The Behavioral, Psychological and Socio-cultural Perspectives of Student Engagement Research: Perspective Shift and its Implications for Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Chinese Universities
-
摘要: 当前主流的大学生学习投入研究秉承了行为观的视角，忽视了大学生学习投入行为和内部心理状态之间可能存在的差异，也难以看到大学生学习投入与特定社会文化脉络之间的关联。因此，大学生学习投入研究亟待研究视域的转移和多元视角的参与。作为一种心理观的解读，“动机与投入轮”为研究大学生学习投入提供了更为适当的理论框架和研究工具。三项依据“动机与投入轮”、针对中国大学生群体进行的实证研究结果分别表明：（1）中国大学生的学习投入可分为四种类型，其中两类学习者在学习动机和行为方面存在着“表里不一”的情况，且“适应不良但行为投入的学习者”集中反映了中国社会文化情境对大学生学习产生的影响。（2）尽管学习动机与投入行为之间的关系很大程度上符合英美学者已有的研究经验，但对中国大学生来说，适应不良的动机并不会削弱反而有可能激励他们积极投入学习，从而反映出大学生学习投入的文化依附性。（3）大学生课程经历会显著影响他们的学习动机与投入。依据课程经历各因子发挥的作用，可将其分为“理想指标”“反常指标”与“奇异指标”三个类别，其中后两类指标直接体现了中国高校教学的特征与积弊。改善中国大学生的学习投入和高校教学质量，教学管理者与教师应该澄清高等教育阶段“好的教学”的内涵，强调学生的独立性和自主学习，发挥评估促进教学的功能，同时留意中国文化与学校教育传统对教学的双重影响。上述三项研究虽从心理观出发，却有助于研究者看到大学生学习投入与社会文化情境之间的密切联系，且不忽视对学习投入行为的考察，因此使研究者有可能迈向整体观的大学生学习投入研究。Abstract: The dominant research approach to student engagement in higher education follows a behavioral perspective, which neglects the possible discrepancies between students’ behavioral engagement and psychological status, making largely invisible the links between student engagement and specific socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the research on student engagement in higher education to shift its views and include diverse perspectives. The Motivation and Engagement Wheel, a psychological perspective of student engagement, provides a more appropriate conceptual framework and research tools. Targeting Chinese university students, three empirical studies based on the Motivation and Engagement Wheel revealed a series of findings. First, there were four types of learners among Chinese university students according to their motivation and engagement, and two of them showed some discrepancies between their internal motivation and external behaviors. Those “maladaptive but engaged learners” typically reflect the influence of Chinese cultural and educational traditions on student engagement. Second, although the relationships between motivation and engagement largely echoed Anglo-American researchers’ previous findings, maladaptive motivation was found to sometimes facilitate, rather than impair Chinese university students’ engagement. These findings reflect the cultural specificity of student engagement in higher education. Third, students’ course experiences significantly influenced their motivation and engagement. According to the nature of effects, these course experience factors can be classified as ideal, paradoxical and weird indicators. The paradoxical and weird indicators mirror some characteristics and long-standing problems of university teaching and learning in China. To improve the quality of university teaching, academic affairs administrators and instructors should clarify the connotations of good teaching in higher education, attach more importance to the cultivation of students’ independence and self-regulated learning, and promote assessment for learning in university teaching. They also need to pay attention to the double-edge effects of Chinese cultural and pedagogical traditions on learning and teaching in higher education. Meanwhile, although the three studies follow a psychological perspective, they can not only help us identify the close associations between student engagement and the socio-cultural context in China, but also take account of students’ engagement behaviors, which makes it possible for researchers to conduct student engagement research from a holistic perspective in future.1) ①相关数据参见教育部公布的全国教育事业发展统计公报。详情可浏览
http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/。 2) ②详情参见教育部公布的中国教育年鉴，可浏览http://www.moe.edu.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_364/moe_2489/moe_2492/tnull_40787.html。 3) ③关于“中国大学生学习与发展追踪研究”的发展历程，可参见相关网站：https://ccss.applysquare.com/index/overview。 4) ④在这一点上，NSSE的研究团队从不讳言。2019年5月8日，在智利圣地亚哥举行的名为“高等教育中投入与学生经验：院校挑战”的国际研讨会上，麦考密克与笔者进行了交流。麦考密克直接表明，NSSE对大学生学习投入行为有着明显的倾向（“a behavioral preference”）。5) ⑤详情可浏览“终身成就集团”（Lifelong Achievement Group）网站：https://www.lifelongachievement.com/the-motivation-and-engagement-scale-mes-i8/ 。 -
