Test multipactor en los filtros de guías de ondas

review of student engagement they explain that student engagement can be divided into three types (Trowler & Trowler, 2010). First, student engagement in individual student learning refers to students being engaged for the purpose of improving their learning outcomes. The second type of student engagement comprises of structure and process, and refers to students’ involvement in governance and leadership. The final type of engagement describes student engagement with respect to identity, and includes the extent to which benefits varied for different students. Trowler and Trowler (2010) assert that the value of student engagement in individual student learning (henceforth referred to as student engagement) is no longer questioned. This type of

engagement is the focus of my dissertation because, of the three, it is the most relevant to the HEI module context.

In education research, various authors have acknowledged that there is considerable ambiguity with respect to the definition and scope of student engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Kahu, 2013). For instance, student engagement has often been defined according to its

measurement by popular student engagement surveys such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (e.g., Kezar & Kinzie, 2006). The NSSE describes four engagement themes including academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences with faculty, and campus

environment (“From benchmarks to engagement indicators and high-impact practices,” 2015). These four themes are measured by a very broad range of questions describing students own actions (all four themes), perceptions of coursework (academic challenge), perceptions of instructors’ actions (experiences with faculty), and perceptions of the institutional environment (campus environment) (see Table 5 for sample questions) (“From benchmarks to engagement indicators and high-impact practices,” 2015). As shown in Table 5, the NSSE appears to be useful for measuring students’ overall experiences at a HEI. However, the approach of using these wide-ranging scope of items to conceptualize student engagement is counterintuitive to the theoretical development of student engagement because (1) operational definitions follow

conceptualizations in scientific research and not the other way around, and (2) student engagement becomes an all-encompassing construct riddled with ambiguity and fuzziness. Moreover, there are also validity issues with the NSSE (Pike, 2006; Porter, 2010).

Perhaps the most alarming issue regarding the conceptuality of student engagement, is that numerous researchers have simply failed to explicitly define engagement (see a review by Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003). As pointed out by Blumer (1940), “concepts that are vague

Table 5

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Indicators and Items Concept Sample indicators

Academic challenge During your school year, how often have you reviewed your notes after class?

During the current school year, how often have you evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information?

Learning with peers During the current school year, how often have you had discussions with … people with religious beliefs other than your own?

During the school year, how often have you asked another student to help you understand course material?

Experiences with faculty

During the current school year, to what extent have your instructors … used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points?

During the current school year, how often have you talked about your career plans with a faculty member?

Campus environment

Indicate the quality of your interactions with (a) academic advisors, (b) student services staff, (c) other administrative staff and offices, etc. How much does your institution emphasize … attending campus activities and events?

and unclear are an immediate obstacle to effective scientific research and to the attainment of rigorous knowledge” (p. 707). For student engagement, researchers have yet to identify what it is and what it is not. With no conceptual boundaries, measurement of ‘student engagement’ tends to vary widely between studies, thus furthering the gap between theory and empirical

observation. This gap is problematic because it does not allow for rigorous deduction as well as concept testing and revision (Blumer, 1940).

In light of the ambiguity surrounding student engagement, Kahu (2013) and Fredricks et al. (2004) offer suggestions for moving the education field forward towards a clear and unified conceptualization of engagement. Kahu (2013) suggests that a combination of the psychological and socio-cultural perspectives offers the best representation of student engagement. The

three dimensions … of affect, cognition, and behaviour” (Kahu, 2013, p. 764). Student

engagement research typically focuses on facets of one or two of these dimensions (Fredricks et al., 2004). Fredricks et al. (2004) support the psychological perspective stating that scholars need to fuse the three dimensions of engagement together to provide a richer conceptualization in which these three dimensions are dynamically interrelated. The major drawback to this psychological perspective is that it ignores the role of the situation. This shortcoming is addressed by the socio-cultural perspective.

The socio-cultural perspective examines how student engagement may be affected by wider economic issues, newer technologies, and changing societal values. Here, the emphasis shifts from the individual to the structures in which they are embedded. In other words, the situation in which students are engaged can affect the three dimensions of psychological

engagement, i.e., emotion, behaviour, and cognition. The socio-cultural perspective indicates that engagement is influenced by wider contextual factors, but these factors are beyond the scope of this dissertation.

In addition to psychological and socio-cultural perspectives, two other perspectives of student engagement include the behavioural and holistic perspectives. These perspectives define engagement as a process to improve student achievement rather than an element in that process. As such, both perspectives tend to convolute the three dimensions of emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement (Kahu, 2013).

Even though both Kahu (2013) and Fredricks et al. (2004) propose recommendations for improving the conceptualization of engagement, no definition of the concept is offered in either of their reviews. Based on their reviews and an examination of student engagement research,

student engagement can be regarded as students’ involvement in the academic aspects of their studies. This broad definition highlights the expansive nature of the concept in student

engagement research. In this conceptualization, engagement refers to any academic-oriented outcome associated with emotion, behaviour, and cognition. In addition, student engagement and burnout are often regarded as opposite poles on the same continuum. In this view, burnout is simply a lack of emotional (e.g., decline in interest), behavioural (e.g., lack of participation), and cognitive (e.g., lack of attention) engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Overall, student

engagement and burnout “[suffer] from being everything to everybody” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 84). As such, there is a “need for clarity about what is and is not included in engagement and for an assessment of the ‘value added’ by studying engagement” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 84).

To move the education field forward, an examination of what constitutes student engagement and burnout is necessary. Dictionary definitions of burnout describe the concept similarly to that proposed in organizational behaviour literature, i.e., detaching or withdrawing oneself from an activity (“Disengagement,” 2014a, “Disengagement,” 2014b). Here, it is clear that burnout is characterized by low activation. However, for student engagement, dictionaries offer little meaningful information, often defining engagement as the act of being engaged; with engaged taken to mean behavioural involvement in an activity (“Engagement,” 2014a,

“Engagement,” 2014b). A better approach to conceptualizing student engagement may be to adopt the characteristics of engagement from organizational behaviour research. In the organizational behaviour field, the concept of engagement has matured more than in the education field by focusing on what it means to be ‘engaged’ (see Section 3.1.1). Borrowing from organizational behaviour, the scope of student engagement can be narrowed so that engagement is characterized by a highly activated and positive state.

The idea that student engagement can be characterized by activation is not completely new. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) distinguish between procedural and substantive student engagement. Procedural engagement is characterized by normal or ‘undistinguished’ activity. Here, students ‘go through the motions’ in order to develop competence in academic activities (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). In contrast, substantive engagement transcends procedural engagement; it is characterized by meaningful and highly energetic activity (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). In Nystrand and Gamoran’s study, there is a clear similarity between substantive student engagement and the concept of work engagement from organizational behaviour research. Furthermore, organizational behaviour measures such as the UWES, which taps into positive and highly activated activity, and the MBI, which taps into negative and low activation, are also infrequently used to measure student engagement and burnout respectively (Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002)

Both (1) Nystrand and Gamoran’s concept of substantive student engagement and (2) Schaufeli and colleagues’ empirical studies using adapted versions of organizational behaviour measures for student engagement, emphasize a highly activated and positive state for

engagement and low activated and negative state for burnout. Following our earlier discussion of engagement and burnout (see Section 3.1), the concept of student burnout may be regarded as independent to engagement. I define student burnout as the exhaustion of students’ capacity to maintain an intense involvement. In this dissertation, I examine student burnout in the HEI module context, and thus burnout can be characterized by (a) exhaustion or fatigue with regards to study or module demands; (b) cynicism or indifference towards study or module work; and (c) feelings of incompetence with respect to studying or a module (Schaufeli, Martínez, et al., 2002). I define student engagement as highly activated and positive emotional, behavioural, and

cognitive involvement. Again, in this dissertation, I examine student engagement in relation to the HEI module context, and thus the activated and positive emotions, behaviours, and

cognitions are described in this context. For each of the three dimensions of student engagement, the following subsections describe the state of engagement in education research followed by my suggestions for narrowing the scope of each dimension to focus on activation.

