It Is Time to Make a Distinction between Engagement and Involvement
Hamidreza Moeiniasl, Iran
Hamidreza Moeiniasl is a faculty member at English Department of Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Iran, and a PhD candidate at Islamic Azad University-Science and Research Branch. He is interested in SLA, assessment, and language teaching. He is the co-author of an article on “Construct validation of reading comprehension skills” and “ Reading Through Skills: A task-based approach to teaching reading”. E-mail: hamrezaasl@yahoo.com
Menu
Abstract
Engagement
Involvement
Conclusion
References
Engagement and involvement are of those terms that are being used in English teaching literature interchangeably. Although engagement has been divided into various forms such as behavioral, emotional and cognitive, no attempt has been done to conceptualize the term and distinguish it from ‘involvement’. The paper first strives to elaborate on the prime significance of engaging students in class activities and then provides strategies to get them emotionally and cognitively engaged. Finally, it addresses the characteristics of involved and uninvolved students and introduces basic assumptions about involvement.
Some English teachers wrongly believe that mere exposure to the samples of the target language is what learners need to acquire it and the language itself emerges at the right time. To learn a second language, some scholars contend that the context of language learning should engage learners in the process of language learning. Numerous educational theories include a focus on learner engagement. In Dewey’s (1938) notion of experiential learning, learners are actively involved in the learning process; that is, they learn by doing. Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development posited that when teachers structure learning opportunities at the appropriate level and with the right support, students become engaged in learning. An adult ESL classroom can be viewed as a community of practice, where teachers and students learn from one another and all participants are engaged (Taylor, Abasi, Pinsent-Johnson, & Evans, 2007; Warriner, 2010).
In order to help learners on their way from their first exposure to language to full proficiency, van Lier (2004) in his book, “The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective”, describes the characteristics of exposure language. “Exposure language is usable when the learner can make sense of it and makes an effort to process it” (van Lier, 2004, p.45). Unlike Krashen, van Lier defines the term exposure rather from the learner’s point of view, thus he speaks of “language engagement” (van Lier, 2004, p.48) instead of “comprehensible input”. In order to follow the road from exposure to engagement, the learner should keep up receptivity and curiosity. According to van Lier, “engagement with language occurs when the learner’s internal knowledge system interacts with the environment” (p. 52). Therefore, van Lier regards social interaction as a vehicle of central importance to start the whole process of learning and keep it going.
In an earlier book (van Lier, 1996) he proposed a change from the term ‘input’ to ‘engagement.’ Later on (van Lier, 2000) he proposed to change our SLA terminology from ‘input’ to ‘affordance.’ Why these problems with the term ‘input’? What’s in a name, anyway? Input comes from a view of language as a fixed code and of learning as a process of receiving and processing pieces of this fixed code. To come from engagement to intake, a student has to make an investment of effort in the language process. Moreover, Van Lier identified the most important criteria (or conditions) for language learning as a combination of access and engagement. For language learning to occur, he believes we need access to the information in the environment. This information cannot just be transmitted to us, we must pick it up while we are engaged in meaningful activities. That is, according to the ecological-semiotic perspective offered by Van Lier (2004) we must first be active, then pick up language information that is useful for our activities. We may need help to be able to use and internalize the information. We cannot be just empty buckets into which the information is poured. Indeed, we must be engaged in activity and have information around that is available to be picked up and used. This is what he means by access and engagement.
Van Lier (2004) observes that access and engagement require perception and activity. One of the key elements that unite action and perception is attention, that is, getting information from the environment while doing something, in order to do something else. Attention therefore combines perception with action, with the aim of improving our dealings with the world. Being in a target language setting does not guarantee access and participation (or engagement and investment), and being in a foreign language setting does not preclude them (for one thing, the Internet, the media, and the increasing diversity of communities all over the world greatly facilitate direct access to numerous languages wherever we go). The ecologies are different, the constraints and resources are different, and thus the means for achieving the necessary access, engagement, investment and participation are different, but the overall job remains the same.
