140 Chapter 7 Chapter 4 presented a stimulated recall study conducted among fifteen second-year students to advance understanding in-class student engagement processes (3). We observed and recorded a single teaching session from two different study groups and selected critical moments of apparent engagement and disengagement. These moments served as prompts for subsequent interviews. Utilizing the multidimensional framework of student engagement (4), we discovered three main findings. First, we found that the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional dimensions were interrelated in a spiral-like manner. We called this the spirals of engagement and disengagement. Students who engaged in one dimension tended to become engaged in other dimensions as well (spiraling upwards). Similarly, once they were disengaged on one dimension, students tended to become disengaged on other dimensions as well (spiraling downwards). Second, while earlier research had identified various factors (or antecedents) that influence student participation in the classroom, the precise mechanism through which these antecedents exert their influence has remained unclear. We found that students internally weighed these antecedents prior to the start of a class, and the outcome of that process determined students’ willingness to engage in class. Consequently, how willing a student was to engage in class, was to some extent determined before class. Furthermore, we noted that not all the reported antecedents were under the direct control of teachers, limiting their influence on students’ willingness to engage. Third, we have identified the role of intentions as a contributing factor to the challenge that teachers faced in accurately assessing whether their students were engaged or disengaged. We confirmed previous findings that similar observable behaviors could be indicative of both engagement and disengagement (e.g., a student answering a question). However, our study revealed that it was the intention behind the behavior that determined whether it signified engagement or disengagement (e.g., to contribute to a discussion and understanding, or just to move the class along and hope for its quick ending). This study illuminated the dynamic process of in-class student engagement, highlighting the difficulty for teachers to accurately recognize and influence their students’ engagement. Teachers’ perspectives on active learning Chapter 5 of this thesis addressed the teachers’ perspectives on active learning. In it, we reported on an interview study employing a constructivist grounded theory approach among eleven teachers, who were demonstrably experts in consistently achieving high levels of student engagement (29). We constructed a grounded theory of expert teaching practice, describing student engagement as an integrated process consisting of three components, each with three subcomponents. First, participants described their aim of cultivating a supportive learning environment, consisting of psychological safety, a clear and shared classroom structure, and mutual care and commitment. Second, they reported employing a personal educational approach that they had developed through learning from faculty development initiatives, practical experiences, and experiments in their own classes. In their approach, participants balanced their own educational beliefs and competencies, course design elements, and the knowledge of their students. Third, and finally, they described how, during their classes, they were continuously involved in a process of observing, analyzing,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw