Effect of Structured and semi-structured Tasks on Behavioral and Motivational Engagement of Undergraduate Students in Educational Science

Jamor, E.; Pourjamshidi, M.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3997.1972

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Department of Education, Faculty of Humanities, University of Bu-Ali-Sina, Hamedan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3997.1972

Abstract

Background and Objective:Assignment is an activity given to learners after teaching and can be done in the classroom under teacher's supervision or outside the classroom. Some of the assignments that are done as a part of classroom work in the learning environment are called class assignments, and others are taken home by the learner so that they can benefit from parents’ assistance in addition to teacher support. Thus, part of the learner's time outside the school environment is devoted to homework. In general, homework is an important principle in the teaching-learning process. Researchers believe that classroom assignments provide learners with the opportunity to practice more on the concepts presented in class. Teachers also use classroom assignments to help learners learn and engage after class time, and parents become aware of their children's learning process.
This research has been conducted to examine the effect of type of structured and semi-structured tasks on the behavioral engagement and motivational engagement of students in Educational Sciences in academic year of 2016-2017.
Methods: The research method was quasi-experimental with pre-test and post-test with a control group. The statistical population included all the students of Bu-Ali Sina university in the field educational science in academic year of 2016-2017. Of these, 30 students were selected through a random sampling procedure and were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups (15 per group). A group with structured task and another with semi-structured assignments. Data was collected by Thinou's Engagement Questionnaire (2009). Validity of this questionnaire has been obtained through content validity and formalism, and reliability of the questionnaire in the internal consistency of the questionnaire, using Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 and in the sub-components this value for behavioral involvement was 0.90 and motivational engagement 0.92. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics including frequency, mean, standard deviation and inferential statistics including independent sample t-test and covariance analysis test were used.
Findings: The results revealed that there is no difference between the type of structured and semi-structured tasks and student motivational and behavioral engagement.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, it can be said that both types of tasks, semi-structured and structured, provide engaging conditions for learners. Semi-structured tasks, due to their greater degree of independence and identity, lead to learners’ commitment, satisfaction and the structure of the learner's intellectual control. Structured assignments, due to their features such as regularity and similarity to the structure of long-term memory, as well as careful planning and scheduling, make people less stressed make them do their homework without ambiguity, and as a result, the person does the without worrying about running out
of time. They also increase a person's emotional involvement.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.14.1.15.9

Main Subjects

Educational Science

COPYRIGHTS
©2020 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1]. Bonabi Mubarak Z. Study of the inter-subject and inter-subject relations of (academic motivation, Self- efficacy and homework value and. in the first-year students of Ahvaz high school students, Ahwaz University

[2] Zahiri A, Shahini Yeylagh Manije M, Haghighi Mobarakeh J. The causal relationships of previous academic performance and doing homework With the next academic performance by self-efficacy mediation for learning and accountability in schoolchildren, girls and boys of Ahvaz high schools. Journal of Education and Learning. 2011; 18(1). Persian.

[3] Earle R. Homework as an instructional event. Educational technology. 1992; 35(4):36-47.

[4] Shirbeygi N, Vakili N. Students' attitude towards the homework and its relation to Task Management Strategies. Journal of Learning and Education Studies. 2013; 5(2):87-112. Persian.

[5] Cooper H, Robinson J, Patall E. Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research. 2006; 76(1):1-62.

[6] Warton P. The Forgotten Voices in Homework: Views of Students. Educational Psychologist. 2001; 36(3):155-165.

[7] Mitchell I, Carbone A. A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 50(5-6):257-270.

[8] Seif A. Modern psychology:Learning and teaching Psychology. Tehran: Rozesh; 2013.

[9] Jonassen D, Hung W. All Problems are Not Equal: Implications for Problem-Based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 2008; 2(2):10-13.

[10] Smy V, Cahillane M, MacLean P. Sensemaking and metacognitive prompting in ill-structured problems. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. 2016; 33(3):186-199.

[11] Eisner E. Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan; 1972.