图 1 研究I中大学生学习动机与投入剖面图（Yin & Wang，2016）
注：MO = 掌握取向，VA = 重视学习，SE = 自我效能，PE = 坚持，TM = 任务管理，PL = 规划，UC = 控制模糊，AN = 焦虑，FA = 规避失败，SS = 自弃，DE = 逃避；各因子旁边所标数字为该因子得分的百分率。
图 2 大学生学习动机与投入的四个类型（Yin & Wang，2016）
表 1 研究I中MES一阶4因子模型的信度、相关矩阵及描述性统计（n = 1131）
1 2 3 4 1. 适应良好的动机（AM） — 2. 适应良好的投入（AE） 0.68** — 3. 适应不良的动机（MM） −0.25** −0.10** — 4. 适应不良的投入（ME） −0.43** −0.26** 0.69** — M 5.18 4.69 3.82 3.53 SD 0.79 0.70 0.92 1.03 Cronbach’s a 0.85 0.77 0.85 0.83 注：** p < 0.01。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 研究II中MES-U/C一阶11因子模型的信度、相关矩阵及描述性统计（n = 2013）
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. MO （0.78） 2. VA 0.89** （0.67） 3. SE 0.78** 0.87** （0.71） 4. PE 0.54** 0.65** 0.65** （0.59） 5. TM 0.82** 0.80** 0.78** 0.64** （0.67） 6. PL 0.50** 0.52** 0.63** 0.78** 0.69** （0.61） 7. UC −0.18** −0.22** −0.28** −0.20** −0.20** −0.26** （0.72） 8. AN 0.01 −0.01 −0.17** −0.09* −0.02 −0.14** 0.77** （0.68） 9. FA −0.33** −0.30** −0.29** −0.08 −0.23** 0.04 0.61** 0.62** （0.79） 10. SS −0.39** −0.36** −0.37** −0.16** −0.37** −0.23** 0.51** 0.44** 0.65** （0.77） 11. DE −0.66** −0.61** −0.52** −0.23** −0.49** −0.24** 0.57** 0.46** 0.79** 0.75** （0.69） 12. GS 0.52** 0.58** 0.50** 0.36** 0.50** 0.41** −0.23** −0.08* −0.20** −0.24** −0.38** （0.74） M 5.62 5.21 5.15 4.71 5.10 4.46 3.96 4.14 3.47 3.50 3.30 3.69 SD 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.93 0.94 0.91 1.11 1.10 1.27 1.25 1.12 0.54 注：* p<0.05，** p<0.01（2-tailed）；对角线上数值为各因子的Cronbach’s α系数；MO = 掌握取向，VA = 重视学习，SE = 自我效能，PE = 坚持，TM = 任务管理，PL = 规划，UC = 控制模糊，AN = 焦虑，FA = 规避失败，SS = 自弃，DE = 逃避，GS = 通用技能。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 研究III中CEQ的信度分析、相关矩阵及描述性统计（n = 882）
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. 清晰目标与标准 （0.60） 2. 通用技能 0.44** （0.81） 3. 重视独立性 0.47** 0.46** （0.65） 4. 良好教学 0.71** 0.48** 0.59** （0.77） 5. 适当的课业负担 0.24** 0.11** 0.26** 0.24** （0.61） 6. 适当的评估 0.37** 0.16** 0.14** 0.36** 0.37** （0.64） M 3.15 3.75 3.11 3.26 2.81 3.13 SD 0.55 0.54 0.57 0.53 0.61 0.59 注：** p<0.01（2-tailed）；对角线上数值为各因子的Cronbach’s α系数。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 研究III中MES-U/C一阶4因子的信度分析、相关矩阵及描述性统计（n = 882）
AM AE MM ME 适应良好的动机（AM） （0.87） 适应良好的投入（AE） 0.60** （0.84） 适应不良的动机（MM） −0.19** −0.16** （0.84） 适应不良的投入（ME） −0.40** −0.24** 0.56** （0.80） M 5.52 4.85 3.91 3.23 SD 0.79 0.80 0.97 1.05 注：** p < 0.01（2-tailed）; 对角线上数值为各因子的Cronbach’s α系数。
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 大学生课程经历与学习动机和投入的相关分析（n = 882）
适应良好的动机 适应良好的投入 适应不良的动机 适应不良的投入 清晰目标与标准 0.26** 0.34** −0.23** −0.22** 通用技能 0.38** 0.32** −0.19** −0.21** 重视独立性 0.17** 0.27** −0.09* 0.00 良好教学 0.29** 0.31** −0.09** −0.16** 适当的课业负担 0.09** 0.08* −0.32** −0.16** 适当的评估 0.13** 0.06 −0.32** −0.33** 注：* p < 0.05，** p < 0.01。
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 中国大学生课程经历与学习动机和投入的回归分析（n = 882）
自变量 适应良好的动机 适应良好的投入 适应不良的动机 适应不良的投入 清晰目标与标准 0.69** 0.80** −0.41** −0.52** 通用技能 0.38** 0.20** −0.25** −0.36** 重视独立性 −0.27** — — 0.34 良好教学 — — 0.40** 0.27** 适当的课业负担 — — −0.33** −0.13** 适当的评估 — −0.19** −0.41** −0.41** 注：** p<0.01。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 金耀基. (2006). “面”“耻”与中国人行为之分析. 载杨国枢主编. 中国人的心理 (第249—269页). 南京: 江苏教育出版社. [2] 陆根书. (2013). 大学生的课程学习经历、学习方式与教学质量满意度的关系分析. 西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),33(2),96−103. [3] 罗燕, 罗斯, 岑逾豪. (2009). 国际比较视野中的高等教育测量——NSSE-China工具的开发: 文化适应与信度、效度报告. 复旦教育论坛,7(5),12−18. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2009.05.003 [4] 吕林海. (2016). 大学生学习参与的理论缘起、概念延展及测量方法争议. 教育发展研究, (21),70−77. [5] 史静寰, 王文. (2018). 以学为本, 提高质量, 内涵发展: 中国大学生学情研究的学术涵义与政策价值. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),36(4),18−27. [6] 尹弘飚. (2016). 大学生学习投入的研究路径及其转型. 高等教育研究,37(11),70−76. [7] 尹弘飚, 李瑾瑜. (2015). 优化高校教学: 来自大学生课程经历的启示. 高等教育研究,36(8),62−69. [8] Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3−19. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x [9] Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press. [10] Brown, G. T. L., & Wang, Z. (2013). Illustrating assessment: How Hong Kong university students conceive of the purposes of assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 1037−1057. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.616955 [11] Brown, G. T. L., & Wang, Z. (2016). Understanding Chinese university student conceptions of assessment: Cultural similarities and jurisdictional differences between Hong Kong and China. Social Psychology of Education, 19(1), 151−173. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9322-x [12] Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25−36. doi: 10.1080/13538320500074915 [13] Coates, H., & McCormick, A. C. (2014). Engaging university students: International insights from system-wide studies. Dordrecht: Springer. [14] Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. [15] Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22(3), 201−204. doi: 10.1007/BF00132287 [16] Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 598−109. [17] Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 269−279. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.003 [18] Kahn, P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005−1018. doi: 10.1002/berj.3121 [19] Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758−773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 [20] Kember, D. (2016). Why do Chinese students out-perform those from the West? Do approaches to learning contribute to the explanation?. Cogent Education, 3, 1248187. [21] Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(3), 356−363. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1990.tb00952.x [22] Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, 33(3), 10−17. doi: 10.1080/00091380109601795 [23] Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540−563. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116 [24] Lee, J. C. K., Huang, Y. X., Zhong, B. (2012). Friend or foe: The impact of undergraduate teaching evaluation in China. Higher Education Review, 44(2), 5−25. [25] Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context of Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 25−41). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research. [26] Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese ‘heart and mind for wanting to learn’. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 248−269. [27] Li, J. (2003). U.S and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 258−267. [28] Li, J. (2012). Cultural foundations of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [29] Li, W. S., & Hui, S. K. F. (2007). Conceptions of assessment of Mainland China college lectures: A technical paper analyzing the Chinese version of COA-Ⅲ. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 185−198. [30] Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2012). The motivation and engagement scale: Theoretical framework, psychometric properties, and applied yields. Australian Psychologist, 47(1), 3−13. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00049.x [31] Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27−52. doi: 10.1080/03075070120099359 [32] Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 5−21. doi: 10.1057/s41307-016-0027-3 [33] Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 413−440. doi: 10.1348/000709906X118036 [34] Martin, A. J. (2008a). How domain specific is motivation and engagement across school, sport, and music? A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sports people and musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 785−813. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.002 [35] Martin, A. J. (2008b). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239−269. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003 [36] Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life span: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 794−824. doi: 10.1177/0013164409332214 [37] Martin, A. J. (2012). Motivation and Engagement – University/College. Sydney: Lifelong Achievement Group. [38] Martin, A. J., & Liem, G. A. D. (2010). Academic personal best (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A cross-legged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 265−270. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.001 [39] Martin, A. J., Yu, K., & Hau, K. T. (2014). Motivation and engagement in the ‘Asian Century’: A comparison of Chinese students in Australia, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 417−439. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814199 [40] Martin, A. J., Yu, K., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., & Collie, R. J. (2015). Motivation and engagement in the United States, Canada, United Kindom, Australia, and China: Testing a multi-dimensional framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(2), 103−114. doi: 10.1177/0734282914546287 [41] Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Wong, K. C. (2005). “Read a hundred times and the meaning will appear….” Changes in Chinese university students’ views of the temporal structure of learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 291−318. [42] Parsons, S. A., Nuland, L. R., & Parsons, A. W. (2014). The ABCs of student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 23−27. doi: 10.1177/003172171409500806 [43] Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129−150. doi: 10.1080/03075079112331382944 [44] Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 149−172). Boston, MA: Springer. [45] Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27(4), 449−468. doi: 10.1007/BF01384904 [46] Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387−415. [47] Tam, K. Y., Heng, M. A., & Jiang, G. H. (2009). What undergraduate students in China say about their professors’ teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 147−159. doi: 10.1080/13562510902757179 [48] van Egmond, M. C., Kühnen, U., & Li, J. (2013). Mind and virtue: The meaning of learning, a matter of culture?. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(3), 208−2016. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.06.002 [49] Webster, R. J., Chan, W. S., Prosser, M. T., & Watkins, D. (2009). Undergraduates’ learning experience and learning process: Quantitative evidence from the East. Higher Education, 58(3), 375−386. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9200-6 [50] Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School Leadership and Management, 20(2), 161−173. doi: 10.1080/13632430050011407 [51] Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33−53. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381121 [52] Yin, H. (2018). What motivates Chinese undergraduates to engage in learning? Insights from a psychological approach to student engagement research. Higher Education, 76(5), 827−847. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0239-0 [53] Yin, H., & Ke, Z. (2017). Students’ course experience and engagement: An attempt to bridge two lines of research on the quality of undergraduate education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1145−1158. [54] Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2015). Assessing and improving the quality of undergraduate teaching in China: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8), 1032−1049. [55] Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2016). Undergraduate students’ motivation and engagement in China: An exploratory study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 601−621. [56] Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education: University students’ course experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949−970. [57] Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality, approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher Education, 71(1), 39−57. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9887-5 [58] Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311−1323. -
点击查看大图
图(4) / 表(6)
计量
- 文章访问数: 373
- HTML全文浏览量: 615
- PDF下载量: 60
- 被引次数: 0