NAA PINAKA UBOS KEN HEHE
Student engagement occurs when “students make a psychological investment in
learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning
the formal indicators of success, but in understanding the material and incorporating or
internalizing it in their lives.” (Wikipedia)
Affective Liking for Learning:
According to The Glossary of Education Reform, student engagement “ in the study of
Bernstein (2021), The Glossary Of Education Reform refers to the degree of attention,
curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or
being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in
their education.” Yet, it’s not just about students. The glossary adds that, “student
engagement may also refer to the ways in which school leaders, educators, and other
adults might “engage” students more fully in the governance and decision-making
processes.”
In addition, in the study of National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) adds
more elements to the list, citing that “student engagement is best understood as a
relationship between the student and the following elements of the learning
environment: The school community, The adults at school, The student’s peers, The
instruction, and The curriculum.”
The NAIS, believes that there are three (3) dimensions that involves in student
engagement:
These are:
Behavioral engagement:
Emotional engagement:
Cognitive engagement:
That defining focusing on participation in academic, social, and co-curricular activities,
on the extent and nature of positive and negative reactions to teachers, classmates,
academics, and school, and on students’ level of investment in learning.
These wide-ranging definitions that involve multiple components are part of the reason
why the topic has been discussed and written about so extensively. However, it’s the
benefits of student engagement that keep it top of mind with educators.
Most likely in the study of Nix , Shelton , & Song (2022) Nix, Shelton, & Song as the
researchers stated that affective learning outcomes were attained as these additional
weekly exercises promoted meaning-centered collaboration with students while
decreasing the power-related distance between learners and instructors, they suggest
that the implementation of Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations as weekly formative
assessments increased student engagement. As the result of the instructors integrated
the human resource development (HRD) constructs of Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations
into an online doctoral strategic planning course to achieve three goals: (A) increase
student engagement, (B) assess affective domain learning outcomes, and (C) practice
innovative teaching to reinforce creative meaning-centered learning, and they are
enough to able extended the analysis promoted a deeper understanding of the roles
that emotions and attitudes play in online learning
Meanwhile, Greener (2022) As for the conducted study of Greener , the broad
consensus on student engagement definitions, which are relatively few in the literature
(Bond et al., 2020) considering the pivotal importance of the connection between
learner and that which is to be learned, in our case via technological mediation,
identifies three main dimensions: behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement.
Trowler’s extensive literature research (2010) offers a definition that brings these
dimensions to attention, noting that there are two key actors on the scene: The students
and their educational institutions, both of which participate in the construction or
otherwise of engagement. In the interaction, the students are said to seek learning
outcomes, self-development and the best experience they can gain, while institutions
seek performance and reputational gains. In a possibly more institution-focused review
in 2022, the UK JISC (2022) elaborates the interest in student engagement, particularly
with technology about artificial intelligence and learning analytics, focusing primarily on
student engagement with choice of institution, choice of course, platform for learning,
tools and devices.
However, Zhoc et al. (2019) proposed a five-factor scale of dimensions of student
engagement, their Higher Education Student Engagement Scale (HESES). Eschewing
the word behavioural, this scale uses academic (outcome-focused), cognitive (learning-
focused), social with peers (in and beyond class), social with teachers (positive
interaction with faculty) and affective engagement. This does bring up the notion that
peer-to-peer interaction and student–teacher interaction with a learning focus may be
able to mediate cognitive engagement. The authors argue that many discussions of
student engagement conflate the effort and involvement of the student with the
independent variable or facilitator of student engagement which comprises the learning
environment.
If we talk about student engagement, then it may be less important to fragment the
concept into varying dimensions than trying to see whether this is a realistic concept,
why it should be measured and who and what it affects. From the position of the teacher
in the classroom, engagement is an appearance of interest in what is going on, which
can be depressing when students are mostly sitting gazing at cell phones in sessions.
Not necessarily, of course, they may be checking ideas being discussed, references or
taking part in games, tests or surveys run by the teacher via mobile apps. In any case,
the appearance of engagement may be missing the point. If the point is to help students
learn, then what they are gazing at when being talked to does neither give us
information on their learning nor their satisfaction or motivation.
