Predicting Engagement 2
STUDENT
Running head: PREDICTING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Student Classroom Engagement: A Multiple Linear Regression Analysis of the Variables Predicting Student Silence and Participation
Kevin R. Meyer
Ohio University
Paper submitted competitively, accepted as the Top Paper and Top Student Paper, and presented to the Instructional Development Division, 2008 National Communication Association Convention, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
Student silence can be a major concern for instructors who want students to orally participate in class. As a result, instructors commonly attempt to encourage oral participation through participation grades (Balas, 2000; Bean & Peterson, 1998; Fritschner, 2000; Jacobs & Chase, 1992). Few studies to date, however, have explored this topic by including the perspective of students (Fassinger, 1995). The present study investigated engaged classroom interaction by examining undergraduate (n = 134) and graduate (n = 75) students’ perceptions of participation and silence. The results of a multiple linear regression analysis indicated significant relationships among the six variables investigated. More specifically, grade level and learning link significantly predicted engagement style after accounting for ethics and rights, biological sex, and participation grades.
Student Classroom Engagement: A Multiple Linear Regression Analysis of the Variables Predicting Student Silence and Participation
The level of oral participation can vary greatly from one student to the next. Although some students participate orally on a daily basis in class, others never speak the entire term (Fassinger, 1995). For some students the level of oral participation can vary greatly from one course to another or from one class period to another. Thus, whether a student chooses to participate orally or remain silent varies from student to student, and even from class to class for particular students (Meyer, 2007). However, the reasons why students chose to participate orally or decide to remain silent have largely been neglected by scholars. Since instructors typically prefer to have students participate orally and often assign participation grades (Balas, 2000; Bean & Peterson, 1998; Fritschner, 2000; Jacobs & Chase, 1992), the factors that influence student oral participation, the reasons why students are motivated to orally participate or remain silent, and their feelings about participation grades are worthy of investigation. Consequently, the present study sought to explore factors that predict the participation preferences, or engagement styles, of students.
Literature Review
Regardless of a student’s inclination to participate orally or remain silent, most college students encounter a number of classes throughout their college careers that grade participation (Balas, 2000; Bean & Peterson, 1998; Fritschner, 2000; Jacobs & Chase, 1992). In fact, college students typically encounter a number of classes throughout their academic careers that grade participation (Balas, 2000; Bean & Peterson, 1998; Fritschner, 2000; Jacobs & Chase, 1992; Tatar, 2005). Anywhere between 5% to 50% of a student’s grade may depend on participation (Peterson, 2001). The prevalence of participation grades raises the possibility, however, that any increased participation by some students is simply a compliance response (Balas, 2000). The mere presence of participation grades, however, often does little to encourage student participation (Fassinger, 1995). The reality of participation grades would seemingly encourage greater oral participation from students, yet most students remain silent in class while a small proportion of students do most of the oral participation (Fritschner, 2000). Fritschner (2000) found that in 344 observed class sessions, many of which had participation grades, an average of 28% of those in attendance verbally participated while 18% of those in attendance accounted for 79% of all the students’ comments in class. Consequently, even in classrooms employing graded participation strategies, the vast majority of students remain silent.
Participation grades are often included in instructor syllabi because participation is believed to be associated with student learning. Generally speaking, current pedagogical thinking subscribes to the notion that students should be encouraged to orally participate in the classroom (Howard & Henney, 1998). Theoretical arguments posit a link between oral participation and learning (Davis, 1993; Howard & Henney, 1998; Fassinger, 1995). The reasoning behind this belief is based upon the hypothesized link between student oral participation and performance outcomes such as critical thinking and learning (Davis, 1993; Fassinger, 1995). As a result, college syllabi often include participation as part of the student’s grade (Peterson, 2001). The present study, however, re-conceptualizes student participation under the umbrella of engagement rather than the more narrow definition of oral participation. Thus, engagement refers to an understanding that even silent students may interact cognitively and affectively with course content.
Importantly, the line of literature has largely taken the perspective of instructors; less is known about student perceptions. Extant research has failed to investigate classroom participation from the perspective of students. Tatar (2005) has observed that few studies explore classroom participation from the perspective of students or endeavor to uncover the reasons why some students choose to remain silent even when participation is encouraged or graded. Both Fassinger (1995) and Tatar (2005) have noted that most scholarship has taken the perspective of instructors or used children as subjects, rather than college-aged students. Previous studies have also ignored nontraditional student populations, young adults, and adult learners (Fassinger, 1995; Fritschner, 2000; Howard & Henney, 1998). Thus, extant literature has mostly ignored the variables that may influence the participation preferences of students.
Recent literature indicates an interest among some scholars in the reasons for student participation behaviors. Ultimately, students make a choice to orally participate or remain silent. Just because students remain silent, though, does not mean that students are not participating in other ways. In part, the explanation for this pattern could be due to differences in how students and instructors define participation. Faculty and student definitions of, and preferences for, participation are not always aligned (Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt, 2004; Fritschner, 2000). Instructors tend to define participation as oral, whereas students tend to hold broader definitions of the meaning of participation (Dallimore et al., 2004). Importantly, two recent studies found that some students actively participate in the classroom through means of oral engagement, while others remain silent and report engaging through other means (Meyer, 2007; Meyer & Hunt, 2004). These silent forms of participation may involve paying attention, taking notes, or thinking about the material presented in class (Meyer, 2007). But, the more intriguing question is not how students choose to participate silently, but why they do so. Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974), for instance, could help to explain why some students remain silent even though they are being graded on their oral participation. Indeed, some evidence exists to suggest that a small portion of students remain silent because they react negatively to participation grades (Meyer, 2007; Meyer & Hunt, 2004).