Emotional engagement. In the educational literature, emotional engagement has been

defined as “students’ affective reactions in the classroom” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 63). Early research on students’ emotions examined stress (Alzahem, van der Molen, Alaujan, Schmidt, & Zamakhshary, 2011), satisfaction (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002), and affective learning (D’Mello, 2013). There has also been an emergence of research on specific student emotions in HEI module settings (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Stephanou, Kariotoglou, & Dinas, 2011). A central tenet of research on emotions is the subdivision of emotions into positive and negative dimensions. Some positive emotions students experience include interest,

enjoyment, happiness, hope, and pride. Some negative emotions include boredom, sadness, frustration, anger, and anxiety (Goetz, Zirngibl, Reinhard Pekrun, & Hall, 2003; Pekrun et al., 2009).

There are two major differences between the organizational behaviour and education conceptualizations of emotional engagement. The first difference is that the educational approach to emotional engagement regards all emotion-related student outcomes as engagement whereas organizational behaviour research concentrates on activated feelings and emotions. Based on my proposed definition of student engagement, only activated emotional reactions should be

considered engagement. To identify activated emotional reactions, Warr (2007) provides a framework based on numerous empirical studies of activated feelings. In this framework, highly

activated or aroused feelings include alert, excited, energetic, enthusiastic, cheerful, and elated. Warr (2007) also identifies highly activated feelings that are characterized by displeasure. This leads to the second difference between the education and organizational behaviour literatures.

The second difference is that the educational approach to emotional engagement regards both positive and negative feelings and emotions as engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004), whereas the organizational behaviour approach focuses solely on pleasantness or positive emotions. Following the organizational behaviour approach, the educational approach to emotional engagement can be redefined to focus only on feelings and emotions that are characterized by both activation and pleasure. In the organizational behaviour approach, feelings and emotions that are characterized by activation and displeasure do not share the same conceptual space as emotional engagement, e.g., alarmed, afraid, tense, anxious, and uneasy (Warr, 2007). Adopting the organizational behaviour approach for student engagement offers greater clarity while still remaining consistent with the ‘positive’ state that is often implied in the diverse understandings of student engagement (Trowler & Trowler, 2010).

Behavioural engagement. Behavioural engagement is usually defined in terms of

specific facets. In educational research, Fredricks et al. (2004) categorized these facets into three classifications. These classifications include (1) positive conduct and adherence to rules, e.g., attendance; (2) participation in learning activities, e.g., asking questions, completing tasks, assisting colleagues; and (3) involvement in extracurricular activities, e.g., sports, clubs, and societies.

Of the three classifications, only the first two are relevant to the HEI module context. Participation in learning activities is reflective of a positive and activated state, and thus indicates

engagement. However, positive conduct and adherence to rules implies compliance rather than an activated state in which the student is doing something ‘extra’ or smarter. As suggested by organizational behaviour researchers, the ‘extra’ component has value in defining behavioural engagement when a specific frame of reference is provided (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Like organizational behaviour researchers, educational researchers need to specify a frame of reference in defining and measuring extra effort. Furthermore, for positive conduct and adherence to rules, educational researchers sometimes regard the absence of disengaged behaviour as engagement, e.g., non-absenteeism (Fredricks et al., 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003). Based on my conceptualization of student engagement, this approach does not measure activated behaviours. Instead, non-absenteeism may be regarded as unexceptional or cursory involvement in a module/class. Some positive and activated behaviours may include students’ asking

stimulating questions, making contributions in class, doing additional readings, helping other students, etc. These positive and activated behaviours should be characterized by intensity, energy, and full effort (Rich et al., 2010).

Cognitive engagement. In educational research, cognitive engagement is defined as “a

student’s psychological investment in and effort directed towards learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge skills or crafts” (Newmann, 1992, p. 12). Cognitive engagement

typically comprises of the concept of students’ self-regulation (Fredricks et al., 2004) including a deep involvement in their learning or studying (Kahu, 2013). Self-regulation can be defined as the “use of learning principles to regulate one’s own behaviour” (Johns & Saks, 2007, p. 60). Students who engage in self-regulated learning use specific learning principles in a process or cycle.

