Student Engagement and Motivation

In researching the topic of student engagement and motivation, I came across an interesting review in The Teaching Professor. The author reviewed an article, “A Measure of College Student Course Engagement” by Mitchell M. Handelsman et al. that looks at factors and indicators for student engagement.

Handelsman et al. (2005) identify the importance of persistence and performance as measures of student engagement. While they note that a number of studies have examined student engagement from a campus perspective, they wanted to focus specifically on classroom engagement. In two studies, they evaluate the validity of the Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ). Their studies “revealed [four] dimensions of college student engagement that were distinct and reliable” (184). These dimensions look at four levels of engagement, which include skills engagement, participation/interaction engagement, emotional engagement, and performance engagement. The researchers began with the premise that “engaged students are good learners and that effective teaching stimulates and sustains student engagement” (184), and sought to measure engagement while being aware that overt behaviours such as asking questions in class may be influenced by cultural and personal backgrounds. The researchers drew upon the work of Skinner and Belmont with regards to the "reciprocal relationship between student engagement and teacher involvement" (184). The researchers focused on what they termed as the "micro" level of the classroom versus the "macro" level of the institution as this is where they believed that they would have the most immediate impact. For the SCEQ, the researchers identified 27 indicators divided among 4 factors as shown below:

Factor 1: Student Engagement:

1. Making sure to study on a regular basis
2. Putting forth effort
3. Doing all the homework problems
4. Staying up on the readings
5. Looking over class notes between classes to make sure I understand the material
6. Being organized
7. Taking good notes in class
8. Listening carefully in class
9. Coming to class every day

Factor 2: Emotional Engagement:

1. Finding ways to make the course material relevant to my life
2. Applying course material to my life
3. Finding ways to make the course interesting to me
4. Thinking about the course between class meetings
5. Really desiring to learn the material

Factor 3: Participation/Interaction Engagement:

1. Raising my hand in class
2. Asking questions when I don't understand the instructor
3. Having fun in class
4. Participating actively in small-group discussions
5. Going to the professor's office hours to review assignments or tests or to ask questions
6. Helping fellow students

Factor 4: Performance Engagement

1. Getting a good grade
2. Doing well on the tests
3. Being confident that I can learn and do well in the class

Four items were excluded from the analysis, these included: sitting toward the front of the class, where it's easier to pay attention; figuring out what's expected of me in this class; contacting the professor by phone or email when I have a question; and being determined to succeed.

Among other findings, the researchers found that performance engagement was linked to extrinsic motivation or what they saw as more traditional outcomes such as grades, whereas emotional engagement was linked to intrinsic motivation. While researchers agree that this study is only the tip of the iceberg in both that the study needed more replication to substantiate its validity and also that it was only a snapshot view of the student, they did believe that it showed a strong correlation between emotional engagement and student success.

Interestingly, like the article by Gerald O. Grow, this article is based upon research that grew out of the “desire to improve [their] own college courses” (184). It reiterates the link between student engagement, effective teaching and active learning. The Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ) was interesting as it could be replicated in any classroom if given anonymously as a feedback tool from which the instructor could then implement changes in the classroom.

I guess the question that stands out for me though is, all these strategies and studies focus on what appear to be already effective instructors but what can be done about the ineffective ones? Is there a gentle way to bring them along? Grow's article as well as the article studied here were undertaken by instructors hoping to become more effective. They were already concerned with student success, motivation, honing their teaching craft. But what about instructors who are happy to just get up and lecture to the class, hand out homework assignments, and then grade them without really caring about the individual student on the other end of that assignment. I am sure every institution has them. My institution has some exceptional instructors who strive to provide active learning opportunities and help the students become all that they can be but there are also those who are just putting in time.

I think I know the answer to my own question. As with all things in life, you can’t make anyone change. You can simply act in a way that is true to yourself and hope that by setting the example of an engaged, innovative, active instructor that those who are not may see the enthusiasm of your students and your classes and one inquire about what makes this so. It may also be a case of the “technology adoption lifecycle” developed by Joe M. Bohlen, George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers which defines adopter groups as following the pattern of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Perhaps they are just slower to start.

Works Cited:

Grow, Gerald O. (1991). Teaching Learners to be Self-Directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125-149.

Handelsman, M.M. et al. (2005). A Measure of College Student Course Engagement. The Journal
of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-191.

Student Engagement in Courses. (2005). The Teaching Professor, 19(10), 7-8.

Meta-Cognition or Knowing about Knowing

Meta-cognition is often referred to as "knowing about knowing" (Metacognition, 2013) and while this is essentially true, this simple definition fails to incorporate the depth of the theory. Ormrod (1999) as quoted in Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide provides a more comprehensive definition stating that metacognition is "people's knowledge of their own learning and cognitive processes and their consequent regulation of those processes to enhance learning and memory" (Merriam et al., 403).

John Flavell is credited with developing the theory of meta-cognition, originally coined metamemory. Flavell described metamemory as "an individual's ability to manage and monitor the input, storage, search and retrieval of the contents of his own memory" (Cooper, 2009). Flavell's theory draws upon Jean Paiget's idea of intentionally. For Flavell metamemory or meta-cognition is intentional thus the process is "deliberate and goal-directed, and involves planning a sequence of actions" (Cooper, 2009). Cooper (2009) notes that Flavell's inclusion of intentionally has been the subject of debate among some scholars as Reder and Schunn, Kentridge and Heywood who argue that meta-cognition can occur unconsciously.

According to Flavell, meta-cognition is comprised of person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Person knowledge encompasses understanding one's own capabilities. Task knowledge is concerned with a person's level of perception of the level of difficulty of the task. Strategic knowledge is the learner's capability to use strategies to learn information.

In reading about meta-cognition, two ideas stand out for me, Flavell's idea of meta-cognition as intentional and the three aspects of meta-cognition, person, task, and strategy. Firstly, the idea that meta-cognition is intentional means that it can be developed and honed with conscious effort. Therefore through practice, learners can become more efficient learners. Throughout my post-secondary education and in my work at the university, I have witnessed a number of exceptional people with brilliant minds who lack the proper tools for learning. Brilliance is not enough to be successful in post-secondary education, you must have the proper tools and work ethic for seeing a job through to completion. Secondly, the tripartite framework acknowledges the need to understand and develop one's own capabilities, the perception of the task, and the strategies for learning. For me, this means that anyone can succeed with effort and understanding. It is interesting that it is the perception of the difficulty of the task and not the actual difficulty of the task. This idea comes back to the expectancy theories in which success can breed success. Essentially for me with enough effort, success is within the grasp of every learner.

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to work as a teaching assistant for an outstanding new program, the Foundation program. While I was not aware of it in the moment, this program was a great example of meta-cognition at work.

First let me provide some background information about the Foundation program. The University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) began a pilot program in the Fall of 2012, called the Foundation program. This program seeks to give first year students the skills necessary to be successful in their academic careers. The learning outcomes of the Foundation program are:

• Appropriate depth and breadth of knowledge and skills
• Analytical, critical, and creative thinking skills
• Liberality, inclusiveness, and an appreciate of diversity
• Personal growth, leadership skills, and effective communication
• Life-long learning and intellectual development
• Engaged citizenship from the local to global levels (UNBC, 2012)

Built around the principles of establishing a cohort for better student connection and an integrated curriculum, the Foundation program is comprised of 6 courses, 3 each semester taught by 5 instructors. Representatives from other campus support programs, such as the Access Resource Centre (formerly Disability Services) and the Academic Success Centre, are invited in as needed. While it would appear that this complement draws heavily upon the resources of the university, these services are available to all courses and programs and are viewed as an investment in the students' future. The program has an embedded librarian and 2 teaching assistants per semester. Each semester, the 3 instructors teach courses created around interconnected core themes and skills. In the Foundation of Learning courses, FNDS 101 (Fall) and FNDS 106 (Winter), students work through the assignments and readings of the other 2 courses.

In the Foundation of Learning courses, the students are essentially taught the fundamentals of meta-cognition. For example, as a class, the FNDS 101 students would take one of the readings assigned in FNDS 104: Peoples, Places, and Culture and learn how to find the thesis statement, see each movement of the argument, read another article that opposes it to identify conflicting viewpoints along with being taught reading strategies including note taking, concept mapping, reflection, self-questioning, and reading aloud for comprehension. Students are given a variety of tools and resources, including computer access in the classroom, whiteboards, flipcharts, instructors, a librarian and teaching assistants, at their fingertips and are encouraged to explore what works for them.

Our exploration into meta-cognition began on the first day of classes, when students, instructors, and support staff completed a learning styles inventory (http://learning-styles-online.com/). The implications of learning styles was explored and developed throughout the course and specifically through assignments such as the aforementioned article reading assignment. For instance, visual learners may find concept mapping helpful, whereas social learners gain more from discussing the reading with fellow classmates.

As the course progressed, the mechanics of learning were discussed and suggestions for strategies were presented to the students on topics ranging from exam anxiety and library anxiety, to time management and note taking. Instructors and teaching assistants shared strategies and tips they use, as well as their own experiences with the intent that students would see instructors as simply fellow learners. A range of strategies were discussed and the safe, cohesive environment provided a safe space for learners to experiment with what strategies helped them learn best. Failure was not only expected but encouraged as it was seen as an essential piece of the learning puzzle. Even topics such as how the university is organized were discussed in class. Students felt safe to ask questions that first year students usually need to learn through their experience with the institution. For those who are familiar with the organization, run the university works seems intuitive but for new students this is often a mystery. Even the proper etiquette on how to address professors is a foreign concept to first time students. Even having completed by BA and MLIS, I often came away from the Foundation classes with a take away that would make my current graduate work easier.

As a librarian working on the Reference desk, I often saw the advantage of this program as the Foundation program students appeared to be more organized and advanced in their approach to researching their assignments.

While the Foundation program appears unique in its open exploration of meta-cognition, all teaching experiences can draw upon the wealth of rich resources that the Foundation program incorporated. As a new instructor, there were many takeaways from this experience that I have tried to incorporate into my teaching. I have my students complete a learning styles inventory in order to bring awareness about how best they can learn. As a reflective teaching practice, I attempt to include as many of the learning styles as possible when presenting course content and assignments. Whereas the Foundation program had an embedded librarian, I invite the library into the classroom, and often take the students to the library, and work with librarians on assignment creation whenever possible to build a better connection between the students and the library. I invite representatives from the other support programs on campus into the classroom when appropriate and encourage students to seek these services. I work with students to uncover the mechanics of learning by openly discussing things such as how to take a test, read an article, and complete assignments.

Many students believe there is a mystery to being successful in academia but really it is less about being brilliant and more about effective work habits, time management, and completing the assigned work. Meta-cognition is the key, when you understand the best way for you to learn, you can use this to your advantage.

Works Cited:
Cooper, Susan. (2009). Flavell: Metacognition. Theories of Learning in Educational Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.html.

Learning Styles Online. (2011). Learning Styles Inventory. Learning Styles Online. Retrieved from http://www.learning-styles-online.com/inventory/.

Merriam, Sharan, B. Caffarella, Rosemary S. and Baumgartner. Lisa M. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide.  San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Metacognition. (2013). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition.

University of Northern British Columbia. (2012). Foundation Year Curriculum Program. University of Northern British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.unbc.ca/calendar/undergraduate/foundation-year.