Impact of Class Length on Student Engagement in Thai EFL Grammar Classes
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of class length on measures of behavioral and emotional engagement and disaffection at a classroom level. Student engagement was measured in two varying distributions of 3.5 hours of weekly instructional time: short daily classes and longer classes held only once a week. The subjects of this study were 70 students and two teachers in one of the schools in the south of Thailand. The instruments were student self-reports and teacher reports. The statistics used to analyze the data were mean, standard deviation and correlation. Results indicated that students studying in shorter class periods were significantly more engaged according to teacher reports and slightly more engaged according to student self-reports. Discrepancies between student and teacher reports of engagement in this study cast doubts on the reliability of teacher reports particularly for measuring emotional engagement. Students in longer classes showed more frequent signs of tiredness and boredom toward the end of class. Students in shorter classes showed fewer indications of disaffection and frequently reported no awareness of causes for disaffection during class. An important implication for course scheduling is that shorter classes can serve to boost student engagement.
Article Details
References
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does It matter?. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, (pp. 97-131). Springer US, New York, NY.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the Evidence Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fredricks, J., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. (2016). Student Engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and nethodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4.
Quin, D. (2016). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345-387.
Bundick, M., Quaglia, R., Corso, M., & Haywood, D. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4).
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.
Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723-733.
Gettinger, M., & Walter, M. (2012). Classroom strategies to enhance academic engaged time”, In Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L. & Wylie, C. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. (pp. 653-673). Springer US, New York, NY.
Rivkin, S., & Schiman, J. (2015). Instruction time, classroom quality, and academic achievement. The Economic. Journal, 125(588), F425-F448.
Zepeda, S., & Mayers, R. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137-170.
Kilpatrick, R. (2014). Block scheduling strategies and perceptions. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(4), 20.
Kaya, S., & Aksu, M. (2016). The advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling as perceived by middle school students. Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in The World, 6(1), 50-59.
Bunce, D., Flens, E., & Neiles, K. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438-1443.
Wallinger, L. (2000). The effect of block scheduling on foreign language kearning. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 36-50.
Lewis, C., Dugan, J., Winokur, M., & Cobb, R. (2005). The effects of block scheduling on high school academic achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 72-87.
Reardon, J., Payan, J., Miller, C., & Alexander, J. (2008). Optimal class length in marketing undergraduate classes: An examination of preference, instructor evaluations, and student performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(1), 12-20.
Henebry, K. (1997). The impact of class schedule on student performance in a financial management course. Journal of Education for Business, 73(2), 114-120.
Hinger, B. (2006). The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group cohesion in the foreign language classroom: A comparison of intensive and standard format courses. System, 34(1), 97-118.
Cepeda, N., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J., Mozer, M., & Pashler, H. (2009). optimizing distributed practice: theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 236-246.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (2004). What we have learned about student engagement in the past twenty years. In McInerne, D.M., Van Etten, S. (Eds.), Big Theories Revisited (pp. 297-326) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405-428.
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Skinner, E., Kindermann, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and dissatisfaction: conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525.