theory Bandura 1997
• Expectancy theory
• Self-determination theory
Pedagogy should at its best be about what teachers
do that not only help students to learn but actively
strengthens their capacity to learn.” David
Hargreaves, Learning for Life, 2004, p. 27.
What is student Engagemet?
• What is it?
measurements and instruments
• Perhaps one way to define student engagement is to see how it is measured.
Historically, a number of common measures have been used to identify if students
are actively engaged in learning. These measures have predominantly focused on
quantitative data such as attendance, standardized test scores, and truancy or
graduation rates. The majority of these measures track levels of achievement
(outcomes such as high scores, full attendance for the year) but not levels of
student engagement in learning (interest, time on task, enjoyment in learning).
More recently however, researchers are beginning to ask students and teachers
how they would measure engagement. This question is producing both interesting
qualitative criteria and further definitions of engaged learning, which,
consequently, have impacted how we ‘assess’ learning. Answers to this refocused
question have revealed a gap between what teachers consider engagement in
learning and what students consider engagement in learning.
Why does it matter?

• “Some educationists consider engaging disengaged pupils Current

Issues in Education Vol. 14 No. 1 6 to be one of the biggest challenges
facing educators, as between 25% (Willms, 2003) and over 66%
(Cothran & Ennis, 2000) of students are considered to be disengaged”
(as cited in Harris, 2008, p. 57).

• The consequences of not engaging students in learning are reportedly

dire (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1998; Gilbert, 2007;
types
Behavioral engagement.
• Consider the student who always works hard but still seems to
struggle with learning. This student may be behaviorally engaged but
not cognitively engaged. Scholars tend to agree that behavioral
engagement encompasses students’ effort, persistence, participation,
and compliance with school structures. In general, school-level
changes are typically focused on modifying students’ behavioral
engagement. Achievement in school is often included in the research
as an outcome of students’ behavioral engagement as measured by
teacher or self-reports of students’ effort (e.g., including daily/weekly
grades for classroom/lab participation and homework completion and
task persistence; Davis, Shalter-Bruening, & Andrzejewski, 2008).
Cognitive engagement
• Cognitive engagement is a matter of students’ will—that is, how students feel about
themselves and their work, their skills, and the strategies they employ to master their work
(Metallidou & Viachou, 2007). Teachers may be familiar with the student who always works
hard but still seems unable to learn effectively. This student also may be behaviorally engaged
but not cognitively engaged. In other words, just because students appear to be working on the
task at hand does not mean they are learning. It is important to note that effort is involved in
both behavioral and cognitive definitions of engagement: “In this sense, cognitive engagement
refers to the quality of students’ engagement whereas sheer effort refers to the quantity of
their engagement in the class” (Pintrich, 2003, p. 105). The inclusion of cognitive engagement
makes an important distinction between students’ efforts to simply do the work and effort that
is focused on understanding and mastery (Fredricks et al., 2004; Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke,
& Akey, 2004). Students who are cognitively and behaviorally engaged will attend to the task at
hand and simultaneously manage their learning (e.g., thinking about similar tasks they have
done, realizing when they need to ask for help, using problem-solving strategies).
emotional engagement
• While the concepts of cognitive and behavioral engagement are well understood in the
context of previous research (Fredericks et al., 2004), there is little consistency in the way
in which emotional engagement has been defined by educational researchers. For
example, in their study of the ways in which classroom structures affected students’
emotional engagement, Skinner and Belmont (1993) defined emotional engagement as
students’ feelings of interest, happiness, anxiety, and anger during achievement-related
activities. In contrast, Sciarra and Seirup (2008) defined emotional engagement as the
extent to which students feel a sense of belonging “and the degree to which they care
about their school” (p. 218). Emotional engagement from their perspective has more to
do with the pleasant and unpleasant emotions students connect to their relationships
with teachers, peers, and school rather than the feelings they have during learning
activities. In a recent study by Davis, Chang, Andrzejewski, and Poirier (2010), the
researchers argued that previous definitions of emotional engagement, like that of Sciarra
and Seirup, may actually be referring to relational engagement.
Engagement as linked to motivational
variables
• Goal Orientation Theory 1970
• Dweck’s social-cognitive theory of motivation 1988 
• Motivational Systems Theory
• Self-efficacy theory Bandura 1997
• Expectancy theory
• Self-determination theory
Goal Orientation Theory 1970