Similarly, teachers are most often haunted by attendance or the lack of it. We are all
aware of many other reasons for lack of attendance, including transport problems,
family issues, health issues or dare we say it, a view that the session will not deliver
sufficient value exchange. Gamification is the current trend to deliver an engaging
experience in the classroom, especially online. We need to take care that this is not an
attempt to improve our ratings as teachers but has a genuine relationship with the
learning we aim to facilitate.
Teachers are of course not the only actors here who worry about engagement; we have
mentioned educational institutions, but even more importantly for digital interactivity,
engagement can be mediated favourably or unfavourably by those who make decisions
about learning platforms, policies on devices in classrooms, use of VR and AR and AI in
and out of class, compatible records systems, administrative processes, access to
information resources and support, and that goes much further than offering the odd
FAQ.
Peer-to-peer engagement is well documented as a sign of academic engagement and
social engagement for students, but efforts to facilitate this, for example, through peer
feedback, through group assessed tasks, and even through extra-curricular peer-
organised activities which connect with qualifications, can be very labour-intensive to
organise and fail to connect with those students who may show no other signs of
engagement. Guadagnolo (2020) advocated for peer support teams, hiring students and
training them to support other students, under the guidance of professional support
advisors. This can be one effective way to challenge inertia and deter disengagement
and ultimately dropout. A positive slant on this is that students do not classify into traits
or states of engagement, engagement is dynamic and interesting, and focused attention
and participation in learning can be stimulated by any of the actors discussed.
In terms of technological engagement in our online platforms, in live online sessions,
discussion boards, blogs, video-conferencing, co-creation of text and graphics within
courses and many more, there remain challenges as noted by Chiu (2021) of varied
communication interfaces between students, teachers and institutions. He points out
that teachers may have insufficient knowledge of cognitive and affective engagement
dimensions and both teachers and students may still demonstrate digital incompetence
(hence the value of peer-to-peer support teams).
As for Greener, he stated in the conclusion of his study that managing and measuring
student engagement would seem to be an inappropriate exercise, we may be better
advised to measure its dimensions; however, we prefer to classify them, provided we
remember that today’s measurement is not necessarily a predictor of tomorrow’s
student engagement. If discussing student engagement leads to an improved
understanding of how the learner connects with their learning, all well and good; it is the
product of a reciprocal relationship between learners, facilitators of learning and the
environmental context of that learning. Digital tools may once have been seen as the
solution to low student engagement levels, they are becoming the norm for learning, we
can see more clearly that they too can be exciting or boring and are even more likely to
produce cognitive overload than traditional approaches unless there is a strategic
approach to learning design.
This shows that, student engagement and how teachers/educators teaches the
learners, and how they drives their relationship between them could also bring a affect
for the learners.
Aside from the affective liking for learning, affective liking for school may also
contributes a huge role for learners.
Affective Liking for School:
School engagement has long been seen as an important component of school
completion, and research shows that social support in the home and school promotes
engagement, they studied and examines the association of social support from parents,
teachers, and peers with two forms of engagement: affective and behavioral. As the
results indicate that although parent support was associated with higher levels of
behavioral engagement, peer support was associated with higher levels of affective
engagement. Estell & Perdue (2013) states that school engagement is not only be seen
as an important component of school completion but it also requires social support for
the learners from home, from parents and from school, from teachers/ co-teachers
Mostlikely, in the study of Graham,Swan, Killingly, & Bergen (2022) it says that, school
liking is an important factor in student engagement, well-being, and academic
achievement, but it is also potentially influenced by factors external to the individual,
such as school culture, teacher support, and approaches to discipline. However,
students who disliked school experienced less positive relationships with their teachers,
and this was even more pronounced for students who had been previously suspended.
The findings reveal key differences between students who do and do not like school,
differences that may be masked by typical research approaches. This research
indicates the need for more nuanced, student-informed approaches to inclusive school
reform.
