Abstract
The quality of students' learning engagement may significantly influence their learning. Can teachers accurately judge student learning engagement with educational software? In this exploratory study, 3 fifth-grade teachers used a seven-level taxonomy to rate the frequency of different forms of engagement among 42 students interacting with different types of educational software. Teachers spontaneously treated the seven levels of engagement as a continuum, rating students highest on one level or a set of contiguous levels. Teachers generally agreed when ranking students by their typical levels of engagement, but disagreed regarding the actual frequencies of different engagement types. Ratings of software engagement conceived of as interpretive activity were correlated significantly with student reading test scores. Given the authentic classroom conditions in which this study took place, the results are promising for the classroom utility of the seven-level conception of student engagement with software.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ainley, M.D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395–405.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., & Pyke, C. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with educational software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic text.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 213–234.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing.Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation.Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–109.
Guthrie, J.T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy.The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 432–445.
Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (1987). Interactional effects of instructional quality and teacher judgment accuracy on achievement.Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 91–98.
Hoge, R.D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature.Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313.
Jacques, R., Preece, J., & Carey, T. (1995). Engagement as a design concept for multimedia.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24(1), 49–59.
Jacobson, M.J., & Spiro, R.J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning.Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23.
Kuh, G.D. (2000).The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, Indiana: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Indiana University.
Kumar, D.D. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science instruction and student engagement.Educational Review, 43(1), 49–61.
Langer, J. (1995a). Literature and learning to think.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(3), 207–226.
Langer, J. (1995b).Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, O., & Anderson, C.W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585–610.
Martens, B.K., Bradley, T.A., & Eckert, T.L. (1997). Effects of reinforcement history and instructions on the persistence of student engagement.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 569–572.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement.Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.
Perry, N.E., & Meisels, S.J. (1996).How accurate are teacher judgments of students' academic performance? Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418154)
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938).Literature as Exploration. New York: Appleton Century.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Continuing the Conversation: A Clarification,Research in the Teaching of English, 29(3), 349–354.
Ryan, A.M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school.American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R.S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E., (1989). Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.
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), 571–581.
Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.).Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sweet, A.P., Guthrie, J.T., & Ng, M.M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210–223.
Touchstone Applied Science Associates (1997).Degrees of Reading Power Standard Test. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998).Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training, FRSS 65. National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System.
Wright, D., & Wiese, M.J. (1988). Teacher judgment in student evaluation: A comparison of grading methods.Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 10–14.
Yang, S.C. (2002). Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia.Computers in Human Behavior, 18(1), 37–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was conducted under the auspices of the National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA), operated by the University at Albany in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Center is supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education (Award #R305A60005). However, the views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the department.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Pyke, C. Teacher ratings of student engagement with educational software: An exploratory study. ETR&D 50, 23–37 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504992
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504992