跨領域學習近年來成為各國基礎教育的焦點，新課綱下彈性學習跨領域主題課程為國小及國中學生的跨領域學習開創新局。然而，綜觀國內跨領域學習研究多聚焦於課程設計，對於學生學習知覺尚待探尋。此外，過去研究對象多以大學院校學生為主，對於國小及國中學生跨領域學習之研究仍付之闕如。本研究旨在於探討國小及國中學生彈性學習跨領域主題/專題/議題之學習投入現況，並分析不同背景變項之國小及國中學生在彈性學習跨領域主題學習投入表現之差異。本研究以問卷調查方法為主，學生質性訪談為輔收集研究資料，以臺灣中部及北部六個縣市國民小學及中學四至九年級學生為研究母群，以縣市及學校層級為分層，隨機抽取一所學校，再依年級分別針對一班進行調查，有效樣本共計743人。問卷內容包括四項跨領域學習投入構面（行為投入、情感投入、認知投入、社會投入）。統計方法以描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析進行分析。質性訪談則訪問12位國小學生及14位國中學生。研究結果顯示整體樣本的學習投入程度以社會投入最高、其次為認知投入、情感投入，以行為投入最低。質性訪談顯示在跨領域課程的行為投入中，學生以回應提問為主；認知投入則逐漸養成自主學習之素養；情感投入方面能將知識與生活結合，學以致用，並利用科技工具提升學習動機；在社會投入方面，學生在課程中會主動尋求協助。在相關分析方面，四個學習投入面向皆呈現中度到高度的正相關，相關係數皆於0.414至0.623之間。在差異分析方面：（一）在性別方面，國小女性學生的認知投入及社會投入顯著高於男性學生；而國中女性學生的社會投入高於男性學生；（二）在學習階段方面，國小學生的行為投入及情感投入顯著高於國中學生，而國中學生的社會投入顯著高於國小學生；（三）在年級比較方面，國小四年級學生的行為投入高於六年級，而國小學生的情感投入，以四年級學生最高，五年級次之，以六年級為最低；（四）在地區方面，南投縣國小學生的行為投入高於新竹縣；南投縣與台中市國小學生的行為投入高於新竹市；南投縣國小學生的行為投入高於新竹市。彈性學習跨領域主題的學習投入在性別、學習階段、年級和學校地區皆具有差異之現象，本研究建議彈性學習跨領域主題應貼近學生生活經驗，課堂中應增加師生提問與對話深化認知歷程。同時，透過多元異質性分組、加強合作學習；提供真實具挑戰性的學習任務，促進學生學習投入。本研究結果可作為政策規劃之依據，以及學校與教師跨領域教學與研究之參考。

Interdisciplinary learning has become the focus of primary education in recent years, and the new curriculum of alternative curriculum learning interdisciplinary themes has opened new opportunities for interdisciplinary learning for elementary and junior high school students. However, most of the research on interdisciplinary learning in China has focused on curriculum design, and student's perceptions of learning have yet to be explored. In addition, past research has focused on university students, and there is still no research on interdisciplinary learning for elementary and middle school students. The objective of this study was to investigate the current situation of learning engagement in alternative learning interdisciplinary themes/topics/issues among elementary and junior high school students, and to analyze the differences in learning engagement in alternative curriculum learning interdisciplinary themes among elementary and junior high school students with different background variables. This study used a questionnaire survey as the main method, supplemented by qualitative interviews with students to collect the data. Students in grades 4 to 9 in national elementary and middle schools in six counties and cities in central and northern Taiwan were selected randomly by county and school level. The questionnaire included four constructs of interdisciplinary learning engagement (behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and social-behavioral engagement). The statistical methods were descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, and one-way analysis of variance. The qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 elementary school students and 14 junior high school students. The study results showed that the overall sample had the highest level of social engagement, followed by cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and the lowest level of behavioral engagement. The qualitative interviews revealed that the students' behavioral engagement in the interdisciplinary learning courses was mainly responding to questions. In cognitive engagement, the students gradually developed independent learning skills. In emotional engagement, students were able to integrate knowledge into their lives, apply it, and use technology tools to enhance their motivation to learn. In social engagement, students will actively seek help in the course. In correlation analysis, all four dimensions of learning engagement showed moderate to high positive correlations, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.414 to 0.623. In terms of difference analysis: (1) In gender comparison, the cognitive and social-behavioral engagements of female students in elementary schools were significantly higher than those of male students. In comparison, the social behavioral engagements of female students in junior high schools were higher than those of male students.(2) In terms of learning stages, the behavioral engagement and emotional engagement of elementary school students are significantly higher than those of junior high school students, and the social engagement of junior high school students is significantly higher than that of elementary school students (3) In grade-level comparison, the behavioral engagement of 4th grade students was higher than that of 6th grade students, while the emotional engagement of 4th grade students was the highest, followed by 5th grade students, and 6th grade students was the lowest; (4) In terms of region, the behavioral engagement of Nantou County elementary school students was higher than that of Hsinchu County; the behavioral engagement of Nantou County and Taichung City elementary school students was higher than that of Hsinchu City; and the behavioral engagement of Nantou County elementary school students was higher than that of Hsinchu City.
