Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
EERA-ECER2020, Glasgow, Birleşik Krallık, 23 - 28 Ağustos 2020
ID: 404
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Alternative EERA Network: 31. Language and Education Network
Topics: None of these topics seems appropriate for my research.
Keywords: Student engagement, higher education, student engagement in foreign language education, facilitators of student engagement
(2020 ID: 404) An Investigation of Personal Facilitators of Student Engagement in a Higher Education Context
Şermin Vardal Ocaklı1, Ahmet Ok2
1Ankara University, Turkey; 2Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Presenting Author: Vardal Ocaklı, Şermin
Since its first introduction in the 1980s, researchers have attributed different meanings to the concept of student engagement and expressed
different views about its multi-dimensionality. However, the mostly agreed definition is the one that refers to student active participation at
school tasks/activities and embodies three sub-dimensions: behavioural, affective, and cognitive engagement (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, &
Reschly, 2006; Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012; Svalberg, 2009).
The first serious discussions on the role of student engagement in education emerged during the late 1980s. Until 2004, engagement was
approached as a remedy to student withdrawal and dropout by various researchers (e.g. Finn, 1989; Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Several
theoretical models were proposed as a way to strengthen the bond between marginal students and school life. However, in 2004, National
Research Council & Institute of Medicine expanded the scope of the concept by approaching student engagement as a requirement for all
learners. Such a change in the perspective inspired various other researchers and paved the way for a more detailed investigation of student
engagement (e.g. Appleton et al., 2006; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012).
As the interest on this issue increased, research on student engagement correspondingly gained momentum in the field of language education
(e.g. Dörnyei, 2019; Ellis, 2010; Norton, 2008; Svalberg, 2009). However, studies on this subject were mostly limited to the impact of
engagement on second language education, so its role in foreign language classrooms remained unclear. Besides, researchers mainly focused
on the analysis of its indicators and showed a tendency to make a connection between the indicators and the outcomes of engagement, which
was found questionable by some other researchers (e.g. Sachs & Polio, 2007). Most importantly, there existed an ambiguity about the meaning
of terms ‘facilitator’, ‘indicator’, and ‘outcome’ in the language education literature, which adversely affected the interpretation of the research
findings.
After all these observations, it was concluded that more investigation was needed to understand the nature of student engagement in foreign
language classrooms, and as a result, this study was designed to understand how well personal facilitators of student engagement predict
English language learners’ performance in the TOEFL ITP exam, controlling for the student status (new vs repeat student) and the number of
TOEFL ITP exam taken after university enrolment.
As the theoretical framework, the engagement model of Skinner and Pitzer (2012) was preferred, and the personal facilitators of engagement
were investigated in line with the principles of this model. Inspired by their approach, throughout the study, students’ sense of belongingness
was regarded as the facilitator of affective engagement, whereas student self-efficacy and language learning autonomy were considered as the
facilitators of cognitive engagement. Different from their model, language learning strategy use was added to the study as one of the facilitators
of cognitive engagement. In addition to all these, students’ TOEFL ITP scores were secured as their language proficiency score.
Unfortunately, despite all efforts to date, student engagement is still one of the biggest challenges in the 21st century classrooms, which makes
this study more relevant and significant. The investigation of the domain-specific features of student engagement is believed to offer valuable
insight to foreign language education. In addition, providing guidance about the facilitators to (foreign language) teachers, (language) curriculum
designers and (language) teacher education programs and offering them some ways about how to minimize potential risks such as poor
academic performance or life-long resistance to language learning are considered as significant practical contributions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relevance of student engagement to foreign language learning and achievement. Two research
questions were addressed throughout the study: a) How well does sense of belongingness (the personal facilitator of affective engagement)
predict English language learners’ performance in the TOEFL ITP exam, controlling for the student status and the number of TOEFL ITP exam
taken after university enrolment?, b) How well do self-efficacy, language learning strategy use, and language learning autonomy (the personal
facilitators of cognitive engagement) predict English language learners’ performance in the TOEFL ITP exam, controlling for the student status
and the number of TOEFL ITP exam taken after university enrolment?
