Improving Student Engagement: A case for Active Learning

by Lee Ming Cherk

This study is about improving my students’ engagement through active learning in an academic writing course (FAS1101). In this course, students were taught how to formulate a research proposal, report on the existing body of knowledge and write an argumentative essay. Designed as a blended learning course, FAS1101 takes an active learning approach and incorporates an eclectic mixture of learning activities: independent learning (e.g. quizzes, videos viewing, audio lectures and reading materials); paired and group work (e.g. in-class evaluation of writing samples, in-class peer reviews, online discussion forums, whatsapp); and teacher-directed instructions (e.g. tutorials, consultations, emails).  

That student engagement is closely linked to performance is a foregone conclusion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to draw a profile of my students’ level of engagement from the behavioural, cognitive and emotional perspectives, and consider what could be improved so that learning performance and emotional functioning could be enhanced.  

Methodology 

The research was based mainly on a student questionnaire. Two sets of data were used. The sample size for the first set of data was drawn from my 2018/2019 semester 1 groups and it numbered 91 students, while the sample size for the second set of data was drawn from semester 2 of the same academic year and it numbered 31 students. The central theme of this questionnaire was Fredricks, Blemenfeld and Paris’s (2004) operationalization of the term “engagement”, which is subdivided into three areas: behavioural, cognitive and emotional. Behavioural engagement relates to students’ actions, for example, class attendance, submission of work, contribution to class discussion, or participation in school-related activities (e.g., extra-curricular sports or school governance). Cognitive engagement relates to students’ psychological investment in their learning, for example, the desire to go beyond the requirements of the class, and the willingness to develop cognitive skills and metacognitive learning strategies. Emotional engagement relates to students’ affective reactions to their learning. For example, emotionally engaged students might report that they are interested in their course and that they enjoyed learning (Bowyer and Chambers, 2017). These survey results were further corroborated with other sources such attendance records and digital footprints (Bowyer & Chambers, 2017) such as online discussions, whatapp messages and emails. 

Findings 

Behavioural Engagement 

Behaviourally, students were engaged in learning. More than 80% of students had full attendance. The 20% who did not have full attendance were absent for no more than 2 meetings, but they gave valid reasons for their absence and documentary evidence to back up their claims. Also, the teacher consultation session sign-up rate was 100% and the attendance rate was also 100%. Some students even asked to come for more than one consultation.  

However, the students were engaged only strategically. The survey results showed that with independent learning activities (such as listening to online lectures or viewing videos) which were not graded, engagement level was low. This is also true of students’ behavior in online discussions. Although the students followed instructions and participated, they were not very active until they noticed that I was present online. Even so, their contributions were mostly addressed to me and not to the group as a whole. Such low level of engagement contrasted sharply with the high level of engagement they had during face-to-face consultation sessions with me. 

From these observations, we can conclude that the students were engaged in learning only when they found that it was important to do so, or when they thought that I was monitoring and evaluating them.  

Cognitive Engagement 

The survey results showed that as strategic learners, students were positively engaged in the areas that they thought to be important to their grade attainment. In these areas, they were psychologically invested in their learning and this subsequently translated into the development of important cognitive skills.   

Students were found to be cognitively engaged in these activities: evaluating writing samples, giving peer feedback and receiving tutor feedback. Out of these three, receiving tutor feedback helped students the most in developing their critical thinking skills, and in improving their own drafts, while evaluating writing samples gave students an increased awareness of the “do’s” and “don’ts” of essay writing. Giving peer feedback pushed students to think more critically when evaluating peer feedback, and apply the practical know-how in giving feedback. Most importantly, students reported that they have applied the skills that they learned in FAS1101 to their other modules.  

Emotional Engagement 

The survey results showed that the students were, in general, emotionally engaged. The survey results reported that after taking the course, they were now more confident that they could write better than they did in the past. Also, interest was generated mainly because there was a variety of activities which variedly triggered students to think more critically. This indicates that the active learning paradigm has successfully enabled deep learning.   

However, the sense of learning as a community of learners was somewhat lacking. Students’ learning style was quite individualistic, even though there were opportunities for collaborative learning through peer reviews and online and class discussions. Consequently, the sense of enjoyment derived through learning was correspondingly low.  

The above-mentioned findings paint a picture of students being emotionally engaged adequately to bring about positive cognitive development but their learning objective was largely instrumental and extraneously motivated. As a result, enjoyment features quite low in the learning process.  

Discussion and Conclusion  

All in all, students were positively engaged enough to function well in FAS1101. However, on closer look, it could be seen that the level of engagement was not uniformed across the various types of activities.  Students were not sufficiently engaged with independent learning activities that did not seem to lead to any grades or final assessments, were not monitored by tutors or were less clearly linked to classroom activities. It was regrettable that they missed the point about independent and or collaborative learning- i.e. developing metacognitive skills that would stand them in good stead. More should be done to highlight the importance of this form of learning, for example, by introducing online “socializing” activities to foster a sense of learning community.   

Also, given that students are pragmatic and strategic learners, it is important to align the activities, particularly the independent learning component, more closely with the learning goals, assessments and evaluations. Through such constructive alignment, “the learner (would find) it difficult to escape without learning appropriately” (Biggs, 2003). Learners themselves would thus be motivated to make sense of the content for themselves and construct their own learning. In this way, their metacognitive and cognitive skills will be better developed. Also, by awarding grades for the independent learning activities, students would be encouraged to take all activities more seriously.   

Finally, I found that students were more positively engaged with tutor feedback and less so with peer feedback. The presence of the teacher, be it in the classroom or online, is intertwined with the social and cognitive presence in an academic discourse (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison and Archer, 2001). This was especially true in the context of this study, since the students were freshmen, who were unfamiliar with the practices of academic writing and therefore required closer facilitation.  

 

References

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching presence in a Computer Conference Environment. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 5(2), 1-17. 

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructive learning. The Higher Education Academy. 

Bowyer, J. & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements Together. Research Matters, 23, Spring. 17-26. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/research-matters/ 

Fredricks, 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.