Various forms of engagement have been proposed by scholars so far. One form which is highly correlated with motivation is emotional engagement. An area of research that contributes much to the area of emotional engagement is that of intrinsic motivation and autonomy (Deci & Flaste, 1995; Dornyei, 2001; Kohonen, Jaatinen, Kaikkonen & Lehtovaara, 2001; van Lier 1996). Emotional factors cannot easily or clearly be divided into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ factors. For example, learning can be a stressful activity, to be sure, but neither the presence nor the absence of stress has any uniform relationship with learning. It is likely that the necessity of investment, and the demands of the learning context, will engender periods of stress and anxiety as well as periods of relaxed attention. The old saying: “No pain, no gain” may sometimes be true, and sometimes not. Rather, the challenge in such classes is to improve access and to stimulate engagement while keeping the content constant (Walqui, 2000). Similarly, in settings where legitimate peripheral participation occurs, complex cultural events and activities are not altered for the benefit of the developing child, but rather, they are allowed access in an incremental, guided and monitored way (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
But the ecological perspective, including not only Gibson (1979) but also the perceptual theory of Merleau-Ponty (1962), states that we perceive the world always as interactive, reciprocal participants. “Perception is always an active engagement with what one perceives, a reciprocal participation with things” (Abrams, 1996, p. 240). It is hard to reconcile this reciprocal participation with a mechanistic metaphor.
Walqui (2006) observes that education never takes place in a vacuum but is deeply embedded in a sociocultural milieu. Thus learning is a matter not only of cognitive development but also of shared social practices. The cognitive and the social go hand in hand in classroom learning. The primary process by which learning takes place is interaction, more specifically, an engagement with other learners and teachers in joint activities that focus on matters of shared interest and that contain opportunities for learning.
From another perspective, motivation is essential to understanding engagement (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Past research has long realized the significance of the learning experience/environment for influencing learners' academic achievement (Ning & Downing, 2012). Moreover, a large body of existing literature has provided evidence for the importance of cognitive and motivational factors influencing learning (Greene & Miller, 1996). The relationship between motivation and engagement provides insights for educators to identify possible factors that may be improved in order to generate more desirable learning outcomes.
Researchers have also assessed cognitive engagement, another form of engagement, as a mediator between learning experience and achievement (Diseth, 2007; Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg, & Larsen, 2010; Greene & Miller, 1996). These findings suggest that both engagement and self-efficacy are important antecedents that, together, may positively influence learning effectiveness more so than either predictor may by itself. Self-perceptions of one's own ability, rooted in self-efficacy theory (i.e., efficacy beliefs) and described as “an individual's judgments of his or her capabilities to perform given actions” (Schunk, 1991, cited in Cheng, 2013), are positively related to the level of cognitive engagement with a task (Schunk, 1991). Students are more engaged with a specific task, if they are more confident in their ability related to it (Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993, cited in Cheng, 2013). Motivation determines the level of cognitive engagement; however, if the quality of cognitive engagement improves, learning achievement also improves (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & Krajcik, 2006). Cognitive engagement is correlated with motivation and has a significant role in learning motivation. According to constructivist theory, cognitive engagement refers to the level of active involvement a student is willing to bring to a learning task (Zhu et al., 2009). When students are assigned a difficult task, those with greater cognitive engagement show greater willingness to persist; furthermore, higher- level cognitive engagement strategies can be used to overcome learning difficulties (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992).
One critical outcome of motivation is cognitive engagement with learning activities (Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006). Walker et al. (2006), using 191 college students as their research sample, explored students' identification with academics, which includes perceptions of belonging and valuing the academic context, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Their results indicated that intrinsic motivation, identification with academics, and self-efficacy were positively correlated, and all were predictors of students' cognitive engagement.
Wang and Lin's (2007) study used undergraduate psychology students to explore relationships among group composition, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and group learning performance. Their results indicated that members of the group that had higher collective efficacy were more skilled at cognitive engagement and, therefore, showed better learning performance. Moreover, self-efficacy influences the level of cognitive engagement.