However, in the study of Markowitz (2017) suggests that emotional engagement with
school is related to youth behavioral and psychological outcomes, it remains unclear
whether these associations represent causal relationships and at what age engagement
matters most for student outcomes. Using data from two large, national surveys, this
study uses three analytic strategies to reduce threats to causal inference and assess
whether the central relationship changes as youth age. Results across both data sets
are consistent with a causal relationship between emotional engagement with school
and youth behavioral and psychological outcomes that decreases somewhat as youth
age. Given the importance of emotional engagement for these outcomes, and the
importance of avoiding problem behaviors and maintaining healthy psychological
functioning for students’ long-run outcomes, research should continue to explore the
ways in which schools and educational policy can influence students’ engagement.
These, as states that school engagement is not only be seen as an important
component of school completion and for well- being but it also requires lot of social
support from home and social support, for the learners
Behavioral Effort and Persistence:
Behavioral and Persistence must also come along way on Affective Liking in School,
because it help with understanding and managing emotions, establishing and
maintaining positive relationships, and making responsible decisions and can be a
driving force to help them achieve their academic, as well as personal goals.
In some related literature, indicated that the behavioral engagement components of
writing time and the length of the written responses had distinctive, unique effects on
comprehension performance, and that behavioral engagement also mediated the
effects of cognitive (prior knowledge, working memory) and motivational (intrinsic
reading motivation) individual differences on comprehension performance. Prior
knowledge about the topic affected comprehension performance directly as well as
indirectly through behavioral engagement. Braten, Latini, Haverkamp (2021) As the
science of behavior change has emerged, increasing emphasis has been placed on the
use of theory in developing and testing interventions. Patrick & Williams (2012) Self-
determination theory (SDT)-a theoretical perspective-and motivational interviewing (MI)-
a set of clinical techniques-have both been used in health behavior intervention
contexts. Although developed for somewhat different purposes and in relatively different
domains, there is a good deal of conceptual overlap between SDT and MI. Accordingly,
SDT may offer the theoretical backing that historically has been missing from MI, and MI
may offer SDT some specific direction with respect to particular clinical techniques that
have not been fully borne out within the confines of health related applications of SDT.
Research is needed to empirically test the overlap and distinctions between SDT and MI
and to determine the extent to which these two perspectives can be combined or co-
exist as somewhat distinct approaches.
However, for the study of Dr. Kazdin (2013) That said, they work well and with many
people. Thus, the techniques are worth trying if there a concern or special interest in
developing persistence as a general characteristic. Perhaps the ironic part of the
techniques is that they require a little bit of persistence on the part of the parent. The
techniques are short-term ways of achieving long-term change. Yet, they need to be
implemented systematically to be sure the child is engaging in concrete behaviors and
receiving praise and guidance for them. As, parents have recognized the importance of
characteristics such a persistence.
(1) https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-
364120220000045005/full/html
(2)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2022.2048550
(3)
https://xello.world/en/blog/what-is-student-engagement/
(4)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pits.21681
(5)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858417712717
(6)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825036/full
(7)
https://alankazdin.com/developing-persistence/
(8)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-021-10205-x
(9)
https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-18
Self esteem in terms of self regard:
Self-esteem is a positive or negative orientation toward oneself; an overall evaluation of
one’s worth or value. People are motivated to have high self-esteem, and having it
indicates positive self-regard, not egotism.
In the study of Guo, Yang , & Gan (2021) in their study states that there are two studies
were conducted to examine the relationships among university students’ academic self-
concept, perceptions of the learning environment, engagement, and learning outcomes
(academic achievement, generic skills development, and learning satisfaction) they use
the methods of Study 1 (N = 1,502), Study 2 (N = 2,069), which significe adopted a
cross-sectional design and supported a model showing that engagement mediated the
effects of academic self-concept and perceptions of the learning environment on
generic skills development and learning satisfaction and adopted a longitudinal design
involving three waves of data collection with a 1-year interval (freshman, sophomore,
junior). As for the result of study 2 replicated the findings of study 1 and supported a
reciprocal effects model showing that prior academic achievement predicted
subsequent self-concept which in turn determined future achievement even with prior
achievement partialed out. These findings contribute to developing a finer-grained
model of higher education student learning.