• The earliest conceptualizations of goal orientation were proposed in the 1970s by the
educational psychologist J.A. Eison. Eison[3] argued that students who approached college as an
opportunity to acquire new skills and knowledge possessed a learning orientation while students
who approached college with the goal to exclusively obtain high grades possessed a grade
orientation. Eison originally believed that these two orientations were two ends of the same
continuum and developed the Learning Orientation-Grade Orientation Scale to measure the
continuum. At about the same time, J.G. Nicholls[4][5][6] was developing a related theory that
achievement motivation would lead grade school children to set high task related goals. Nicholls
[4] found that when some high-ability children encountered difficult tasks, they would use

maladaptive strategies, leading to eventual feelings of helplessness, while others would use
more productive coping strategies. Nicholls later conceptualized these differences as two types
of achievement goals: (a) task involvement: where individuals seek to develop their competence
relative to their own abilities and (b) ego involvement: where individuals seek to develop their
competence relative to the abilities of others.[4] Nicholls's early work set up Dweck's[7]
 proposition of two types of goal orientation: learning orientation and performance orientation.
Dweck’s social-cognitive theory of
motivation 1988 
• Self-Theories (Dweck)
• Carol Dweck and others have Identified two implicit theories of intelligence. Those learners who have an “entity” theory view
intelligence as being an unchangeable, fixed internal characteristic. Those who have an “incremental” theory believe that their
intelligence is malleable and can be increased through effort.
• Carol Dweck (currently at Indiana University) describes a series of empirically-based studies that investigate how people develop
beliefs about themselves (i.e., self-theories) and how these self-theories create their psychological worlds, shaping thoughts,
feelings and behaviors[1]. The theories reveal why some students are motivated to work harder, and why others fall into patterns
of helplessness and are self-defeating. Dweck’s conclusions explore the implications for the concept of self-esteem, suggesting a
rethinking of its role in motivation, and the conditions that foster it. She demonstrated empirically that students who hold an
entity theory of intelligence are less likely to attempt challenging tasks and are at risk for academic underachievement [1][2].
• Students carry two types of views on ability/intelligence:
• Entity View – This view (those who are called “Entity theorists”) treats intelligence as fixed and stable. These students have a
high desire to prove themselves to others; to be seen as smart and avoid looking unintelligent.
• Incremental View – This view treats intelligence as malleable, fluid, and changeable. These students see satisfaction coming from
the process of learning and often see opportunities to get better. They do not focus on what the outcome will say about them,
but what they can attain from taking part in the venture.
•  Dweck, C. S.; Leggett, E. L. (1988). "A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality". Psychological Review. 95 (2):
256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
Motivational Systems Theory