Cognitive engagement also refers to the learning strategies one uses. Craik and Lockhart (1972) proposed two types of cognitive engagement: deep processing and shallow processing. Deep processing entails connecting new information with existing knowledge to create new knowledge, whereas shallow processing does not connect existing knowledge with new knowledge; shallow processing merely involves simple memorization, repetition, and surface involvement. Previous research has indicated that when individuals utilize meaningful processing, learning achievement is enhanced as compared to learners who use shallow processing strategies (Graham & Golan, 1991; Greene & Miller, 1996; Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Walker et al., 2006). Greene and Miller (1996) studied relationships among personal goals, self-efficacy, cognitive engagement, and learning achievement and found that self-efficacy and learning goals were positively correlated with learning achievement; however, this relationship was mediated by meaningful processing. Thus, meaningful processing positively influences learning achievement, and shallow processing may have the reverse effect on learning achievement. Zhu et al. (2009), who explored situational interest, cognitive engagement, and learning achievement, showed that cognitive engagement was positively correlated with learning achievement. Previous work has demonstrated that students tend to have better learning achievement while adopting deep learning strategies than shallow processing strategies (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Richardson, 2003). In contrast, Webster, Chan, Prosser, and Watkins (2009) underlined the importance of using both deep and shallow learning approaches to understand learning achievement. The findings of the study done by Cheng (2013) suggest that cognitive engagement is a viable predictor of learning achievement although further studies are needed to investigate the causal ordering of these variables.
The relationship between motivation and engagement provides insights for educators. Such a relationship helps educators to identify possible factors that may be improved in order to generate more desirable learning outcomes. As it was already mentioned, researchers have also assessed cognitive engagement as a mediator between learning experience and achievement (Diseth, 2007). Findings of research on relationship between motivation and engagement suggest that both engagement and self-efficacy, together, may positively influence learning effectiveness more than any other factor (Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg, & Larsen, 2010).
Teachers of adults learning English often compete with many demands on learners’ attention. Concerns about family, jobs, money, and transportation; fatigue; and negative past experiences with education are some of the factors that might inhibit an adult learner’s full engagement in class. In a study of learner engagement in adult literacy programs, Beder, Tomkins, Medina, Riccioni, and Deng (2006) noted that engaged learners in K–12 settings have both the will and the ability to participate in and carry out work in class, and Schalge and Soga (2008) suggest that students’ persistence in adult ESL classes may be related to their engagement in the class. Unlike students in K–12 programs, the vast majority of adult learners are voluntary participants in their learning, so the “motivation to engage is a cognitive disposition that learners bring with them when they enroll in adult literacy classes” (Beder et al. 2006, p. 119). The National Survey of Student Engagement, conducted annually among college students, described learner engagement in postsecondary settings as “active and collaborative learning, participation in challenging … and enriching educational experiences, and feeling legitimated and supported” by the learning community (Coates, 2007, p. 122).
From a psychological perspective, Marks (2000, cited in Klem and Connell, 2004) conceptualizes the engagement as a psychological process, specifically the attention, interest, investment, and effort students expand in the work of learning. Taking a broader view of engagement, Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004), usefully identify three dimensions to student engagement.
- Behavioral engagement: Students who are behaviorally engaged would typically comply with behavioral norms such as attendance and involvement, and would not demonstrate disruptive or negative behavior.
- Emotional engagement: Students who engage emotionally would experience affective reactions such as interest, enjoyment, or a sense of belonging.
- Cognitive engagement: Cognitively engaged students would be invested in their learning. These students would seek to go beyond the requirement, and would enjoy challenge.
