Impact of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Student’s Engagement and Instructional Strategies on Academic Achievement of Students in Umuahia North, Abia State.

Impact of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Student’s Engagement and Instructional Strategies on Academic Achievement of Students in Umuahia North, Abia State

Impact of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Student’s Engagement and Instructional Strategies on Academic Achievement of Students in Umuahia North, Abia State.

 

 

By

 

Ikpekaogu, Gertrude Onyema (Ph.D)

Department of Psychology/Counselling, College of Education

Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike.

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Phone: 08131862131

 

And

 

Igbokwe, Charity .O. (Ph.D)

Department of Psychology/Counselling, College of Education

Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike.

 

        Abstract

This study titled impact of teachers’ self-efficacy, students, engagement and instructional strategies on academic performance of students in secondary schools. Three research questions were posed and answered; three hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Sixty (60) secondary school teachers and a hundred (100) secondary school students in Umuahia education zone of Abia State were randomly selected. To collect the data, teacher self-efficacy, students’ engagement and instructional strategies questionnaire for teachers was used and to measure students’ academic achievement a test was developed using mathematics as a core subject. The instrument has a reliability index of 0.76 which is considered for the study. Data were analyzed using Pearson’s’ correlation and Multiple Regressions for the research questions. The hypotheses were analyzed using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings of the study revealed that teacher self-efficacy has a positive impact on the students’ academic achievement. The study recommended among other things that training programmes should be designed by relevant authorities for teachers to improve their level of self-efficacy in order to transmit the skills to the students.

 

Keywords: Academic achievements, Counselling implications, Students engagement, Self-efficacy and Instructional strategies

 

 

Introduction

Teachers’ belief about themselves and their students and their behavior has the potential to influence students engagement and achievement. This study investigated how teacher self-efficacy, teacher implicit theories of intelligence, and the effectiveness of their instruction practices influence multiple domains of students engagement and achievements. Student engagement is understood broadly as how students think, feel, and behave in school (Finn & Zimmer, 2012) and is positively associated with a range of short-and long-term outcomes. Research consistently supports the association between engagement and students’ achievements which is, in turn, considered central to educational attainment and overall quality of life (Fung, Tan, & Chen, 2018), Numerous factors can affect students’ engagement, but among the most influential and malleable are characteristics of teachers, particularly their social-cognitive beliefs about themselves. In a context of mounting emphasis on evidence-based practice, understanding of relations of these factors to students’ outcomes may support efforts to bolster students’ achievement.

Importance of Understanding Students’ Engagement

            Researchers have defined student engagement in numerous ways, with no widely agreed upon definition of the construct. Several theoretical models have been proposed, with varying amounts of empirical support. One of the commonly cited models is the multi-factor model proposed by Reschly, Appleton, and Christenson (2007), which posits four inter-connected engagement domains (academic, affective, behavioral, cognitive) that coalesce into a single engagement construct.

            According to this model, academic engagement reflects the physical act of completing academic assignments and degree matriculation (e.g., time on-task, homework completion, classes passed). Affective engagement reflects how students feel about their school and classroom. Specifically, this domain captures students’ sense of classroom belonging, their connection and collaboration with other students, the extent to which they perceive their teachers as emotionally supportive, and teacher-student relationship quality (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Behavioral engagement reflects on-task, cooperative and non-disruptive behaviour in the classroom during lessons (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2012), as well as general attendance and participation in school-wide activities. Cognitive engagement refers to a student’s motivation, enjoyment, and interest in the learning process and didactic content (Thayer, 2020). It differentiates students who find value, meaning and intellectual stimulation in their school work from those who do not. Students can exhibit varying degrees of engagement along these dimensions. Some models Like Martin, (2007) posit positive and negative valences to dimensions of engagement. Broadly, then, the construct of student engagement can be understood as how students positively and negatively think, feel, and behave in school, with positive engagement critical for healthy academic development and learning (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).

