Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2011, Article ID 414068, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/414068
Research Article

Differences in Student Engagement: Investigating the Role of the Dominant Cognitive Processes Preferred by Engineering and Education Students

Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

Received 27 September 2010; Accepted 8 November 2010

Academic Editor: Miriam David

Copyright © 2011 Ian Ball and Chris Perry. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (nd), “Issues Digest: Student Motivation and Engagement,” 2009, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/Schooling.
  2. S. Sharan and I. Geok Chin Tan, Student Engagement in Learning, Springer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.
  3. G. Kuh, “The National Survey of Student Engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations,” in Using Student Engagement Data in Institutional Research. New Directions for Institutional Research, R. Gonyea and G. Kuh, Eds., p. 15, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2009, No141. View at Google Scholar
  4. Australian Council for Educational Research, “Attracting, engaging and retaining: new conversations about learning,” in Australasian Student Engagement Report, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  5. J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, “School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–109, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. G. Munns and A. J. Martin, “It’s all about MeE: a motivation and engagement framework,” 2010, http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mun05400.pdf.
  7. A. Kezar and J. Kinzie, “Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: the role of mission,” Journal of College Student Development, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 140–172, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. G. Kuh, “Assessing what really matters to student learning: inside the national survey of student engagement,” Change, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 10–17, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  9. P. R. Pintrich and E. V. De Groot, “Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 33–40, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. “Australasian Survey of Student Engagement,” 2009, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.
  11. R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Understanding student differences,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 57–72, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  12. C. DiRienzo, J. Das, W. Synn, J. Kitts, and K. McGrath, “The relationship between MBTI and academic performance: a study across academic disciplines,” Journal of Psychological Type, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 53–67, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  13. K. J. Swope and P. M. Schmitt, “The performance of economics graduates over the entire curriculum: the determinants of success,” Journal of Economic Education, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 387–394, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. G. D. Tharp, “Relationship between personality type and achievement in an undergraduate physiology course,” The American Journal of Physiology, vol. 262, no. 6, pp. 51–53, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  15. R. Harrington and D. A. Loffredo, “MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 89–95, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. P. R. Pintrich, “Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 544–555, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  17. D. Schunk, “Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning,” in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2nd edition, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  18. G. C. Jung, Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990.
  19. H. L. Thompson, “Type and reductionism: is it time to move away from the eight-functions model?” TypeFace, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 9–12, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  20. C. S. Paris and K. D. Myers, “Remembering the importance of whole type,” APTi Bulletin of Psychological Type, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 8–11, 209. View at Google Scholar
  21. L. Haas and M. Hunziker, Building Blocks of Psychological Type: A Guide to Using the Eight-Mental Process Model of Personality Type, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2006, pp. 13.
  22. L. Haas and M. Hunziker, Building Blocks of Psychological Type: A Guide to Using the Eight-Mental Process Model of Personality Type, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2006, pp. 28-29.
  23. I. B. Myers, Gifts Differing, Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto, Calif, USA, 1995.
  24. G. Hartzler and M. Hartzler, Functions of Type: Activities to Develop the Eight Jungian Functions, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2005.
  25. M. McGuiness, You Have Got Personality: An Introduction to Personality Type Described by Carl Jung and Isabel Myers, MaryMac Books, Australia, 2004.
  26. L. Berens and D. Nardi, Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2004.
  27. L. Haas and M. Hunziker, Building blocks of psychological type: a guide to using the eight-mental process model of personality type, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2006.
  28. R. M. Felder, G. N. Felder, and E. J. Dietz, “The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  29. G. Kuh, “The National Survey of Student Engagement: conceptualand empirical foundations,” in Using Student Engagement Data in Institutional Research. New Directions for Institutional Research, R. Gonyea and G. Kuh, Eds., p. 15, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2009, No141. View at Google Scholar
  30. L. Haas and M. Hunziker, Building Blocks of Psychological Type: A Guide to Using the Eight-Mental Process Model of Personality Type, Telos Publications, Huntington Beach, Calif, USA, 2006.