[12] Mitchell I, Carbone A. A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 50(5-6):257-270.

[13] Jordan W, Lara J, McPartland M. Exploring the complexity of early dropout causal structures. Report No. 48. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. Johns Hopkins University. 1994.

[14] Engle R, Conant F. Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom. Cognition and Instruction. 2002;20(4):399-483.

[15] Azevedo F, diSessa A, Sherin B. An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 2012;31(2):270-289.

[16] Newmann F. Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.

[17] Clark J, Dimartino J. A Prescription for engagement. Principar Leadership. 2004; 4(8):19- 23.

[18] Fooladvand K, Mehri M, Fathi Ashtiani A, Shojaee Z. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74(1):59-109.

[19] Fredricks J, Blumenfeld P, Paris A. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74(1):59-109.

[20] Tinio M. Academic Engagement Scale for Grade School Students. The assessment Handbook. 2009; 64-75.

[21] Green J, Liem G, Martin A, Colmar S, Marsh H, McInerney D. Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence. 2012; 35(5):1111-1122.

[22] Linnenbrink E, Pintrich P. THE ROLE OF SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS INSTUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING INTHECLASSROOM. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2003; 19(2):119-137.

[23] Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. 2003; 13:123-128.

[24] Fredricks J, Blumenfeld P, Paris A. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74(1):59-109.

[25] Chun Hui C, Lee C, Xiongying Niu X. The moderating effects of polychronicity and achievement striving on the relationship between task variety and organization-based self-esteem of mid-level managers in China. Human Relations. 2010; 63(9):1395-1416.

[26] Willms J. Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD; 2005.

[27] Saber S, Pashashriifi H. Prediction of educational engagement dimensions based on identity styles in female primary school students of Tehran high schools. Journal of Research in Curriculum Planning. 2013; 2(11):72-85. Persian.

[28] Ahouchakh N. Investigating the effect of traditional and combined education on the academic engagement of female students in the basic sciences lesson of the seventh year of primary education. Unpublished master’s thesis Bu-Ali sina University. 2015. Persian.

[29]. Davodi S. Presenting the Prediction Model of Academic Achievement with Emphasizing the Mediate Role of Cognitive, Motivational and Behavioral Engagement. Research in School and Virtual Learning. 2012; 1(1):37-47. Persian.

[30] Ghazi Tabatabai M, Shahabi R, Alibazi H, Torkan R. A structural model of relationships between parenting, academic engagement and academic achievement. Journal of Psychological applied research. 2011; 2(4):17-30.

[31] Zerang R. The relationship between learning styles and academic engagement with students' academic performance in. Unpublished master’s thesis Mashhad University. 2008. Persian.

[32] Bakker A, Demerouti E, ten Brummelhuis L. Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2012; 80(2):555-564.

[33] Janosz M, Archambault I, Morizot J, Pagani L. School Engagement Trajectories and Their Differential Predictive Relations to Dropout. Journal of Social Issues. 2008; 4(1):21-40.

[34] Miller R, Rycek R, Fritson K. The effects of high impact learning experiences on student engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 15:53-59.

[35] Johnmarshall R, Hyungshim J, Dan C, Soohyun J, Jon B. Creative methods in transforming education using human resources. Motivation and Emotion. 2004; 28(2):147-169.

[36] Cooper H, Lindsay J, Nye B, Greathouse S. Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1998; 90(1):70-83.

[37] Schunk D, Meece J, Pintrich P. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs: N.J: Merrill; 1996.

[38] Ames C. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1992; 84(3):261-271.

[39] Newmann F. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press; 1992.

[40] Junco R. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education. 2012; 58(1):162-171.

[41] Azevedo F, diSessa A, Sherin B. An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 2012; 31(2):270-289.

[42] Johnmarshall R, Hyungshim J, Dan Carrell S. Motivation and Emotion. 2004; 28(2):147-169.

[43] Carbone A. Principles for designing programming tasks: How task characteristics influence students learning of programming. Melbourne: Monash University; 2007.

[44] Harris L. Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2011; 27(2):376-386.