For educational research, Zimmerman (2002) proposes a model of self-regulated learning – a model that captures most of the models of self-regulation proposed by various researchers. The author proposes three phases of self-regulated learning. The first phase of forethought includes setting goals and strategically planning ways to achieve them. This phase is

characterized by motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy and intrinsic value. The second phase of performance involves students’ strategic actions towards the goal. Performance includes students’ use of cognitive strategies such as attention and imagery, as well as self-control strategies such as self-instruction, self-recording, and self-experimentation. The final phase of self-reflection involves the critical evaluation of outcomes and use of self-judgment (Cassidy, 2011). The three phases provide a framework for analyzing the process of self-regulated learning. In addition to Zimmerman’s model, Boekaerts (1999) developed another well-known and complementary model of self-regulation.

Boekaerts’ three layer conceptual model of self-regulated learning offers a unique perspective to self-regulation (Boekaerts, 1999). The innermost layer describes students’ choice of cognitive learning strategy. Learning strategies are categorized by Marton and Saljo (1997) as either a deep or surface approach to learning. Students who use a deep approach, try to genuinely understand the underlying meaning of the content through the use of active problem solving and deep thinking skills (Heikkilä & Lonka, 2006). Conversely, the surface approach involves rote learning for the purpose of memorization, recall, and other routine processing activities (Ferla, Valcke, & Schuyten, 2009; Heikkilä & Lonka, 2006). In addition to deep and surface approaches to learning, researchers also examine learning strategies such as note taking (Peper & Mayer, 1978, 1986) and time management (Torenbeek, Jansen, & Suhre, 2012). The choice of learning strategy may be regarded as part of Zimmerman’s forethought phase, but certain concepts such

as time management can be relevant to all of Zimmerman’s phases. The second layer of Boekaerts’ model describes the use of metacognitive knowledge and skills for direct learning. Like Zimmerman’s self-reflection phase, this second layer is described from a regulatory

standpoint. The third layer involves the individual’s regulation of themselves. This layer appears to be similar to Zimmerman’s forethought phase. Overall, Zimmerman’s model provides a framework for the process of self-regulation and Boekaerts’ model offers a three-layered conceptual framework of self-regulation.

Students’ self-regulation is largely determined by their orientation. That is, their self- regulation is primarily predetermined by their dispositions and choice of strategy (Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002). However, students’ self-regulation can also be affected by situational factors such as curriculum strategies and instructor-factors, including their modeling, teaching, and creation of an enabling environment (Cassidy, 2011). Therefore, even though students use internal feedback as a means to measure progress, they also rely on external feedback from instructors and peers (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006).

Self-regulation is characterized by learning activities that vary in intensity of activation. For instance, setting goals and strategically planning ways to achieve them, self-instruction, self- recording, self-experimentation, and deep approach to learning are all characterized by high activation. Moreover, some of these activated self-regulation sub-concepts or learning activities are likely to share the same conceptual space with absorption, i.e., students become absorbed in their learning and develop a trance-like focus in class or in their studies. Therefore, these positive and activated self-regulation sub-concepts are likely to be indicative of engagement. On the other hand, other self-regulation sub-concepts such as surface approaches to learning, note-taking, and

time management are all characterized by low to moderate levels of activation. Hence, these learning activities may be regarded as ‘going through the motions’ rather than engagement.

In summary, the psychological approach offers a framework comprising of emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement. Even though this framework offers some clarity on the multidimensional nature of student engagement, it does not specify the meaning of engagement or its conceptual boundaries. To address this issue, I use the organizational behaviour strand of research on work engagement to give prominence to the notion of positive activation. Positive activation is key for distinguishing between what engagement is and what engagement is not. With a clear conceptuality of student engagement, including its dimensions, it becomes easier to ascertain the unique differences in antecedents and consequences of engagement (Kahu, 2013).

3.1.3 Summary of organizational behaviour and educational approaches.