10 Chapter 1 component refers to a student’s investment in learning, willingness to put in effort, persevere through challenges, and the use of metacognitive strategies to stimulate their learning. The emotional component refers to a student’s feelings about learning and the learning environment. Finally, the behavioral component refers to a student’s conduct and their observable actions during learning (25). In other words, student engagement concerns what students think, feel, and do regarding the learning process (7). While engagement is characterized by positive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors, a student can also be disengaged, which is characterized by negative cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. Student disengagement refers to a student’s detachment from the learning process (26). When disengaged, a student is not invested in their learning, does not experience positive affect towards their learning, and their actions do not contribute to learning. It is important to note that, although the three components are related, they can function independently. A student can remain disengaged on one component (such as behaviorally disengaged by not participating in class discussions), but become engaged on another component (such as cognitively engaged by thinking deeply about the course content) (27). Despite a large body of research on student engagement, concerns have been raised about the conceptual haziness of the construct (28,29). To improve conceptual clarity, the Dual Component Framework of Student Engagement has been proposed, which defines learning engagement and school engagement as separate constructs under the broader concept of student engagement (29). In short, learning engagement is related to in- or out-of-class learning activities, while school engagement is related to the broader context of the school setting (and includes participating in clubs and identifying with a school). In this thesis, the term student engagement is used to describe the former. Another attempt to improve the conceptual clarity of student engagement comes from the ICAP framework (30). According to this framework, it is useful to differentiate student engagement in distinct activities that allow teachers and researchers to observe and elicit specific modes of student involvement. The ICAP differentiates Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive learning modes. Students in an Interactive learning mode are collaboratively generating knowledge beyond the course material. It involves students working together to construct their knowledge, often through discussions or group problem-solving. The dialogue or interaction between students is key in this learning mode. Students in a Constructive learning mode also go beyond what was taught to them. However, in this learning mode, self-construction activities are key, such as by creating concept maps or asking questions. Students in an Active learning mode are physically active or manipulate something in the physical environment, such as gesturing, taking notes, or underlining text. There is no knowledge generation in this learning mode. Finally, students in a Passive learning mode pay attention and receive information, but do nothing with it. Examples include reading a text, watching a video, and listening to a lecture (8,30,31). In addition to differentiating student engagement, ICAP also predicts that, as students become more engaged with learning materials, their learning increases. In other words,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw