SSU3 Japan
13-15 October 2019
Learner engagement and self-regulated
behaviour. A multiple case study
Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak
University of Wrocław
PolandLearner engagement• Engagement refers to basic processing operations that describe how
students react to and interact with the learning material and people
present in the learning environment to enhance knowledge and skills• Engagement in SLA:üexploring engagement with language (e.g., Svalberg, 2009, 2017),
üexploring engagement in task-based interaction (e.g., Philp & Duchesne,2016),
üestablishing the engagement component structure (Reeve, 2012; Reeve &Tseng, 2011): cognitive, behavioural, social, emotional, agentic,üpositioning it within a broader theoretical framework (Dincer et al., 2019;Lawson & Lawson, 2013; Skinner, 2016).

Engagement in SLA

Different guises and under many names:• motivational intensity defined as “the amount of work done, persistence, andconsistency in focus” (Gardner, 2010, p. 121),• positive attitudes towards the language that, like emotional engagement,
predetermine language achievement (for an overview of examples of constructs
corresponding to engagement see Skinner, 2016)• motivation is engagement precursor (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012),orantecedent (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012),• “a visible manifestation or ‘descriptor’ of motivation” (Philp & Duchesne, 2016, p.
52),• engagement as “a downstream consequence of the motivational intentions anddesires of the individual” (Henry & Thorsen, 2018, p. 3),• “what differentiates engagement from motivation is the action
dimension” (Mercer, 2019): while motivation is part of mental reality hiddenfrom the onlooker, engagement is its observable manifestation in the form ofparticipation and enjoyment.

Engagement in SLA• Engagement in Ellis’ (2010) model for investigating corrective feedback:ülearners’ reactions to error correction engage- the cognitive response, behavioural response (uptake or revision), emotionalresponse (learners’ attitudes to correction)• Engagement conceptualized as quantity and quality of language produced incommunicative activities (measured as the number of words produced (Bygate &Samuda, 2009) or turns taken in a conversation (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000)• Manifestations of learner engagement in dyadic collaborative dialogue:- sharing previous knowledge or explaining choices in language related episodes(Fortune & Thorp, 2001
- responsiveness and attentive listening, asking questions, negotiation ofmeaning, back channeling, commentary, and indications of empathy (Baralt,Gurzynski-Weiss, & Kim, 2016; Lambert & Philp, 2015; Storch, 2008)- vicarious responses, private speech and attentive listening (Snyder Ohta, 2001)

Self-regulation• Self-regulatory processes are goal-directed and purposeful control
processes over one’s cognition, motivation, emotion, and social
functioning (Boekaerts, 2016)• Self-regualtion entails strategy use• Self-regulated learning strategies:- Deliberate, goal-directed attempts to manage and control efforts to learn[;] teachable actions that learners choose from among alternatives andemploy for L2 learning purposes (Oxford, 2011, p.12)- Domain appropriate actions purposefully used in an active, constructive
process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt tomonitor, regulate and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour,
guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features of theenvironment (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453)

The study• Aim:
to understand the connection between L2 learners’ engagement and their selfregulation by comparing engaged and disengaged students’ use of self-regulated
learning strategies• Participants:
2 most engaged (ME) and 2 most disengaged (MDE) students of a cohort of 120
Year 2 and 3 English majors, nominated by their teachers
MESue
Alice
MDETomMatagegender

year

grade

level

experience additional

25

F

35C11725F

2

5

B2/C11921
21M
M

223
3

B2B21116exchange
programmes,
stay abroad
BA in geography

Method
Data collection:ØSemi-structured interviews – 14.50 min on average (range 12.50 – 18.20min); based on the Motivated Strategy for Learning Questionnaire(Duncan, Pintrich, Smith, McKeachie, 2015)ØQuestions referring to:- Cognitive and metacognitive strategies: rehearsal, elaboration,organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation- Resource management strategies: regulation of time and learning
environment, control of effort and attention, collaboration with others,
getting support

Method• Data collection and analysis
1. Interviews transcribed with CLARIN
2. A non-overlapping list of significant phrases and statements extracted
3. Interpretative meanings were produced for each statement
4. Clusters of themes (Colaizzi, 1978) were developed
5. Independent themes were produced from similar theme clusters(Sanders, 2003)
6. A descriptive account was produced for each participant’s output
7. Theme clusters and themes were worked through and reexaminedseveral times

Results

An attempt was made to develop themes that could best reflect the data and tap
into differences in strategy use among engaged and disengaged students. Fivemain themes were identified:
1. Cognitive strategies
2. Metacognitive regulation- Awareness- Planning- Monitoring
3. Goal-orientation
4. Prior experience
5. Resource management- Teachers- Peers

Results
1. Cognitive strategies:• ME: elaborate procedures (strategy chains) adjusted to task andcourse requirements, e.g., keyword techniques, mindmaps, semanticmaps, flow charts, note taking, languaging, rehearsing, summarising,making associations, etc.
• MDE: same techniques used for different purposes: “I read articles tolearn new words and I read them again before a vocabularytest”(Mat); “To remember some content, arguments or ideas, I readthe text sometimes several times” (Mat)Results