            Student’s engagement warrants researcher and educator attention primarily because of its critical role as a protective factor against school failure and eventual dropout Finn & Zimmer (2012), as well as an explicit component of some well-being models (Seligman, 2011). School failure and dropout are often  the result of cumulative risk factors including economic disadvantage, unstable family structure, English as a second language, ethnic/cultural minority, early behavior problems, and early academic problems (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Many of these factors are intractable or require extensive effort to alter. Positive student engagement, however, can serve as a protective factor for students with high cumulative risk. One way that students’ engagement buffer them from the detrimental effects of risk factors is through enhanced classroom achievement (Thayer (2020) in Gutman,Sameroff, & Eccles, 2002). From an ecological perspective there are several avenues through which student engagement can be bolstered. Much of the previous research on correlates of engagement has focused on individual characteristics, and micro-and macro systemic factors. Although influential, these factors are largely static or beyond the influence of educators and schools for example socio-economic background (Thayer 2020). Some of the avenues of research and practice include malleable micro systemic environmental factors.  This means that teachers are most proximal to student learning and have been found to exert the greatest influence on student engagement and corresponding achievement hence there is need to briefly highlight how to understand teachers’influence on student’s engagement in business skills

 

How to Understand Teachers’ Influence on Students’ Engagement in business skills through education.

Teachers play important role in engaging students not just in the classroom but in their broader educational experience. Yet, teachers are heterogeneous group; they vary in their knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and instructional practices that influence student academic and behavioral outcomes. Considerable research has investigated what teacher-level factors or characteristics impact student engagement. Some of this work has consistently linked specific teacher behaviors to student engagement and motivation (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). A complimentary body of work has focused on how teacher self-perceptions and their perceptions of students impact student outcomes such as grades (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). Literatures differ in the collective perceived importance of external and internal teacher characteristics as meaningful determinants of student outcomes. As such, they are rarely integrated theoretically and empirically, despite the potential for integration to reveal meaningful dynamics between teacher perceptions and their behaviors (Thayer, 2020).

            The behavioral approach to educational research emphasizes the objective and observable behaviors of teachers that affect student engagement (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). According to this perspective, certain behaviors like antecedent, teaching and consequence promote student engagement while others lessen engagement (Shernoff, 2014).Behaviors that promote students’  engagement include effective instructional practices such as cooperative learning, dialogues, authentic activities, cognitive strategy instruction, feedback, evaluation, and goal setting (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

            Given the link between engagement and student outcomes, teacher behaviors indirectly impact student performance in the classroom by way of engagement. As mentioned above, effective instructional practices can result in increased student engagement (Thayer, 2020).  Many of these fall under the explicit instruction pedagogy emphasizing direct modeling of skills, behaviors and scaffold activities that allow students to demonstrate mastery of concrete performance concepts and procedures.

 

 

 

Instructional Strategies

The most important source of self-efficacy is the teachers’ instructional strategies. It is a scenario in which the teachers share their own success stories; thus, feeling confident about their methods, which proves that they are competent and believe in their self-efficacy capacities. Their Success creates robust beliefs in their methods and in themselves, which leads to having a strong faith in their abilities and the activities they choose. If these activities tend to be successful each time, ultimately they raise the level of teachers’ self-efficacy and if the activities fail, they experience lower self-efficacy. If teachers have low self-efficacy at the beginning, it will create doubts and make their techniques non result oriented; therefore, self-reflection and self-belief also play a role in self-efficacy(Shahzad. and Naureen 2015).

That is, these instructional practices promote students’ achievement by keeping students focused and on-task (behaviorally engaged), with material that captures students’ interest in achievement concepts or encourages perseverance needed to develop robust Performance skills (i.e., cognitively engaged), and improving student-teacher interactions (affective engagement). This relationship has not been well researched, however, and particularly less so when examining specific instructional practices (Shahzad. and Naureen 2015).

            Cognitive strategy instruction and use (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998) and mastery-oriented goal setting (Bong, 2009) are two observable instructional practices with demonstrated positive impacts on student engagement and performance. Several effective instructional strategies exist ( explicit instruction, peer tutoring, sequenced instruction, use of heuristics, use of manipulative and visual aids, verbalization or “think  aloud”, consistent feedback and progress monitoring

            According to Bandura (2001), a teacher’s self-efficacy is informed by experiences and personal feedback that informs their analysis and interpretation of a task, contrasting it with their perceived competence with the task. This leads to internal positive or negative self-evaluations of achievable goals, the degree of effort they can direct toward the task, and the extent of their resiliency.  A teacher with high self-efficacy would be more likely engaged in positive instructional and relational behaviors than their peers with low self-efficacy, as well as be more committed and innovative. As a result, students would be more likely to be engaged with their material and achieve more, leading to a feedback loop for teachers (Thayer, 2020). Indeed, research supports this relationship warranting self-efficacy as a construct worth accounting for when examining how teachers influence students. However, there is some disagreement among researchers about the relative importance of self-efficacy over instructional practices (Mujis & Reynolds, 2002).

