Focusing now on the third step towards how to promote student engagement, the literature concerning activity design and engagement is vast, with almost as many variables emerging concerning how to make activities engaging (e.g., goal orientation,
collaboration, formative assessment, etc.) as how to foster engagement in general (see Belland et al. 2013, for an extensive list). In this respect, one can argue that designing learning activities that engage students poses a new challenge for which there is no easy solution. The truth is that years of research on both motivation and engagement have contributed enormously to this particular issue. Consequently, today, amid the myriad elements included in learning activities that possibly offer opportunities for engagement, we can identify some principles that appear to be most effective in fostering student ASEC engagement amongst secondary school students. Such principles revolve around meaningfulness, autonomy, belongingness, and competence. Briefly, in a broader sense, meaningfulness refers to the feeling that something is worth the time or effort, or viewed as valuable or important; autonomy refers to feeling freedom from external controls or influences; belongingness refers to feeling connected to other human beings; finally, competence refers to feeling the ability to do something successfully or efficiently (OED 2002).
The proposal of these four elements, I should mention, stems from my extensive, personal and professional reading of educational and psychology research. This mostly consisted of a rigorous review of peer-reviewed journal articles, books and book chapters that dealt with the issue of student engagement with academic work, in secondary school settings. The works were found in online databases such as Google Scholar, ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science, PsychINFO, and Education Full Text (EBSCO) and in reference lists within those articles. Having said that, I did not conduct a systematic review of literature to select the aforementioned four elements (see Evans & Benefield, 2001, for a description of key features of a systematic review of literature). Such an undertaking, would have interfered with the space and time limitations provided to complete this particular PhD research study. Therefore, this selection should be exclusively seen as my unique (though informed) viewpoint concurrent with the engagement literature regarding what seems to engage students academically, socially,
emotionally and cognitively in learning activities. Moreover, this selection has been made considering the fewest possible distinct consensual elements, based on their recurrence in educational and psychology research. This should thus result in a solution to fostering engagement that has realistic and doable application in the classroom since there are fewer elements to pay attention to when designing learning activities.
Returning to the main discussion, the effectiveness of meaningfulness, autonomy, competence, and belongingness for engaging students academically, socially, emotionally, and cognitively in learning activities can be explained on the basis of several supporting arguments, which are elaborated on below.
Argument #1: Developmental needs of adolescents
The first argument that supports the potential of meaningfulness, autonomy, belongingness and competence for ASEC engagement is that these elements are considered key developmental needs of adolescents (Dorman 1985; Scales 1991). In practical terms, this means that adolescents are more likely to be drawn to learning activities that support these needs than those that do not, simply because they are in accordance with their growth and development (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Thus, drawing on the work of The Center for Early Adolescence, reviewed in Scales (1991: 13-14), meaningfulness would correspond with the developmental need for meaningful participation in families, schools, and communities. This reads as follows:
Young adolescents are intensely curious about the world around them, so they require exposure to situations in which they can use their skills to solve real-life problems. Young adolescents need to participate in the activities that shape their lives.
Autonomy, on the hand, would coincide with the developmental need for structure and clear limits:
Clear expectations are crucial to unsure, self-critical young people. Explicit boundaries help define the areas in which they may legitimately seek freedom to explore. In their search for independence and autonomy, young adolescents often feel immune to risks and dangers, so they
require structure and guidance in setting clear limits that involve them in the process of decision making.
Next, belongingness would be associated with the need for positive social interaction with adults and peers:
Young adolescents identify with their peer groups' values and desperately want to belong, so they require opportunities to form positive peer relationships. Although they may not often admit it, they have a similar need for caring relationships with adults who like and respect them and who serve as role models and advisors.
Finally, competence would be matched to the need for competence and achievement:
Young adolescents also need to find out what they are good at doing. They can be painfully self- conscious and self-critical and are vulnerable to bouts of low self-esteem, so they require many varied opportunities to be successful and have their accomplishments recognized by others. Argument #2: Psychological human needs
The second reason that supports the effectiveness of meaningfulness, autonomy, competence and belongingness for ASEC engagement is that they are also considered inherent psychological human needs (see Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b, for a discussion). Thus, according to this line of research (known as Self-determination theory research and for which there is extensive empirical evidence available) every individual possesses certain psychological needs regardless of their age and socio-biological background. First, there is a need to feel autonomous and free from external controls (autonomy). Second, there is a need to feel competent (competence). Finally, there is a need to be connected to other human beings (relatedness or belongingness in our case). In the particular case of meaningfulness, although it is not featured as one of the psychological needs, it is however regarded as a common theme (see Turner et al., 2014), frequently referred to as curiosity, thus supporting its relevance in this respect.
That being said, research working in this paradigm supports that the extent to which the former psychological needs are fostered in the classroom determines the quality of student engagement in schoolwork. In contrast, the lack of support for any of these
needs is also regarded as negatively impacting on student engagement (Niemiec et al., 2009; Reeve 2012; Reeve & Halusic, 2009).
Argument #3: Constructs of major motivation theories
The third reason why I consider meaningfulness, autonomy, competence and belongingness as key promoters of ASEC engagement is because they are principal constructs in several major theories and sub-theories of motivation, for which a large volume of empirical research demonstrating their potential for engagement is available. Meaningfulness, for instance, is a core element in expectancy-value theory (Brophy 1999; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and in interest theory (Hidi 1990; Schiefele 1991). Autonomy is an integral element in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) as well as in attribution theory (Weiner 1986). Competence is an
essential element in social learning theory (Bandura 1977), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b), goal-setting theory (Latham 1990), goal orientation theory (Ames 1992), self-worth theory (Covington 1992), and self-theories (Dweck 2000). Finally, belongingness is found in general social psychology
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and is also a central element in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Argument #4: Correlated to ASEC engagement
The final reason justifying the suitability of fostering meaningfulness, autonomy, competence and belongingness to promote student ASEC engagement is because these constructs have been correlated in one way or another with ASEC engagement (as I understand it) in engagement research.
Starting with meaningfulness, prior studies have demonstrated that when students find schoolwork to have meaning in their lives, they engage at multiple levels. For example,
between authentic instructional work and student concentration and good academic behaviour in a study including 3369 students from different elementary, secondary, and high schools in America. In this study it was also found that perceptions of the
opportunities to be involved in authentic instruction were a strong predictor of joyful learning (i.e., emotional engagement). Similarly, a study of Chen et al. (1999) involving 674 high school students revealed that activities perceived as interesting were a
significant predictor of enjoyment. Further evidence of this relationship can be found in the studies of Flowerday et al. (2004) and Sun and Rueda (2012). Finally, regarding cognitive engagement, in their observation of secondary school students over two years (N=24), Helme and Clarke (2001) found that linguistic indicators of cognitive and metacognitive activity, including verbalisation of thinking, questions, explanations, and other types of communication improved when activities were perceived as personally meaningful. In a more recent study conducted in a high school setting (N=220), Greene et al. (2004) found that that perceiving schoolwork as important for future success made students put forth mental effort to develop learning activities.
Moving to autonomy, evidence has consistently shown that environments that actively involve students in the learning process are associated with ASEC engagement. To illustrate, Reeve and his colleagues (Reeve et al., 2004) found in a study that observed 20 schoolteachers in action that the more teachers used autonomy-supportive
instructional behaviours (e.g., giving choice, using non-controlling behaviours, etc.) the more academic, social, and emotional engagement their students achieved. Similar results have been observed for these types of engagement in Skinner et al. (2008) and Reeve and Lee (2013). On the other hand, studies such as that of Turner (1995) and Perry (1998) have demonstrated that schoolchildren perform more strategically and persist longer in the face of challenges (i.e., cognitive engagement) when they are offered choices about the direction of their learning. Other studies on the side of controlling behaviours have also shown that authoritarian communication styles in their
classrooms negatively affect the amount of mental effort that students put into learning activities (e.g., Deci et al., 1993; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).
