The three most frequently mentioned forms of engagement within classroom-based learning are affective engagement, cognitive engagement and behavioural engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Parsons and Taylor, 2011). In addition, a further form of engagement – agentic engagement – has recently been proposed by Reeve and Tseng (2011). Within the substantive research literature, affective, cognitive and behaviours engagement are asserted as combining to inform behaviours indicative of student engagement within classroom-based learning (NRC, 2004). However, Reeve (2012) proposes that all four subtypes of student engagement should be considered together when seeking to understand and enhance students’ academic engagement. Within each, engagement behaviours are viewed as initiated by
psychological responses and physical actions underpinned by motivational constructs
(Connell and Wellborn, 1991; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Reschly and Christenson, 2012; Skinner and Pitzer, 2012).
21
The majority of engagement-indicative outcomes have, to date, included students’ active participation within learning activities in the form of the emotional and behavioural investment and commitment that students make to learning (Appleton et al., 2008). For instance, negative feedback by the teacher was associated with low motivation and
engagement in the classroom, which was further associated with disruptive behaviour by such disengaged students. Only behavioural and agentic engagement may be observed as state variables. Conversely, affective and cognitive engagement are posited as internalised processes, with the researcher reliant upon gathering data in the form of students’ self- reported perceptions (Christenson et al., 2008). The indicators of cognitive, affective and academic engagement are manifested as observable characteristics indicative of behavioural engagement within learning activities (Fredricks et al., 2004). Indeed, their manifestation has been asserted as being predictive of probabilistic causal factors informing unseen or
unobservable motivational perceptions, reactions and affective responses such as enthusiasm, pride, anxiety, and interest (NRC, 2004).
Behavioural engagement is defined as the amount of time that a student invests within a specific learning activity or participates within the classroom in general (Janosz, 2012). Specifically, it draws upon “… the idea of participation; it includes involvement in academic, social or extracurricular activities, and is considered crucial for achieving positive academic outcomes and preventing dropping out.” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60) Indicators other than the time invested in learning include students’ attendance at and within lessons, positive conduct within lessons, participation in extra-curricular activities, and sustained, resilient efforts during learning activities. Other indicators of positive behavioural engagement include initiation of self-directed action, exertion, making attempts to master concepts, persistence and intensity of concentration, focus, absorption and involvement. Effort, in the case of behavioural engagement, refers to participating in and completing learning activities
(Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 64). Conversely, indicators of behavioural disengagement include procrastination, lack of resilience in the face of challenges, restlessness, lack of effort or sustained effort, being easily distracted, and showing a disinclination to work hard or be prepared to participate (Skinner and Pitzer, 2012, p. 25).
Affective engagement “…encompasses positive and negative reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, and school and is presumed to create ties to an institution and
influence willingness to do the work” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60), and is usually manifested as emotions in response to the process and outcomes of learning activities. These involve the interplay of a myriad of cognitive, psychological, contextual, teacher behaviour and
22
motivational factors (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012). Indicators of positive affective engagement during learning activities include enthusiasm, interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, pride, vitality and zest (Ryan and Deci, 2008; Skinner and Pitzer, 2012). Conversely, indicators of affective disaffection include boredom, disinterest, frustration, anger, sadness, worry, anxiety, shame and self-blame (Skinner and Pitzer, 2012, p. 25). Behavioural
indicators of positive affective engagement include excitement, elation, happiness, hope, joy, pride and gratitude. Negative indicators include tension, anger, sadness, frustration, anxiety and shame (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012, pp. 261 – 262).
Cognitive engagement consists of inherently different internal psychological processes from those of affective engagement, in that cognitive engagement acts as the mediating bridge between context and learning outcomes (Connell and Wellborn, 1991; Reschly and Christenson, 2012). Cognitive engagement has been defined as drawing “… on the idea of investment; it incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult skills” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60). Indicators of positive cognitive engagement include observations that a student is
purposeful, approaches learning activities with enthusiasm, strives to achieve a variety of learning goals, is a willing participant in learning activities, actively seeks challenges, and exhibits a thoroughness and desire to achieve the best possible learning outcomes (Skinner and Pitzer, 2012). In contrast to behavioural engagement, effort based upon cognitive
engagement is defined as a focus upon the learning and mastering of concepts and knowledge (Fredricks et al., 2004). Indicators of cognitive disengagement include a lack of self-
direction, presenting themselves as helpless, unwilling or opposed to tackling learning challenges, avoiding or being apathetic during learning activities, and presenting themselves as incapable, incompetent or under undue pressure (Skinner and Pitzer, 2012).
The fourth subtype is agentic engagement. This centres upon the active and volitional cognitive contributions that students make to the learning activities presented by their teacher (Reeve and Tseng, 2011): that is, “…students’ constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive [and] …captures the process in which students intentionally and somewhat proactively try to personalise and otherwise enrich both what is to be learned and the conditions and circumstances under which it is to be learned.” (p. 258) This, in turn, is predicted by manifestations of cognitive, affective and behavioural engagement, as well as being argued to be an independent predictor of achievement within the classroom. Agentic engagement has been proposed as a form of enacted agency, whereby students make constructive contributions to learning activities (Reeve, 2013; Reeve and Tseng, 2011).
23
Reeve and Tseng (2011) define agentic engagement as “… the process in which students intentionally and somewhat proactively try to personalise and otherwise enrich both what is to be learned and the conditions and circumstances under which it is to be learned “(p. 258). It can be observed through engagement-indicative behaviours such as:
“… students might offer input, express a preference, offer a suggestion or contribution, ask a question, communicate what they are thinking and needing, recommend a goal or objective to be pursued, communicate their level of interest, solicit resources or learning opportunities, seek ways to add personal relevance to the lesson, ask for a say in how problems are to be solved, seek clarification, generate options, communicate likes and dislikes, or request assistance such as modeling, tutoring, feedback, background knowledge, or a concrete example of an abstract concept.”
(Reeve and Tseng, 2011, p. 258)
While agentic engagement appears to be a behavioural outcome indicative of autonomous motivation, it is also a form of engagement that may reveal insights about student-teacher interactions that create a positive emphasis upon students’ autonomous self- regulating and self-directing approaches to the learning of concepts and the mastery of knowledge. Indeed, agentic engagement has been asserted as occurring more frequently in classrooms where students regard their teacher as autonomy-supportive (Fiedler, 1975; Reeve et al., 2004; Reeve and Tseng, 2011). In addition, given that agentic engagement consists of both an unseen, internalised psychological process and observable behaviours, it may be that agentic engagement can be used as a reliable indicator predictive of a positive teacher-student relationship (Reeve, 2013).
As a means of drawing together three of the four subtypes outlined above, academic engagement has been asserted as being the cumulative combination of cognitive, affective and behavioural engagement (Christenson et al., 2008). Interestingly, it has also been proposed that academic, cognitive and affective engagement may be manifested as
behavioural engagement which is, in turn, influenced by the students’ agentic engagement, as agentic engagement refers to the extent to which a student feels efficacious in self-
determining and being successful within active learning contexts (Jang et al., 2010; Reeve et al., 2004; Reeve and Tseng 2011). This is the view of several researchers, each of whom has argued that a full picture of engagement may only be claimed when all components were considered together, rather than in isolation, and in association with potential motivators
24
within classrooms (Fredricks et al. 2004; Guthrie and Anderson, 1999; Guthrie and Wigfield, 2000).