Moreover, rarely has the combination of teachers’ self-efficacy, students engagement been studied in relation to other teachers’ beliefs or instructional practices. More research is needed to determine the extent self-efficacy influences student engagement and over all achievement and instructional practices.

            There are many studies that are similar to this study which includes: Shahzad, K. and Naureen, S.(2015) who worked on impact of Teacher Self-Efficacy on Secondary School Students’ Academic Achievement, This study was conducted with the objective to find out the impact of teacher self-efficacy on the secondary school students’ academic achievement. The findings of the study revealed that teacher self-efficacy has a positive impact on the students’ academic achievement.   

            The work done by Thayer (2020), on how teacher self-efficacy and  mindset influence student engagement and  math  performance,  The study investigated how teacher self-efficacy, teacher implicit theories of intelligence, and the effectiveness of their math instruction practices influence multiple domains of student engagement and achievement. Results were unexpected and did not support initial hypotheses. Teachers’ self-efficacy and instructional effectiveness were not related to dimensions of student math engagement and performance. Teachers’ implicit theories about their students’ intelligence evidenced a positive relationship with behavioral engagement.

            Another study done by Olivier, Archambault,  De-Clercq and  Galand, (2019) who explored on the study, student self-efficacy, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement as key factors for academic achievement. Results mainly support assumptions from Self-Efficacy Theory, that is student self-efficacy and academic achievement are mutually associated from 4th to 6th grades. Some of the propositions of Expectancy-Value Theory were also supported. Self-efficacy was associated with later emotional engagement and academic achievement.

Research Questions

The following research questions were posed and answered

1. What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE)  and   students’ academic achievement?
2. What is the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement?
3. What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy belief, instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement?

 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance

      Ho_1: There is no significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE)  and   students’ academic achievement.

     Ho_2; T here is no significant relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement.

      Ho₃: There is no significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy belief, instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement.

 

Methodology

This study used quantitative research method which is basically an inquiry into a social problem, where a phenomenon is explained by gathering numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods. Thus, the design of this study is aimed at finding the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ academic achievements.

            All male and female secondary school teachers and all male and female students in Umuahia North local Government Area of Abia State form the population of the study.  A systematic random sampling techniques was used, ten boys and girls secondary schools were selected out of which 60 teachers (N=27 male 45% and N=33 females 55%) as teachers’ participants and 100 (N=50 boys and N=50 girls) student participants were randomly selected. Participants were personally approached and the questionnaire were filled in the presence of the researchers.

            The researcher adapted Teacher Self-efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). It is considered to be one of the best instruments to gauge teacher self-efficacy because it is a standardized instrument and has been used in many different researches of the same nature. In adapting this instrument, different experts were approached and their opinions were taken. There are 24 questions in the questionnaire which are further divided into three sub-scales: classroom management (8 questions), instructional strategies (8 questions) and student engagement (8 questions) to judge teacher self-efficacy. It has 4 points Likert scale. For the participants to understand the instrument it was later converted into 4 points likert scale. Very low extent (1), low extent (2), high extent (3) and very high extent (4). The overall reliability (using Cronbach Alpha) was found as 0.86.The analysis of the data was done by applying Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and multiple regressions to answer the research questions. The hypotheses were test at 0.05 level of significance using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

 

Results  

Research 1:

What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and   students’ academic achievement?

Table 1: Relationship between perceptions of teachers regarding their self-efficacy and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

 

Correlations
		Teachers’’ self-efficacy	Academic Achievement
Teachers self-efficacy	Pearson Correlation	1	0.38
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.798
	N	60	60
Acad. Achievement	Pearson Correlation	0.38	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.798
	N	100	100

                                    

 

Table 1 presents the correlation between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement using Pearson’s product moment correlation. The result is r=0.38 which is low positive. The coefficient of determination r²= 0.144. This means that 14.4% of the students’ academic achievement variance is determined by teachers’ self-efficacy. Hence, the relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and   students’ academic achievement is low and positive.

 

Research Question 2:

 

What is the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement?

 

 Table 2: Relationship between perceptions of teachers regarding their self-efficacy, students’ engagement and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

Model	R	R Square	100xR-Squared	Adjusted R Square	Remarks
1	0.25	0.0625	6.25%	0.063	Low positive

                                           Predictors: (Constant), teachers’ self efficacy, students’ engagement

Table 2 presents the multiple regressions among teachers’ self-efficacy, students’ engagement and students’ academic achievement. The result shows r=0.25 which is low positive. The coefficient of determination r²= 0.0625. This means that 6.25% of the students’ academic achievement variance is determined by teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ engagement. Hence, the relationship among teacher self-efficacy (TSE), students’ engagement and   students’ academic achievement is low and positive.

