BIBLIOGRAFÍA DEL CAPÍTULO II

Cognitive engagement according to (Davis et al. 2012) is a matter of students’ will. “It is how students feel about themselves and their work, their skills, and the strategies they employ to master their work”.

Pickering (2017) describes the cognitively engaged student as invested in their learning, embracing the challenge of acquiring new knowledge or skill sets, and going beyond the course requirements. The tangible outcomes this delivers for the student is a full understanding of the course learning objectives and an awareness of the available resources to help them achieve these objectives. Thus, the student is able to make informed decisions about what needs to be learned, what learning materials are available and how they are appropriately used. Pickering (2017:822) postulates that it is “cognitive, rather than emotional and behavioural engagement that is the key domain in supporting effective learning”.

According to Ben-Eliyahu et al. (2018), the learning processes associated with cognitive engagement tend to include a self-regulated learning component and/or a motivational component such as desire for effort exertion. Ignoring these self-regulated and motivational learning processes reduces cognitive engagement to simply thinking and paying attention (Ben-Eliyahu et al. 2018). However, motivation, self-efficacy and expected outcome are engagement antecedents that a university can influence (Bandura, 1997; Linnenbrink and Pintrich, 2002; Nilsen, 2009).

To illustrate the importance of cognitive engagement, Pickering (2017) challenges engagement judgements based only on behavioural data. Such judgements are limited to the behavioural data collected whereas students may be accessing other resources that are out

32

of the field of view, and therefore invisible to the tracking system (Pickering, 2017). In relation to emotional engagement, Pickering (2017) suggests that a student exhibiting a sense of interest in class, smiling and laughing, would be viewed as emotionally engaged, but if they sit quietly and appear, on the surface, disinterested, they would be viewed as unengaged. In Pickering’s (2017) experience, it happens far too often to be an exception, that students who despite appearing to be engaged emotionally, fail their assessments.

2.3.4.1 Motivation

Motivation is sometimes treated as synonymous with, or different from, but closely related to ‘engagement’ (Appleton et al. 2008; Markwell, 2007). There is however a discernible view in the literature that this should not be the case. According to The Department of Education Science and Training, studies continue to show that students may be motivated but disengaged. According to Hospel et al. (2016) motivation is an antecedent of engagement and fuels the reactions associated with engagement for example, the way a student feels, thinks, behaves in class and the effort they expend on their studies. ‘Motivation’ is deemed by Maehr and Meyer (1997) to be at the core of teaching and learning. Motivation is, according to (Astin, 1984) a psychological construct that is susceptible to direct observation and measurement.

Motivation theory is traditionally concerned with what initiates behaviour, what maintains behaviour (Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992) and “what causes behaviour to stop” (Moore et al. 2008:18). In contrast engagement reflects an individual’s active involvement in a particular activity. More recent developments in motivational research suggest that students weigh up the value and purpose of expending energy in the pursuit of a particular goal (Appleton et al. 2008). An attractive goal, supported by the belief that it is attainable, motivates people to act (Shunk, 1991). The more motivated the student the more likely they are to become engaged, and active engagement can reinforce motivation (Markwell, 2007). In the expectancy-value framework, the intrinsic value of a task results from a decision-making process in which the student takes into consideration the importance of doing well on a specific task, the personal interest of the content of the task, and its usefulness in relation to future personal goals, as well as the cost or the perceived negative aspects of engaging in this task (Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992).

Academic achievement is a desirable outcome of motivation and engagement (A. J. Martin,

33

2007). As it is possible to be motivated but not actively engaged in a particular task, it seems that motivation is necessary but not necessarily sufficient for engagement (Appleton et al.

2008). Research suggests that levels of student motivation and self-efficacy are positively affected by well-being and confidence, learning by doing, success in a ‘real’ challenge, and the lecturers’ motivation and enthusiasm (Bandura, 1997; Linnenbrink and Pintrich, 2002). Nilsen (2009) emphasises the positive influence of proximal goals rather than one big goal on motivation and performance.

2.3.4.2 Self-efficacy/self-concept

Self-efficacy and self-concept are frameworks through which competency beliefs are typically investigated (Nicholson et al. 2011). Self-efficacy, (the very foundation of human agency according to Bandura, 1997), personal goals, possible selves, individual interests, and a mastery goal orientation are all examples of “agency-based motivational constructs” (Reeve and Tseng, 2011). Self-efficacy is described by Bartimote-Aufflick et al. (2016:1918) “the single most important (and reliable) predictor of university student achievement in recent decades”.

Self-efficacy is a person’s subjective appraisal of their ability to succeed in a particular task based on inferences drawn from prior performances (Moller et al. 2009). Because self-efficacy is based on future orientated cognitive appraisals, it is therefore malleable. Likewise, academic self-efficacy (see Bandura 1986, 1997) concerns future orientated, cognitive judgements of competence e.g. I believe that I can succeed in my forthcoming maths examination. Self-efficacy is a motivational component presupposed in the initiation of self-regulated learning (Metallidou and Vlachou, 2007), a key requirement in the state of student engagement. Self-concept relates closely to other self-constructs such as motivation, anxiety and especially self-efficacy. Self-concept incorporates cognitive, and to a certain degree affective appraisals, is past orientated and therefore stable.

Recognition of the beneficial personal outcomes associated with the enhancement of self-concept (having positive feelings about oneself) is evident in various contexts. These include education where academic self-concept, alongside self-reliance and academic achievement, are recognised as desirable outcomes (Moller et al. 2009). Academic self-concept is concerned with past-orientated judgements of competence related to esteem and self-worth e.g. I failed my last two maths examinations, I am no good at maths (Nicholson et al. 2011).

Research suggests that academic self-concept has an important influence on how students

34

feel about themselves, their accomplishments, their educational decisions and their persistence and therefore has significant implications for educational policy and practice (Moller et al. 2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept are domain specific competence belief frameworks such that one can believe they are a competent mathematician but an incompetent linguist (Nicholson et al. 2011). Moller et al. (2009) allude to a growing consensus that measures of achievement and self-concept within a specific domain are significantly positively correlated. Higher competence beliefs predict improved achievement and learning outcomes including effort, task persistence, motivation and self-regulation (Nicholson et al. 2011).

Zimmerman (2008) explains the self-regulation of learning as the goals learners set themselves, the self-control they exercise over their behavior, actions, and beliefs, their persistent motivation, all aimed at achieving academic success. According to Fernández et al.

(2013) the use of self-regulated learning strategies is determined by the student’s level of interest in learning and achievement as well as their perceived self-efficacy in the use of these strategies. Fernández et al. (2013) also note that it is the optimization rather than simply the amount of time spent on academic tasks that is important.

Tutors are encouraged to develop rather than diminish a student’s self-efficacy through feedback (formative and summative) paying particular attention to first year UGs who need encouragement and constructive criticism (Gibbs and Simpson, 2005; Nilsen, 2009).

Questions however remain about how a tutor can deal effectively with constantly changing student cohorts at different stages in the student experience, within and across programmes and units, with different learning styles, levels of self-efficacy and values etc., etc. Indeed the challenge for tutors is to determine which strategies are most appropriate when, as Perry (1985) suggests, different worlds in the classroom collide.

Academic self-efficacy, that is to say, the belief that one is competent and in control of one’s learning, can bolster both academic engagement and performance (Suarez-Orozco et al.

2009). The degree to which a student is ‘connected’ to what is going on in their classes, referred to by Steinberg et al (1996) as ‘academic engagement’, encompasses the cognitive, behavioural and emotional dimensions proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004). The value of academic engagement as a predictor of academic performance is considered in Salamonson

35

et al’s (2009) research which suggests that selected ‘elements’ of academic engagement (‘homework completion’, ‘lecture attendance’ and ‘study hours’) and academic disengagement (‘part-time work’) do affect levels of academic performance. “Individual student strategies, competencies, personality and lecture quality (perceived and/or actual)”

(Moore et al. 2008:17) can also affect academic performance. However, Schlechty (2002 in Zyngier, 2008) suggests students that appear to be engaged maybe playing by the rules of the game and “maybe no more than passively compliant or even ritualistically engaged”.

2.3.4.3 Student engagement styles

The transient nature of SE is reflected in Coates (2007) “Typological model of student engagement styles” (See Figure 1). The model identifies social and academic dimensions of engagement within the four styles of SE presented.

Coates (2007) emphasises that the styles are “transient states rather than student traits or types” that do not each represent a set of “enduring qualities, […] sustained within individuals over time or across contexts”. A longitudinal assessment of the same students would according to Coates (2007) be required to investigate the stability of their engagement styles.

“The well-adjusted and engaged student” according to Krause (2007), “is one who assesses and re-assesses their thinking as transitions and opportunities to engage in different ways continue through and beyond the first year of university.” Whether Krause’s (2007)

Figure 1 Typological model of student engagement styles (Coates, 2007)

36

generalisation is pertinent to an increasingly heterogeneous student body is questioned by Stefani (2007).

The ‘Identity-Based Student Disengagement’ Model (Lund Dean and Jolly, 2012) features alternative decision processes a student might follow when a learning activity is presented.

The ‘current self’ or salient identity, determines the willingness of the student to engage with the learning activity presented. In the model, three student responses to a particular learning activity are proposed, the nature of each determined by the student’s perception of the level of threat posed by the learning activity to their current self-identity. The responses include participate fully, participate guardedly or disengage.