(10)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00705-8
Conceptual framework:
This study has been conducted by Veiga, Robu, Appleton, Festas, & Galvão (2014) as
they study and find out that the value and current relevance of the construct students’
engagement in school (SES) have been highlighted in literature, despite of the lack of
empirical studies and validated multidimensional instruments. The sample consisted of
685 students from different regions of the country, of both sexes, divided by grade level
(6th, 7th, 9th and 10th). Data were collected in classroom context through a survey that
included items from “Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale” (PHCSCS) and the
questionnaire “Student’s Engagement in School – A Four Dimensional Scale (SES-
4DS)”, which includes cognitive, affective, behavioral and agentic dimensions (Veiga,
2013), and shows high psychometric qualities.Considering the lack of studies on these
concepts, results are framed within the context of social-cognitive perspective of
adolescence development, emphasizing the importance of the activation of variables
such as self-concept
(11) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
start=0&q=conceptual+framework+about+relationships+between+teachers+self+estee
m+and+student+engagement+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1666437774333&u=
%23p%3DTJ0tr9dScx4J
Method
Participants:
The target participants of this study were Fifty- four students of Senior High School of
UM Panabo College. According to Budiu & Moran (2021) states that in appropriate
quantitative studies it should be 40 participants. Therefore, Fifty-four participants for
this study were enough. All of them were selected using purposive sampling. In the
study of Nikolopoulou (2022) Purposive sampling refers to a group of non-probability
sampling techniques in which units are selected because they have characteristics that
you need in your sample, this sampling method relies on the researcher’s judgment
when identifying and selecting the individuals, cases, or events that can provide the
best information to achieve the study’s objectives. The inclusion criteria are the
following: (1) must be a senior high school students in UM Panabo College and (2) has
a academic connection/relationship with the teachers. Researchers presented a
consent to read and and sign and return prior to any consideration of participating in this
study.
(12)
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/purposive-sampling/
(13)
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/summary-quant-sample-sizes/#:~:text=Summary%3A
%2040%20participants%20is%20an,you%20can%20recruit%20fewer%20users.
Questionnaire:
Affective Liking in Learning:
I think we are learning in school is interesting
(Paraphrase:
I think it’s fun for us to study at school)
Affective Liking in School:
I am happy to be at this school
(Paraphrase:
I am very happy to come to this school)
Behavioral Effort and Persistence:
I try hard to do well in school
(Paraphrase:
I try to get good grades in school)
Behavioral Extracurricular:
I take extracurricular activities in my school
(Paraphrase:
I participate in extracurricular activities at school)
Cognitive:
I make up my own example to help me understand the important concepts I learn from
school
(Paraphrase:
I made up an example myself to help me understand important concepts I learned in
school)
Results and Discussions
Table 2
Level of Student Engagement
The mean scores for student engagement indicators, with an overall mean of 4.16 are
describe as high, with a standard deviation of 0.63 presented in Table 2. The high level
could be attributed in response to the high rating given by the respondents in indicators
of Affective Liking for School, and Moderate rating in terms of Cognitive, Affective Liking
for Learning, and Behavioral Effort and Persistence. The cited total mean scores from
highest to lowest indicators: 4.29 or Very High for Affective Liking for School, followed
by 4.22 or Very High for Cognitive, followed by 4.14 or High for Affective Liking for
Learning, and lastly followed by 4.03 or High for Behavioral Effort and Persistence.