 

 

 

Research question 3:

What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy belief, instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement?

Table 3: Relationship between perceptions of teachers regarding their self-efficacy, Instructional Strategies and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

Model	R	R Square	100xR-Squared	Adjusted R Square	Remarks
1	0.39	0.152	15.2%	0.152	Low positive

                                           Predictors: (Constant), teachers’ self efficacy, instructional strategies

Table 2 presents the multiple regressions among teachers’ self-efficacy, instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement. The result shows that r=0.39 which is low positive. The coefficient of determination r²= 0.152. This means that  15.2% of the students’ academic achievement variance is determined by teachers’ self-efficacy and instructional  strategies. Hence, the relationship among teacher self-efficacy (TSE), instructional strategies and   students’ academic achievement is low and positive.

Hypothesis 1:

There is no significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE)  and   students’ academic achievement.

Table 4: t-test Analysis on the Perceptions of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

States	No	Mean	Df	r	t-cal	t-tab	Remarks
Self-Efficacy   Academic Achievement	60   100	22.1   21.9	158	0.38	2. 54	1.96	Reject Ho

                                       *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)  p ≤ 0.05

 

Table 4 presents the t-test analysis to explore significant relationship between teachers’ Self-Efficacy and students’ academic achievement. The result shows that r=0.38 and the t-calculated is 2.54 while t_(2,158)=1.96 at 0.05 level of significant. Since the t-calculated is greater than t-critical, we reject the null hypothesis. Thus there is a significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and   students’ academic achievement.

Hypothesis 2:

T here is no significant relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement.

Table 5: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)  on the Perceptions of Teachers on Self-Efficacy, Students Engagement and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	49.638	2	24.819	66.01	0.026
	Residual	59.408	158	0.376
	Total	108.816	160
a. Dependent Variable:  Academic achievement
b. Predictor: (Constant), Self-efficacy, Students” engagement

 

Table5 presents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement. The result shows that F-calculated is 66.01 at (2, 158) degree of freedom and significant level of 0.026. The p-level which is 0.026 is less than 0.05. This result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, we state that there is a significant relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, student engagement and students’ academic achievement.

Hypothesis 3:

T here is no significant relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement.

Table 6: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Perceptions of Teachers on Self-Efficacy, Instructional Strategies and Students’ Academic Achievement

 

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	26.198	2	13.099	7.35	0.026
	Residual	281.556	158	1.782
	Total	307.754	160
a. Dependent Variable:  Academic achievement
b. Predictor: (Constant), Self-efficacy, Instructional strategy

Table5 presents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, instructional strategy and students’ academic achievement. The result shows that F-calculated is 7.35 at (2, 158) degree of freedom and significant level of 0.026. The p-level which is 0.026 is less than 0.05. This result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, we state that there is a significant relationship among teachers’ self-efficacy belief, instructional strategy and students’ academic achievement.

Discussion

This study revealed that the relationship between teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and   students’ academic achievement is low and positive and significant. The result of the present study is consistent with the previous researches which have been done on the same topic. It is the main external force which increases self-belief of the students about learning and themselves and  leads them to achieve their academic goals. Shahzad and Naureen (2015) worked on impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement, This study was conducted with the objective to find out the impact of teacher self-efficacy on the secondary school students’ academic achievement. The findings of the study revealed that teacher self-efficacy has a positive impact on the students’ academic achievement.   This means that higher the level of teacher self-efficacy, the higher student academic achievements. This result simply put means that there is a positive and significant relationship between the independent variable (teachers’ self-efficacy) and the dependent variable (academic performance), hence, the hypotheses of the study was rejected.

            The result also revealed that the relationship among teacher self-efficacy (TSE), students’ engagement and   students’ academic achievement is low positive and significant. Self-efficacy  beliefs of teachers propels students’ engagement  to have the same mind set, as cited in Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive theory. According to Bandura self-efficacy greatly influences the individuals’ engagement and performances. The work done by Thayer (2020), on how teacher self-efficacy and mindset influence student engagement and  math  performance is supported by this present study.  This study revealed how teacher self-efficacy, teacher implicit theories of intelligence, and the effectiveness of their math instruction practices influence multiple domains of student engagement and achievement. Another finding in this result is that the efficacious teachers’ control, solving problems and respond positively in the most tasks. The work is consistent with the wok of Muijs and Reynolds (2001) who recognized that teachers with high self-efficacy can guide their students better to accomplish tasks effectively.