Addressing belongingness now, there is also research evidence that confirms that when students establish close relationships with both their peers and teacher, their ASEC engagement increases as a result (see Martin & Dowson, 2009, for a discussion). To illustrate, in a recent study conducted in Sweden in which 3,652 students participated (ages 14-15) Plenty et al. (2015) showed that students who experience social support from teachers and classmates are expected to display caring, sharing, and cooperative behaviours. Similarly, the findings of studies such as Wentzel and Asher (1995) involving 423 schoolchildren (ages 11-13), suggest that when students feel accepted rather than rejected by their peers they become more self-regulated learners and more prosocial and compliant. Other studies such as Goodenow (1993) including 353
participants (ages 10-14) have shown that when students are liked, respected, and valued by fellow students and their teachers, their academic motivation, effort, and achievement are positively affected. Wentzel et al. (2004) found in a two-year longitudinal study (N=242) that students with friends showed higher levels of prosocial behaviour, academic achievement, and emotional engagement than those without friends. On another note, in a study in which 641 schoolchildren (ages 8-13) were surveyed, Furrer and Skinner (2003) found that feelings of belongingness to peers and teachers
determined general engagement and made unique contributions to student enjoyment. Actually, in this study belongingness to the teacher seemed to be the strongest influencer on emotional engagement apart from peers and parents. As the authors (Furrer &
Skinner 2003: 159) conclude:
Emotional engagement, although uniquely predicted by relatedness to all three specific social partners, seemed to depend most heavily on relatedness to teachers. Children who felt appreciated by teachers were more likely to report that involvement in academic activities was interesting and fun and that they felt happy and comfortable in the classroom. In contrast, children who felt unimportant or ignored by teachers reported more boredom, unhappiness, and anger while participating in learning activities.
In harmony with the above, is the collaborative and cooperative learning research, which has repeatedly reported that social learning promotes ASEC engagement partly due to feelings of belonging (see Slavin 1991 and Slavin 1996, for discussions). Considering the aggregate of these findings, it can be argued that feeling connected to peers and teachers (as well as other adults, like parents) is likely to have a positive impact on student concentration (i.e., academic engagement), on classroom behaviour (i.e., social engagement), on student happiness (i.e., emotional engagement), and on student effort to do schoolwork (i.e., cognitive engagement).
Finally, in terms of competence, engagement researchers have also found positive associations between perceived competence in carrying out learning activities and student ASEC engagement. For instance, regarding academic and social engagement, studies such as Skinner et al. (1990), Connell et al. (1994), and Rudolph et al. (2001), have demonstrated that perceived academic competence brings about on-task behaviour and positive conduct. The former studies have also shown a relationship between competence and emotional engagement. For example, Skinner and her colleagues, (Skinner et al., 1998) in a longitudinal study involving 1600 subjects aged 8-13, reported that control beliefs were associated with active engagement in the classroom at both the behavioural and emotional levels. Studies on the area of learned helplessness (i.e., students’ beliefs that they cannot do well no matter what they do) provide further evidence that students who perceive themselves as competent enough to accomplish a task are low in learned helplessness, and therefore more willing to participate and less likely to switch off from their learning (e.g., Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Newman 1990; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Regarding emotional engagement, the work of Harter (1992) has shown that perceptions of competence correlate with positive emotional reactions to schoolwork. Her findings also illustrate that students with low levels of competence are more likely to feel anxious or depressed. These findings concur with similar studies conducted in school contexts (e.g., Bandura et al., 1996; Meece et al.,
1990; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Lastly, research also suggests a significant influence of competence on cognitive engagement (e.g., Pintrich 1999; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Walker et al., 2006; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996). As an example, in a meta-analytic investigation focusing across all levels of education Multon et al. (1991) concluded that competence beliefs represented 14% of academic
performance (e.g., standardized achievement tests) and approximately 12% of the variance in the academic persistence of students (e.g., time spend on task, number of tasks attempted or completed and the number of academic terms completed). These results indicate that students exert more mental effort when they believe that the schoolwork is within their level of competence (i.e., cognitive engagement).
Concluding remarks
In view of the above, it can thus be argued that it is possible to expect to engage students academically, socially, emotionally, and cognitively in learning activities by
simultaneously attending to the principles of meaningfulness, autonomy, belongingness and competence when designing such activities. This proposition is justified by the fact that, in motivation and engagement research, these four elements have been
independently associated with having a positive influence on student ASEC engagement in the classroom. Therefore, it can be predicted that they are likely to stimulate ASEC engagement in learning activities when implemented together. Moreover, given the fact that the elements are considered key developmental and psychological needs of students, it can also be expected that not supporting any of them is likely to negatively influence overall engagement in learning activities. Based on all this, I will now present the ProE model.