Defining and Measuring Engagement and Learning in Science: Conceptual, Theoretical, Methodological, and Analytical Issues
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
AbstractEngagement is one of the most widely misused and overgeneralized constructs found in the educational, learning, instructional, and psychological sciences. The articles in this special issue represent a wide range of traditions and highlight several key conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues related to defining and measuring engagement. All the approaches exemplified by the contributors show different ways of conceptualizing and measuring engagement and demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each method to significantly augment our current understanding of engagement. Despite the numerous issues raised by the authors of this special issue and in my commentary, I argue that focusing on process data will lead to advances in models, theory, methods, analytical techniques, and ultimately instructional recommendations for learning contexts that effectively engage students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI would like to thank Gale Sinatra and Doug Lombardi for their invitation to write the commentary and their comments and feedback on this article. Lastly, I would also like to thank Clark Chinn for his feedback on this commentary.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Education Sciences, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Educational Psychologist
- Topic
- Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- —
- Funders
- Institute of Education Sciences
- Keywords
- Strengths and weaknessesPsychologyFoundation (evidence)Research councilEducational researchProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsEpistemologySociologySocial sciencePedagogySocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes