Students’ involvement as a factor of improving the efficiency of the educational process
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-c-93-99
Abstract
The article deals with the most important pedagogical problems of increasing the involvement of students in the educational process. The authors aim to study the international theoretical and practical experience of increasing students’ involvement and analyze the complexity of the dynamic interaction between the students and the educational environment in class from the point of view of various types of involvement. To study the theoretical and practical materials, the authors use a combination of general scientific analytical, synthetic, and inductive-deductive approaches. The results of the study showed that the behavioral, academic, emotional, and cognitive involvement of students in learning a foreign language depends on various factors of the educational environment, including the choice of conceptual approaches to teaching, the level of students’ linguistic and communicative competences. The authors come to the conclusion that students’ involvement in the educational process in higher education reflects the effectiveness of the academic, social, and professional orientation of education, which contributes to academic success and professional self-realization of students.
About the Authors
M. V. Melnichuk
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Melnichuk — Dr. Sci. (Econ.) Professor of the Department of English for Professional Communication
Moscow
M. A. Belogash
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina A. Belogash — Assistant Professor of the Department of English for Professional Communication
Moscow
References
1. Rogacheva E. Yu. Raising children in the family of John Dewey. Istoriko-pedagogicheskij zhurnal =Historical and pedagogical journal. 2013;(2):81–97. (In Russ.).
2. Zynger D. (Re)conceptualizing student engagement: doing education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008;(24):1765–1776.
3. Furlong M.J., Christenson S.L. Engaging students at school and with learning: a relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools. 2008;45(5):365–368.
4. Appleton J.J., Christenson S.L., Furlong M.J. Student engagement: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools. 2008;45(5):369–386.
5. Meece J.L., Blumenfeld P.C., Hoyle R.H. Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988;80(4):514–523.
6. Salmela-Aro K., Moeller P., Schneider B., Spicer J., Lavonen J. Integrating the light and dark sides of student engagement using person-oriented and situation-specific approaches. Learning and Instruction. 2016;(43):61–70.
7. Fisher D., Frey N., Hattie J. The Distance learning Playbook, Grades K-12. Teaching for Engagement and Impact in any Setting. Corwin: Sage publishing company; 2020.
8. Liu C., Yu C. Understanding students’ motivation in translation learning: a case study from the self-concept perspective. Foreign Language Education. 2019; 4(4):28–29.
9. Marsh H.W., Xu K., Martin A.J. Self-cocept: A synergy of theory, method, and application. APA educational psychology handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological association; 2012.
10. Wentzel R., Wigfield A. Introduction. In R. Wentzel & A. Handbook of motivation at school. New York & Oxen: Routledge; 2009.
11. Hamman D., Gosselin K., Romano J., Bunuan R. Using possible-selves theory to understand the identity development of new teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2010;26(7):1349–1361.
12. Shuell T.J. Teaching in the Classroom. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Pergamon; 2001.
13. Wolfe P. The Role of Meaning and Emotion in Learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2006;(110):30–31.
14. Wolfe P. The Role of Meaning and Emotion in Learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2006;(110):35–41.
15. Bower G. The Evolution of a Cognitive Psychologist: a journey from simple behaviors to complex mental acts. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59(1):1–27.
16. Bixler S. One-to-one iPad technology in the middle school mathematics and science classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES). 2019;3(1):1–18.
17. Lynch S.J., Spillane N., House A., Peters-Burton E., Behrend T., Ross K.M., Han E.M. A policy-relevant instrumental case study of an inclusive STEM-focused high school: Manor New Tech High. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. 2015;(1):1–20.
18. Shatto B., Erwin K. Teaching millennials and Generation Z: Bridging the generational divide. Creative Nursing. 2017;23(1):24–28.
19. Krathwohl D. A revision of Bloom‘s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice: Revising Bloom’s taxonomy. 2002;41(4):212–218.
20. Skinner E.A., Furrer C., Marchand G., Kindermann T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008;100(4):765–781.
21. Reeve J., Tseng C.M. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2011;36(4):257–267.
22. Skinner E.A., Kindermann T.A., Connell J.P., Wellborn J.G. Engagement as an organizational construct in the dynamics of motivational development. Handbook of motivation in school. Mahwah: Earlnaum; 2009.
23. Hakanen A., Bakker W., Schaufeli W. Burnout and engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology. 2006;(43):495–513.
24. Astin A.W. Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher education. Journal of College Student Development. 1999;40(5):518–529.
Review
For citations:
Melnichuk M.V., Belogash M.A. Students’ involvement as a factor of improving the efficiency of the educational process. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2023;13(2):93-99. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-c-93-99
Views:
399
Email this article 