2. Metacognitive regulation
Awareness:“My memory is like a sieve – I need to write down everything because
otherwise I forget, I keep a diary where I put everything” (Sue)“I am a procrastinator and I know I must do things immediately, later it’sgoing to be more difficult, there will be more work to do”(Alice)“Now when I am a teacher myself I know I shouldn’t be answering allquestions because others just don’t have a chance to say much, I’vechanged” (Sue)“I start revising 3 days before a test because it takes the tension off, I am notstressed out so much”(Sue)“I am quiet and shy and I don’t speak in class very often, teachers know
that” (Tom)Results

2. Metacognitive regulation
Planning:
üa diary with assignments and comments (Sue),üa weekly planner (Alice),ürevisions planned for 3 to 4 days before tests or exams (Sue, Alice, Tom), “at thelast moment” (Mat)Monitoring:ücontinuous self-assessment, self-testing: “I ask questions in my head and answerthem”(Sue);ücontrolling attention: “I try to use lesson time to learn, if I don’t understandsomething when the teacher is trying to explain, I know it’ll be much harder, if I
try to understand it at home” (Sue), “It was my decision to study now what I love
so I don’t have to strive to stay focused” (Alice);üother-regulation: “my girlfriend sometimes checks what I have learned (…) andsometimes tests me on vocabulary” (Tom)Results
3. Goal-orientation
ME: clear long-term goals“I want to go abroad and into the teaching profession, I want to teach kids,
at the kindergarten (…) I worked in Norway and Britain, and the US, but it
was in restaurants and I need a formal qualification to teach” (Sue)“I want to be a teacher of English, I know it is hard today but this is what I
want to do” (Alice)
MDE: vague“why? For holidays (…) I might become a teacher, there is such apossibility” (Tom)“to improve my English, to be able to emigrate, perhaps, I don’t haveconcrete plans” (Mat)Results
4. Prior experience
Increased effort results from reflection on experience: “I have anotherdegree but only now I am studying what I really like, it is not studying
for its own sake,(…) I like English and studying it is fun (…) I want to bea teacher” (Alice)“I worked abroad (…) and went to college in the US and I want to liveabroad” (Sue)
Negative affect shapes present attitudes:“I had a conflict with my English teacher at school (…) she was reallymean” (Tom)Results
5. Resource management: peer learning and help seeking, interaction and initiation
Peers: “my group get together before tests and we revise” (Tom); “before tests I listen
to my friends when we meet to revise the material” (Mat)“in my group we divide, for example, new words and each person prepares only part ofthem”(Alice)“if I really can’t understand something, I first pick my phone and talk to myfriends” (Sue)Teachers:“I ask my teachers when I don’t understand something,” “I have told the teacher, on afew occasions, what I particularly liked about the lesson but never what I didn’t like, I
don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings” (Sue)“perhaps teachers can see if I am enjoying the lesson but I’ve never discussed that witha teacher,” “I’d rather ask my friend who graduated a few years ago, (…) I don’t ask
teachers to explain stuff or anything” (Tom)“I don’t think the lesson depends on what I do,” “I only follow my teachers’
recommendations or instructions, I don’t do anything else, not really” (Mat)Discussion
Engaged and disengaged learners differ with respect to attitudes, behaviour, goals, quality andquantity of strategies used to regulate their learningØEngaged learners appear more mature in planning and foreseeing consequences of theiractions; they invest emotionally in the learning proces, are more willing, purposeful andautonomousØEngaged learners are more independent and engage socially with teachers and peersØBoth engaged and disengaged learners are aware of their weaknesses but only the engaged
ones reflect on ways of eliminating or compensating for themØDisengaged learners rely to a greater extent on their peers but seem reluctant to seek
support from teachers; their behavioural engagement is externally regulated by theirteachers or important othersØEngaged learners proactively shape the learning environment, feel responsible for what ishappening during lessons and adapt to changing requirements or different teaching styles
ØGoal-orientation enhances engaged learners’ motivation and helps overcome hardships,
boredom, and exhaustionØPositive affect enables engaged learners to perceive language learning as a pleasurable
experienceDiscussion
There seems to be a considerable degree of overlap between student
engagement and self-regulation:• engagement and self-regulation in close connection and reciprocallyaffect one another• both frameworks overlap with regard to many student characteristics
and processes crucial for effective and efficient learning• both frameworks involve multiple processes representing cognitive,behavioural, emotional and social dimensions; engagement
recognizes the agentic dimension which corresponds to selfregulatory mechanisms learners use in and out of the classroom

Conclusion• Greater engagement coincides with a larger scope of cognitive andmetacognitive strategies, increased awareness and goal-orientation, which
in turn translate into better learning outcomes• Engagement and self-regulation play a mediating role between learners’
characteristics and perceptions and language attainment (Wolters &Taylor, 2012)• Apart from other components of engagement, self-regulated learning
strategies correspond to agentic engagement “intentional, proactive, andconstructive contribution into the flow of the instruction [learners]
receive” (Reeve, 2012, p. 161)
• Engagement and self-regulation are parallel paths with interconnecting
side paths (Boekaerts, 2016, p. 6)• More research needed to tap into the intricate connection between theconstructs