Recently, educators and researchers have focused on the importance of connecting instruction to learners’ experiences and needs in order to promote engagement and learning. Condelli, Wrigley, and Yoon (2009) express the need for teachers to engage learners by bringing the outside into the classroom. Adult learners use English when they watch TV; listen to music; participate in conversations with their children; and read signs, menus, memos, mail, email, recipes, newspapers, and magazines at home, work, and in the community. These materials can be used to facilitate learning in the classroom. Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson, and Soler (2002) also found that adults were more likely to engage in literacy activities outside the classroom, such as reading the newspaper, using a bus schedule, and writing a letter to someone, when authentic texts were included in class. Weinstein (2002) recommended using teachers’ and learners’ stories as texts for classroom instruction, including for language-specific focus on grammatical structures and vocabulary.
When instruction is planned with learners’ needs and goals in mind, actively involves students in learning from one another, taps into their life experiences, and is challenging at learners’ varying levels, learner engagement is likely to be strong, and learning is more apt to occur. Instructional approaches that can facilitate learner engagement include task-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, literature circles, and classroom-based assessment.
Recent research reviews indicate that problem-based learning can lead to long-term learning outcomes, whereas traditional instruction leads to slightly better performance on short-term learning as measured on standardized tests (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009; Walker & Leary, 2009). Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007) cite evidence that problem-based learning is particularly effective in increasing engagement and reducing the achievement gap among marginalized groups in K–12 settings, including English language learners. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) caution, however, that learners new to this instructional approach require more guidance (direct instruction) than do more experienced learners. This caution should also be applied to learners with limited English language and literacy.
As we can see, engagement is much broader than involvement, and according to Harper and Quaye (2009), it requires feelings and sense-making as well as activity. Acting without feeling engaged is just involvement and feeling engaged without acting is dissociation.
Now we come to involvement. Quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience (Astin, 1999). Thus, a highly involved student is one who, for example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus or at school, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students. Conversely, a typical uninvolved student neglects studies, spends little time on campus or at school, avoids extracurricular activities, and has infrequent contact with faculty members or other students.
Adopting the position that maximizing learner involvement is conducive to second language acquisition. There are a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk to facilitate and optimize learner contributions. Teachers’ ability to control their use of language is at least as important as their ability to select appropriate methodologies, has implications for both teacher education and classroom practices.
Some teachers, knowingly or not, consistently create opportunities for learner involvement because their use of language, and pedagogic purpose are at one. Imagine two different situations: the first in which the teacher facilitates maximum learner involvement by constructing a context in which learners are maximally involved, the second in which the teacher appears to obstruct or hinder learner involvement. For example, by controlled use of language and by matching pedagogic and linguistic goals, the teacher can facilitate and promote reformulation and clarification, leading to greater involvement and precision of language on the part of the learners. Appropriate use of conversational language creates an atmosphere which is conducive to learning and is likely to promote learner involvement.
Astin also created five basic assumptions about involvement. He argues that involvement requires an investment of psychosocial and physical energy. Secondly, involvement is continuous, and that the amount of energy invested varies from student to student. Thirdly, aspects of involvement may be qualitative and quantitative. The extent of a student’s involvement in academic work, for instance, can be measured quantitatively (how many hours the student spends studying) and qualitatively (whether the student reviews and comprehends reading assignments or simply stares at the textbook and daydreams). Next, a student’s development is directly proportional to the extent to which they were involved in both aspects of quality and quantity. Lastly, academic performance is correlated with the student involvement.
It can be concluded that engagement fulfills a vital role in learning a language. van Lier (2004) even goes on to claim that the fuel for learning a language in an ecological perspective is not ‘input’ or ‘exercises,’ but engagement. From another perspective, some scholars view perception as an active engagement with what one perceives while others maintain that the primary process by which learning takes place is interaction, more specifically, an engagement with other learners and teachers in joint activities. As it was already discussed, motivation and engagement are closely intertwined. Findings addressing the relationship between both engagement and self-efficacy point out that they are important antecedents that, together, may positively influence learning effectiveness. To phrase it differently, students are more engaged with a specific task, if they are more confident in their ability related to it.