Variables That Influence Student Participation
Many factors could influence and even predict a student’s engagement style in the classroom. Specifically, five variables appear to hold promise for predicting engagement style. Demographic variables, such as the student’s biological sex and grade level, have been shown to be related to participation. In addition, perception-based variables, such as the student’s feelings about participation grades, beliefs about the link between participation and learning, and beliefs about the ethics of participation, should all be intuitive predictors of engagement style.
Demographic factors could influence engagement style. Previous studies have provided some indication of the relationship between biological sex and grade level to observed participation levels. For instance, biological sex may influence participation and classroom interaction in a variety of ways. A relationship between engagement style and biological sex is likely given previous evidence that a “chilly classroom climate” exists for female college students (Fassinger, 1995; Jones, 1997) and previous studies suggesting that males are more active orally in the classroom. Some scholars speculate that students themselves may even contribute to a “chilly climate” (Fassinger, 1995; Jones, 1997). Regardless, student sex has been found to be a significant component of student participation (Fassinger, 1995). Grade level may also have a relationship to engagement style due to the nature of courses, instructional methods, and previous classroom experience at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Specifically, graduate courses tend to be smaller in size, use discussion-based instructional methods more frequently, and set expectations for students to orally participate, as compared to undergraduate courses. Thus, the biological sex and grade level of the student may play a role in the choice of engagement style. Finally, it is possible that a combination of biological sex and grade level could also influence engagement style.
Student beliefs about ethics and their rights or in the class, the role of oral participation in the learning process, and participation grades could be related to engagement style. Not only do these perception-based variables make intuitive sense as predictors of engagement style, but previous research has indicated that a connection exists between these student beliefs and their participation habits (Meyer, 2007; Meyer & Hunt, 2004). How students view ethics and their rights in the classroom could be related to engagement style. If students see oral participation as their ethical responsibility as students, they might be more likely to have an oral engagement style. If, however, students believe they have a right to remain silent in the classroom, they might be more likely to have a silent engagement style. How students believe they learn is likely to predict their engagement style. For instance, if students believe that oral participation enhances or facilitates their learning, they might be more likely to engage orally in the classroom. But, if students believe they can learn or engage in silent ways, then they might be inclined to remain silent. How students feel about being graded on the basis of their participation could predict engagement style. For example, if students like participation grades, they might be inclined to engage orally in the classroom. However, if students dislike participation grades, they might be inclined to provide less oral participation or even remain silent. Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974) could, for instance, explain why some students might chose not to participate orally even though they are being graded for doing so. Finally, it is likely that these three predictor variables could be related to one another. For example, beliefs about the link between oral participation and learning could influence student perceptions about participation grades and their role or responsibility in the classroom. At the same time, it is likely that perceptions of ethics and rights could influence perceptions of participation grades as well as beliefs about the link between oral participation and learning.
Research Hypotheses
Based on extant literature about student engagement, six research hypotheses were posited for the present study. Each hypothesis predicts a relationship between one of the five predictor variables and the dependent variable of engagement style. A student’s engagement style may run fall into either a mostly oral or mostly silent preference for classroom participation. Given that previous literature has indicated a relationship between the biological sex of the student and the level oral participation in class, it is anticipated that biological sex will predict engagement style. Specifically, it is likely that males with have more of an oral engagement style than females.
H1: The biological sex of students will predict their engagement style.
Given differences in the nature of instructional methods and expectations in undergraduate and graduate courses, as well as the role that some graduate students assume as teaching assistants, it is anticipated that the grade level of the student will predict engagement style. Specifically, graduate students might be more likely to have an oral engagement style than undergraduate students.
H2: The grade level of students will predict their engagement style.
Some students may see it as their obligation or ethical responsibility to participate orally during class sessions, while other students may believe they have a right to remain silent if they prefer. Thus, it is likely that a relationship exists between student beliefs about ethics and rights in the classroom and engagement style. Specifically, it is likely that students who believe they have an ethical obligation to participate orally in class will also have an oral engagement style, whereas students who believe they have a right to remain silent will have a silent engagement style.
H3: The beliefs of students regarding ethics and their rights in the classroom will
predict their engagement style.
Given that students may associate their ability to learn course materials with their preferred engagement style, it is anticipated that beliefs about the link between learning and participation will predict learning style. Specifically, it is likely that students who believe oral participation to be an important component of learning will align with an oral engagement style, whereas students who believe they can learn will remaining silent will align with a silent engagement style.
H4: The beliefs of students regarding the link between learning and oral participation will
predict their engagement style.
Although most students enroll in a plethora of classes that use participation grades, not all students may agree with the percentage of their grade that is assigned based upon participation. Thus, students who believe participation grades should account for a smaller proportion of their grades than they commonly encounter could prefer a silent engagement style. On the other hand, students who believe participation should account for a larger percentage of their grade than they commonly encounter could prefer an oral engagement style.
H5: The preferences of students regarding participation grades will predict their
engagement style.
Finally, it follows that a combination of the predictor variables will result in a better ability to predict a student’s engagement style than any single predictor variable.
H6: A linear composite of the five independent variables (biological sex, grade level, ethics and rights, learning link, and participation grades) will predict engagement style.
Method
Population and Participants
The target population for the study was undergraduate and graduate students at a large Midwestern university. The accessible population for the study consisted of all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at the university for the upcoming term. A random sample of 3000 undergraduate students, balanced by biological sex, was provided by the campus computer services office in charge of providing e-mail addresses for students invited to participate in the research project. A list of the entire population of 748 graduate students was also provided by the campus office. The sampling strategy used in the present study was only balanced by biological sex and not other demographic information because of the homogenous demographic characteristics of the students enrolled at the university involved in the study.