Understanding behavioural engagement and achievement: The roles of teaching practices and student sense of competence and task value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different teaching practices, such as autonomy support and structure, provide students with a positive learning context supporting their engagement, which can operate through their underlying motivation, including sense of competence and task value. AIMS: This study aims at investigating the best configuration (unique or synergistic) between autonomy support and structure to support student behavioural engagement, including compliance, participation, and misbehaviour, and reading achievement. A second objective is to assess students' sense of competence and task value as mediators linking teaching practices to student engagement and achievement. SAMPLE: The samples included 1,666 7th-grade students and their 85 teachers. Students answered questionnaires and tests at the beginning and the end of the school year. METHODS: Students' perceptions of the use of autonomy support and structure by their Language Arts teacher were aggregated at the classroom level. Students rated their sense of competence and task value in Language Arts class. Twice during the school year, they also reported three facets of their behavioural engagement (compliance, participation, and misbehaviour) and answered a reading comprehension test. Multilevel path analyses using Mplus7 allowed accounting for the nested structure of data. RESULTS: Student sense of competence mediated the association of student classroom-aggregated perceptions of teacher structure and autonomy support with self-reported participation in the classroom. Task value mediated the association between both teaching practices and student misbehaviour and compliance, as reported by students. Sense of competence was directly associated with later reading achievement, but the indirect effect of teaching practices was not significant. We found no significant interaction (synergistic effect) between teacher autonomy support and structure. CONCLUSION: Student classroom-aggregated perception of teacher autonomy support and structure is important to nurture behavioural engagement. However, we found no extra benefit of combining these two dimensions of teaching practices. The processes linking these teaching practices to the three facets of student behavioural engagement were different. As such, to support the various aspects of student engagement, the actions of teachers, as reported by their students, should tap into the mechanisms that are most strongly related to each type of behaviour.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".