• Originated by Ford (1992), motivational systems theory (or MST) proposes that effective
functioning or competence can best be defined as the attainment of personally and/or
socially valued goals (1992, 1996). Goals are attained if the following prerequisites are
met: 1. The person has the motivation needed to initiate and maintain activity directed
toward a goal. 2. The person has the skill needed to construct and execute a pattern of
activity that is appropriate and effective with respect to those outcomes. 3. The person’s
biological structure and functioning is able to support both the motivational and skill
components. 4. There is a responsive environment facilitating progress toward a goal.
• Belongingness goals
• Social responsibility goals
• Equity goals
• A direct offspring or subset of Sigmund Freud’s theory is Martin Ford’s motivational systems theory (MST). This framework focuses on the individual as the
unit of analysis, but embeds the individual in the biological, social, and environmental contexts that are crucial to development. MST attempts to describe
the development of the whole person-in-context, in much the same way a biologist might describe an individual plant and its relation to its immediate
ecological niche, as well as the larger ecosystems in which it resides (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Ford proposed a simple mathematical formula that attempts
to represent all these factors in one model. The formula for effective person-in-context functioning is: Achievement = (Motivation x Skill ) x Responsive
Environment Biological Structure The formula proposes that actual “achievement and competence are the results of a motivated, skillful, and biologically
capable person interacting with a responsive environment” (Ford, 1992, p.70). The motivational systems theory does not attempt to replace or supersede
any of the existing theories. Instead, it attempts to organize the various motivational constructs from different theories into one model. The main
constructs are self-efficacy beliefs, the role of expectancy, and goal orientation. The formula suggests that in any behavior episode, there are four major
prerequisites for effective functioning: 1.The person must have the motivation needed to initiate and maintain the activity until the goal directing the
episode is attained. 2.The person must have the skill necessary to construct and execute a pattern of activity that will produce the desired result. 3.The
person’s biological structure and functioning must be able to support the operation of the motivation and skill components. 4.The person must have the
cooperation of a responsive environment that will facilitate progress towards the goal (Ford, 1992). This model attempts to provide a comprehensive
theory of motivation and proposes that actual achievement and competence are the results of a motivated, skillful, and biologically capable person
interacting within a responsive environment. Purpose Of The Study The purpose of this project was twofold. First, an effort was made to authenticate and
validate Martin Ford’s motivational systems theory; namely, validate that actual achievement and competence are the results of a motivated, skillful, and
biologically capable person interacting within a responsive environment. A second purpose was to document the levels of academic performance of
students, pursuing business related studies, in a college environment across gender and race lines. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Motivation Defined Due to
the numerous studies of motivation during the twentieth century, many theorists have produced their own definition of motivation. Hull (1943, p. 226)
defined motivation as “the initiation of learned, or habitual patterns of movement of behavior.” Megginson (1953, p. 15) proposed that “the study of
motivation is the study of why people do things; why they behave in a certain way; why they conform to a certain pattern.” Beck (1978, p. 24) stated that,
“Motivation is broadly concerned with the contemporary determinants of choice, persistence, and vigor of goal-directed behavior.” Mitchell (1982, p. 81)
said that, “Motivation [represents] those psychological processes that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed.”
Steers and Porter (1987, pp. 5-6) believe that “When we discuss motivation, we are primarily concerned with (1) what energizes human behavior; (2) 12
Self-efficacy theory Bandura 1997
• Self-beliefs are a critical component of most modern theories of human motivation. Central construct in Albert
Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory is self-efficacy, which he defined as people’s judgments of their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance. Self-efficacy differs from self-esteem and self-concept because
it is task specific (Bandura, 1997; Hoy, 2004) and based on what people believe they are capable of doing in particular
situation in the future (Hoy, 2004). Self-efficacy theory, applied in the educational realm, has sparked a rich line of
research into how teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs are related to their actions and to the outcomes they achieve
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). According to social cognitive theory, teachers who do not expect to be
successful with certain students are likely put forth less effort in preparation and delivery of instruction, and to give up
easily at the first sign of difficulty, even if they actually know of strategies that could assist these students if applied.
However, Compelling evidence has been accumulating over the past three decades revealing that teachers’ self-efficacy
has been related to their behavior in the classroom and to student outcomes such as students’ self-efficacy beliefs,
motivation, and achievement (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer,& Eccles,
1989; Ross, 1992; Tschannen- Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 2007).
• Bandura (1993) suggests that what teachers do and say in their classrooms is regulated and defined by the perception
teachers have of themselves as individuals and of their personal and pedagogical abilities. He suggests that “Teachers’
beliefs in their ability to motivate and promote learning affect the types of learning environments they create and the
level of academic progress their students achieve”.
•  Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Expectancy theory
• In 1964, Victor H. Vroom developed the expectancy theory through his study of the motivations behind
decision making. This theory is relevant to the study of management.
• Expectancy theory (or expectancy theory of motivation) proposes an individual will behave or act in a
certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over other behaviors due to what
they expect the result of that selected behavior will be.[1] In essence, the motivation of the behavior
selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the 
cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This is done before
making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determining factor in making the decision of
how to behave.[1]
• Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains the processes
that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the study of organizational behavior, expectancy theory
is a motivation theory first proposed by Victor Vroom of the Yale School of Management.
• "This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to
ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients."[2]
•.
Self-determination theory
• Self-determination theory emphasizes the significance of three basic psychological needs in people’s self-
motivation and healthy psychological growth—the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
According to self-determination theory, social-contextual conditions that provide people with the opportunity to
satisfy their basic needs lead to enhanced motivation, optimal functioning, and psychological well-being (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, when teachers and classrooms support the satisfaction of student
needs, students will feel self-determined. Need for relatedness, or a basic need to be connected or related to
others, is most relevant to our understanding of relational engagement. There is not as much research that
focuses on relatedness as the other two basic needs for autonomy and competence in the classroom, but the
research that exists focuses on teachers’ emotional support for students (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan,
Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Wentzel, 1997, 1998) rather than on students’ caring for each
other. For example, in a recent study by Nie and Lau (2009), teacher caring, or involvement, predicted students’
emotional and behavioral engagement and satisfaction with school. Nie and Lau also found that the teacher’s
ability to manage his or her classroom was an important predictor of emotional engagement. In a similar study,
Furrer and Skinner (2003) also demonstrated the relationship between students’ feelings of relatedness and
behavioral engagement, but they took into account that students have relatedness needs from specific social
partners—namely parents, teachers, and peers. Furrer and Skinner suggested that more research is needed to
discover how children achieve a sense of relatedness with peers and how schools can facilitate this process.
Engagement and contextual Influences
• Parental influence
• Teacher – student realtionship
• Peer
• Automomy
strategies
• When we sift the literature for common strategies to improve student
engagement in learning, a rather clear pattern of practices has emerged and
certain “best practices” were recommended and repeated. For example,
Windham (2005) recommends that, to engage learners in learning, new
educational curriculum and activity must include – “Interaction, Exploration,
Relevancy, Multimedia and Instruction” (pp 5.7-5.9). Her themes echo
throughout the literature. Various elements of Windham’s (2005) list are
shared by Willms (2003, 2007, 2009), Claxton (2007), Hay (2000), Barnes,
Marateo, & Ferris (2007), Dunleavy & Milton (2009), and OECD (2003) to
name a few. We have synthesized the following categories from our reading
and will use these to elaborate further: (1) Interaction, (2) Exploration, (3)
Relevancy, (4) Multimedia, (5) Instruction, and (6) Authentic assessment.