Engagement as a Volitional Construct

Abstract

Background. Interest is growing in harnessing the motivational and engaging power of games for learning purposes. However, academics frequently use the terms motivation and engagement interchangeably. Aim. In this article, we suggest that researchers should differentiate engagement from motivation and conceptualize it as a volitional process. We also argue that educational games research needs to move its focus beyond intrinsic motivation and explore the variety of cognitive, emotional, motivational, and volitional processes while learning with games. Method. Therefore, this article outlines a conceptual framework based on a multidimensional perspective on engagement. This framework is intended to help plan and organize research on learning with games, so that the field can produce evidence-based guidelines and principles that respond to the central questions of how and when educational games work. Results. A conceptual framework that integrates motivation and volition, is structured by an input-process-output model and portraits engagement as a process or mediator variable between an educational game and its learning outcomes. Conclusion. Defining engagement as a volitional process opens up a new perspective with broad theoretical and practical implications. For game design, the strategy of “learning within games” could demand increasingly higher levels of volitional control depending on the degree of coupling of the learning task and the gameplay.

Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues

“…Additionally, Reeve and Tseng (2011) proposed agentic engagement as an additional dimension to address how students proactively contribute to the instruction teachers provide. More recently, Filsecker and Kerres (2014) suggested volitional engagement to theoretically justify engagement as "energy in action". Further research is necessary to determine the extent to which these are unique dimensions of engagement.…”

“…Engagement has been studied in different nested contexts (e.g., prosocial institutions, schools, classrooms, and learning activities) (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012) and time frames (moment to moment to longer-term engagement). Although conceptualizations of engagement vary across studies, most scholars assume that engagement and motivation are related, but distinct constructs (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012;Filsecker & Kerres, 2014;Martin, 2012;Wang & Degol, 2014). In addition, in most studies, engagement and disengagement are viewed and measured on a single continuum, with lower levels of engagement indicating disengagement.…”

Comparing Serious Games and Educational Simulations: Effects on Enjoyment, Deep Thinking, Interest and Cognitive Learning Gains

“…In educational research, the term engagement has often been used for all kinds of positive student behavior. More recent studies have agreed on a more systematic understanding, defining engagement as a combination of behavioral, cognitive and emotional aspects of student involvement with a particular learning environment (Bouvier, Lavoué, & Sehaba, 2014; Boyle, Connolly, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012; Filsecker & Kerres, 2014; O’Brien & Toms, 2008). Some authors propose including additional aspects, such as perceived esthetics and usability (Fu, Su, & Yu, 2009; Wiebe, Lamb, Hardy, & Sharek, 2014).…”

Pacing in Serious Games: Exploring the Effects of Presentation Speed on Cognitive Load, Engagement and Learning Gains

“…Emotional engagement means enjoyment, interest and enthusiasm. Cognitive engagement relates to aspects such as the level of focused attention, memorization, application of knowledge and strategic thinking (Filsecker & Kerres, 2014;O'Brien & Toms, 2008;Phillips et al, 2014). In addition, environmental and social aspects of engagement have been proposed (Bouvier et al, 2014).…”