In this correlational research, students’ Listening Comprehension (LC), Structure and Written Expression (SWE), and Reading Comprehension
(RC) score in the TOEFL ITP exam were considered as the dependent variables of the study, whereas students’ sense of belongingness
(perceived pedagogical caring, identification with the school), self-efficacy (self-efficacy for receptive skills, self-efficacy for productive skills),
language learning strategy use (planning and organizing the language learning process, monitoring the language learning process, elaborating
on new knowledge), and language learning autonomy (taking responsibility of language learning, associating the language with real life, taking
part in language learning activities) served as the independent variables. In addition, the number of TOEFL ITP exam taken after university
enrolment and the student status (new vs repeat student) were controlled.
All students at the English language preparatory classes of private universities in Ankara, Turkey were regarded as the target population, and
165 students studying at a private university in Ankara participated in the study. The data required were gathered through a demographic
information form and four different scales, which were all piloted and analyzed through exploratory factor analysis: (1) Sense of University
Belonging Scale,
(2) English Self-Efficacy Scale, (3) Language Learner Autonomy Scale, and (4) Language Learning Strategy Use Scale. As the analysis
method, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was preferred, and the alpha was set at .05. Prior to the analysis, the adequateness of the
sample size was checked through the formula N>50 + 8k, where k stands for the number of predictors (Green, 1991). Later, the intercorrelations
between the variables for multicollinearity together with the other necessary assumptions were checked. For each research question, three
different hierarchical analyses were run, and in the first step of each analysis, confounding variables were controlled.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
To understand whether personal facilitators of engagement predicted student performance in LC, SWE, and RC parts of the TOEFL ITP exam,
six different hierarchical analyses (three for each research question) were conducted. In the first step of each analysis, confounding variables
were entered, and the results indicated a significant relationship between the first model and all outcome variables, which provided evidence for
their confounding effects. When each variable was analyzed separately, it was discovered that experience in the TOEFL ITP exam positively
changed students’ LC and SWE scores. Moreover, compared to repeat group students, new students received better scores in all parts of the
exam.
Another important finding was that students who felt themselves attached to their school received better scores in the SWE part of the exam.
Particularly, perceived pedagogical caring was positively related with student performance. When it comes to the contribution of self-efficacy, it
https://www.conftool.com/ecer2020/index.php?page=showAbstract&print=yes&doprint=yes&form_id=404&show_abstract=1 2/2
was discovered that when students felt themselves competent at language learning, they displayed better performance in the LC and SWE parts
of the exam. Especially those having higher self-efficacy for receptive skills were better at listening, and those with high self-efficacy for
productive skills had better scores in the SWE part. In addition to self-efficacy, the facilitative role of learner autonomy was questioned and
surprisingly, the results pointed at non-significant links. In other words, whether students were autonomous did not contribute to their
performance in the TOEFL ITP test. With regard to the impact of language learning strategy use, the analysis showed that those who tended to
use language learning strategies displayed better performance in the RC part of the exam. Specifically, students monitoring the learning process
had better scores. Nevertheless, those using the elaboration strategies received lower scores.
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the
student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2006), 427–445.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M.
Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 43-77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the l2 learning experience, the Cinderella of the L2 motivational self-system. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 19-30.
Ellis, R. (2010). EPILOGUE: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),
335-349.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 117–142.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Green, S.B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510.
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Norton, B. (2008). Identity, language learning, and critical pedagogies. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Knowledge about language:
Encyclopaedia of language and education (pp. 1-13). Berlin: Springer.
Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinderman, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational
dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.
Skinner, E.A. & Pitzer, J.R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S.L. Christenson, A.L.
Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.
Svalberg, A.M.L. (2009). Engagement with language: interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 242-258.