(Table ni dria ken hahaha)
Indicators Mean Std Descriptive Equivalent
Affective Liking for Learning 4.14 0.72 High
Affective Liking for School 4.29 0.71 Very High
Behavioral Effort and Persistence 4.03 0.71 High
Cognitive 4.22 0.67 Very High
Overall Mean 4.16 0.63 High
The highest mean scores of 4.29 with a standard deviation of 0.71, describe as Very
High was gained for Affective Liking for School. The date indicated from appended
Table 2.2 reveal that the respondents have observed the following order of importance:
A mean of 4.44 for “Students are honored to be a student in this institution”, which
describe as Very High, a mean of 4.28 for “Students are delighted to be at this
institution” and which also describe as Very High, a mean of 4.16 “Students are looking
forward in most mornings to go to school” which describe as High
Secondly, the highest mean scores of 4.22 with a standard deviation of 0.67, which is
describe as Very High, was gained by Cognitive. The date illustrated from appended
Table 2.5 expose that the respondents have noticed the following order of importance: a
mean of 4.40 for “Students are trying to make the materials they have to become more
understandable by relating it to things that they already know” which is describe as Very
High, a mean of 4.35 for “Students make their own example to help them to understand
the import concepts that they learned in school” which is describe as Very High; a
mean of 4.32 for “Students tried to combine different pieces of course material in novel
ways when studying” which is describe as Very High, A mean of 4.28 for “ Students
when they lean something in school they often tried to connect it to what they leaned in
other classes about the same topics or comparable things” which is describe as Very
High; a mean of 4.26 for “Students learned something in school they tried to see how it
fits in with what they already know” which describe as Very High, a mean of 4.25 for
“Students tried to see parallels and differences between of what they learning from
school and what they already know” which is describe also as Very High, a mean of
3.95 for “Students participate extracurricular activities from they school” which is
describe as High, a mean of 3.82 for “Students participate in school activities such as
sports day and school picnic” which also describe as High, a mean of 3.72 for “Students
volunteered at school events such as sports day and parent day” which also describe as
High
Thirdly, the highest mean score of 4.14 with a standard deviation of 0.72 which describe
as High, was gained by Affective Liking for Learning. The data illustrated from
appended Table 2.1 expose that the respondents have notice the following order of
importance: a mean of 4.26 for “Students enjoy their learning in new things in class”
which is describe as Very High, a mean of 4.25 for “Students believe that what they are
learning in school are fascinating” which is describe as Very High, a mean of 4.21 for
“Students enjoy on what they learn at school” which is describe as Very High, a mean of
3.82 for “Students find learning to be tedious” which describe as High
Furthermore, the highest mean score of 4.03 with a standard deviation of 0.71, which is
describe as High, was gained by Behavioral Efforts And Persistence. The data shown in
appended Table 2.3 bring to light that the respondents have observed the following
order of importance: a mean of 4.26 for “Students encounter difficult homework
problem, they worked it again and again untill they believe they solved it” which
describe also as Very High, a mean of 4.18 for “Students pay attention in class” which is
describe as High, a mean of 4.14 for “Students worked very hard in school” which
describe as High, a mean of 3.83 for “Students do enough in school to get by” which is
describe as High, a mean of 3.63 for “Students wandered their minds during class”
which describe also as High, a mean of 3.37 for “Students just pretend working in class”
which is describe as moderate
It was revealed that most of the respondents affectively liking in their schools. Ireson
and Hallam (2021) concluded that the importance of adolescencets affective teacher-
student relationship for their engagement in school, and the role of school engagement
in predicting achievement. This conclusion supports the results of this study which
revealed that the students select or chooses their school based on their likeness or
preference
(https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000709904X24762)
It was also revealed that most respondents uses other materials to make them more
understandable by relating it to what they already know. A similar results by (Engles et.
al2019) conclude that the growth of online learnings
Environments entails understanding of how to promote collaborative knowledge
construction processes and create learning environments that support meaningful
student engagement and interactions
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947522100044X)
Meanwhile, in terms of affective liking for learning, it was formed that some of the
respondents enjoyed their learning in new things in class. Furthermore, the rise of deep
learning had introduced significant improvements in the emotion recognition system
compared to classical methods. Comas et. Al (2020)
( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9320250)
On the other hand, it was discovered that students having a trouble understanding they
go over and over it again. A similar results was discussed in the survey conducted by
Su, Stoll and Rounds (2019) Studies on trait complexes and integrative frameworks of
individual differences provide a new approach to understanding the nature of interest
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
as_ylo=2019&q=behavioral+effort+and+persistence&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=
1683812959605&u=%23p%3DkTYFttfU33IJ)
Conclusion
Based on the findings, the researcher drew the following conclusion: the level of
Student Self-Esteem among Senior High School Students in UMPC is high. In
comparison, the level of Student Engagement among Senior High School in UMPC is
also high. There is a significant between Student Self-Esteem and Student Engagement
among Senior High School Students.
