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.