            The findings showed that the relationship among teacher self-efficacy (TSE), instructional strategies and   students’ academic achievement is low positive and significant. This study is in agreement with the idea that if teachers work hard, they can achieve the most difficult instructional task and motivated students’ academic performance. This finding is consistent with the work done by Olivier, Archambault,  De-Clercq and  Galand, (2019) who explored on the study, student self-efficacy, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement as key factors for academic achievement. Results mainly support assumptions from Self-Efficacy Theory, that is student self-efficacy and academic achievement are mutually associated from 4th to 6th grades. Some of the propositions of Expectancy-Value Theory were also supported. Self-efficacy was associated with later emotional engagement and academic achievement. The study has also proved that self-efficacy possessed by a teacher, improves the teachers’ instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement. The research shows clearly that teacher self-efficacy and his instructional strategies have significant positive influence on students.

Counselling Implications of the Findings

The counseling implications of the study include:

1. Higher self-efficacy of a teacher produces higher motivational level of the students. The overall results suggest that TSE has a positive impact on students' behavior, learning and achievement.

 

2. Teachers' self-efficacy, namely teachers' beliefs in their ability to effectively handle tasks, obligations, and challenges related to their professional activity, plays a key role in influencing important academic outcomes (e.g., students' achievement and motivation) and well-being in the working environment.

 

3. Specifically, the evidence has shown that students with high self-efficacy in various academic domains choose to engage in tasks that foster the development of their knowledge, skills, and abilities in those areas; exert effort in the face of difficulty; and persist longer at challenging tasks.

 

Conclusion

The present study found factual, and showed that there is a significant positive relationship between the teacher self-efficacy (students’ engagement and instructional strategies) and the students’ academic achievement. It has also been observed that the teachers are very efficacious and their level of self-efficacy is high which impacts positively on students’ behavior, attitude and most importantly in their academic achievement. Teachers with high level of self-efficacy produce better results in students’ academic achievements.

 

Recommendations

Recommendations based on the findings of the study are as follows:

 

1. Training programmes should be designed for teaches by relevant authorities to improve their level of self-efficacy in order to transmit the skills to the students.

 

2.  Teachers should be encouraged to experiment various teaching techniques rather than confining to the same traditional methods of teaching.

 

3. The study did not cover large sample size due to time and resources, hence, this study could be done in the senior secondary schools in Abia State. 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Shahzad, K. and Naureen, S.(2015), Impact of Teacher Self-Efficacy on Secondary School Students’        Academic Achievement, Journal of Education and Educational Development 4 (2) 1-25

Thayer, A. J. (2020), How teacher self-efficacy and mindset influence student engagement and math        performance, a dissertation submitted to the faculty of education , the university of Minnesota

Olivier, E., Archambault, I.,  De-Clercq, M. and  Galand, B (2019). Student Self-Efficacy, Classroom       Engagement, and Academic Achievement: Comparing Three Theoretical Frameworks..Journal of        Youth and Adolescence 48(2) 164-178

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it

            matter. Handbook of research on student engagement 3 (2) 97-131).

 

Fung, F., Tan, C. Y., & Chen, G. (2018). Student engagement and mathematics achievement: Unraveling main and interactive effects. Psychology in the Schools,55 (7), 815-831.

 

Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The academic achievement of

            African American students during early adolescence: An examination of multiple risk, promotive,            and protective factors. American journal of community  psychology, 30 (3), 367-399.

 

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as         determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level          .Journal of school psychology,44 (6), 473-490.

 

Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation, Journal of  Educational             Psychology,101(4), 879.

 

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: A genetic perspective. Annual Review of

            Psychology, 52, 1–26.

 

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

            achievement. Rutledge. American Educational Research  Journal, 38(3), 611-652

Mujis, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters?.

            The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 4(2) 3-15

 

Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Student engagement at school and with         learning: Theory and interventions. NASP Communiqué, 35,(8), 18-20.

 

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness:

            Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of  research on student             engagement. Springer  US.

 

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects

            of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational          psychology, 85 (4), 571.

 

 

 

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student

            engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education(pp. 475-494). Springer Netherlands.

 

Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and

            self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional         science ,26 (1-2), 27-47.

 

 

 

 

 

• Prev
• Next