As a form of engagement, cognitive engagement is positively correlated with learning achievement because such students have both the will and the ability to participate in and carry out work in class. Students feel more engaged in settings in which active and collaborative learning, participation in challenging are encouraged and enriching educational experiences are provided.
Overall, engagement refers to the extent to which learners cognitively, and sociopsychologically take part in class activities but involvement addresses physical active participation in and out of class to promote language proficiency such as seeking to communicate with native speakers or advanced language learners. Involvement can also be viewed as a form of behavioral engagement since students who are behaviorally engaged would typically comply with behavioral norms such as attendance and would not demonstrate disruptive or negative behavior.
Abrams‚ D. (1996). The mechanical and the organic: Epistemological consequences of the Gaia hypothesis. In P. Bunyard (Ed.)‚ Gaia in action: Science of the living earth (pp. 234-247). Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
Astin, A. W. (l999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education . Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Beder, H., Tomkins, J., Medina, P., Riccioni, R., & Deng, W. (2006). Learners’ engagement in adult literacy education (NCSALL Reports No. 28). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006).Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475- 488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, S.-Y. S. (2013). An empirical investigation of the effectiveness of project-based course learning within hospitality programs: The mediating role of cognitive engagement. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &Tourism Education, 13, 13–225.
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
Condelli, L., Wrigley, H., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132-159). New York and London: Routledge.
Craik, F.I.M., &Lockhart, R.S.(1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. Department of Statistics (2010).Available from http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/
Deci‚ E. & Flaste‚ R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Diseth, A. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 373–388.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: The role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies.Higher Education, 59, 335–352.
Dornyei‚ Z. (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt (Eds.)‚ Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press‚ Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential othe concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109.
Gibson‚ J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale‚ NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S.,& Golan, S.(1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.
Greene, B.A.,& Miller, R.B.(1996).Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.
Grinder, M. (1991). Righting the educational conveyer belt. Portland: Metamorphous Press.
Hanak-Hammerl M., & Newby, D. (2003). Second language acquisition: the interface between theory and practice. Retrieved from www.ecml.at/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=/oW/wPuvuWs=
Harper, S.R. and Quaye, S.J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaue (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (pp. 1-15). New York and London: Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kohonen‚ V.‚ Jaatinen‚ R.‚ Kaikkonen‚ P.‚ & Lehtovaara‚ J. (Eds.). (2001). Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Longman.
Lave‚ J. & Wenger‚ E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merleau-Ponty‚ M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(1), 2–14.
Ning, .K.,& Downing,K.(2010).The reciprocal relationship between motivation and self-regulation:A longitudinal study on academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 682–686.
Pintrich, P., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T.,& McKeachie, W.(1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2002). Impact of authentic adult literacy instruction on adult literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 70-92. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.1.3
Richardson, J.T.E.(2003).Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a short web-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 433–442.
Schalge, S., & Soga, K. (2008). Then I stop coming to school”: Understanding absenteeism in an adult English as a second language program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(3), 151-161.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44-58.
Taylor, M., Abasi, A., Pinsent-Johnson, C., & Evans, K. (2007). Collaborative learning in communities of literacy practice. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 1(1), 4-11.
van Lier‚ L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness‚ autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
van Lier‚ L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.)‚ Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, C.O.T., Greene, B.A., & Mansell, R.A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.
Walqui‚ A. (2000). Access and engagement. Washington‚ D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2),159-180.
Wang, S.L.,& Lin, S.S.(2007).The effect of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer Behavior, 23, 2256–2268.
Warriner, D. (2010). Competent performances of situated identities: Adult learners of English accessing engaged participation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(1), 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.003
Webster, B.J., Chan, W.S.C., Prosser, M.T.,& Watkins, D.A .(2009). Undergraduates' learning experience and learning process: quantitative evidence from the East. Higher Education, 58, 375–386.
Weinstein, G. (2002). Learners’ lives as curriculum. McHenry, IL, & Washington, DC: Delta Publishing and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Zhu, X., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Sun, H., Hopple, C., & Bonello, M. (2009). Situational interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 221–229.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