This study suggests that the interdisciplinary theme of alternative curriculum learning can be used to increase students' engagement in learning by diversifying heterogeneous grouping, enhancing cooperative learning, and providing realistic and challenging learning tasks. The results of this study can be used as a basis for policy planning and as a reference for schools and teachers in interdisciplinary teaching and research.

一、中文部分
王博聞（2011）。我國基礎教育與高等教育銜接問題研究。高教研究與實踐，30（4），7-10。
佐藤學（2018）。從世界的課堂改革思考臺灣的改革現狀-以學習共同體為中心。教科書研究，11（2），91-107。
吳明隆（2013）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷統計分析實務（二版）。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
呂美燕（2018）。新竹市晉和國小桌上遊戲融入閩南語教學對學生學習動機及學習投入之影響［未出版之碩士論文］。國立清華大學。
李育諭、林季怡（2018）。大學跨領域能力，課程參與和問題覺知關係之研究。科學教育學刊，26（S），419-440。
李易儒（2014）。努力學習vs智慧學習: 台灣高等教育學生之學習投入及其路徑模式［未出版之碩士論文］。。國立清華大學。
李易儒、黃囇莉（2015）。學習投入做為努力信念到學習成效之中介效果－以大學工程領域學生為例。第四屆工程與科技教育學術研討會論文集，174-192。DOI：10.6571/CETE.2015.04.15
周淑卿、陳美如、李怡穎、林永豐、吳璧純、張景媛、范信賢（2018）。異同綻放我們的校訂課程。臺北市：教育部國民及學前教育署。取自https：//cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebNews/details.aspx?sid=11&nid=1432&mid=
林佳慧（2022）。培育師資生跨領域課程設計知行思。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），51-56。
林敬堯、林志哲（2020）。團隊導向學習法提升學生核心素養之省思-以跨領域專題製作為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（6），61-67。
施淑慎（2008）。學習情境中之自主支持與國中生成就相關歷程間關係之探討。教育與心理研究，31（2），1-26。
洪詠善（2020）。停課不停學：當自主學習成為日常。課程研究，15（1），15-33。
洪麗卿（2022）。從課綱至教學實踐: 跨領域課程統整之實施與建議。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），28-33。
范信賢（2016）。核心素養與十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：導讀《國民核心素養：十二年國教課程改革的DNA》。教育脈動，5，1-7。
范信賢（2020）。跨領域課程發展及素養導向設計。http：//www.cte.fju.edu.tw/files/file_pool/2/0J226426794540659657/跨領域課程發展及素養導向設計.pdf
范信賢，尤淑慧（2017）。專題探究——十二年國教課綱及他山之石。教育脈動（11），50-58。
香港教育局（2017）。專題研習：達至跨學科整合及應用知識與技能。香港。取自:https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/tc/curriculum-development/renewal/Guides/SECG%20booklet%206C_ch_20180831.pdf
張家禎（2015）。以年級、性別探討國中生的學習投入情形。臺灣教育評論月刊，4（1），143-146。
張鈿富（2012）。大學生學習投入理論與評量實務之探討。高教評鑑，中文特刊，41-62。
教育局（2017）。中學教育課程指引。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部國民及學前教育署（2013）。分組合作學習教學手冊。臺北市：教育部國民及學前教育署。
許籐繼（2022）。中小學推動跨領域教學之挑戰與因應策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），84-91。
陳佩英（2017）。跨領域素養導向課程設計：初階工作坊實踐手冊。臺北市：教育部。
陳佩英（2018）。跨領域素養導向課程設計工作坊之構思與實踐。課程研究，13（2），21-42。
陳玟樺、劉美慧（2021）。芬蘭一間學校的現象為本學習課程統整設計與學生學習表現。教育研究集刊，67（1），107-156。
陳美如、郭昭佑（2019）。非學校型態實驗教育之活化教學個案研究：學會學習的系統觀點。課程與教學季刊，22（1），39-70。
陳美如、雷嗣汶（2019）。跨領域學習：創新課程發展關鍵元素。教育研究月刊，300，18-35。
陳慧蓉，張郁雯，薛承泰（2018）。脈絡因素、學業自我概念、與學習投入對學業表現的影響：臺灣國小三年級經濟弱勢與一般學生之比較。當代教育研究季刊，26（2），73-107。
曾素秋（2008）。九年一貫課程設計理念與國中教師教育信念研究—以中彰投四縣市國中教師為例。朝陽人文社會學刊，6（2），197-253。
游舒文、鍾伯芬（2019）。芬蘭新課綱對臺灣十二年國教實施跨領域課程之啟示。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（9），71-75。
黃囇莉、陳文彥（2017）。做了很不一樣：學習共同體對課堂中社會關係及學生學習之影響。課程與教學，20（2），111-138。
楊俐容（2015）。超牢記憶法：記憶管理專家教你過腦不忘的學習力。臺北市：天下文化出版有限公司。
廖純英（2022）。後疫情時代數位轉型在跨領域教學領導的實踐與反思。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），105-111。
劉玉玲、謝子陽（2021）。整合未來時間觀與數學學習投入:國中生數學學習模式之研究。課程與教學，24（1），235-263。
歐志昌、陳致澄、柳賢（2022）。跨領域素養導向課程設計的挑戰與因應。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），34-40。
蔡清田（2014）。國民核心素養：十二年國教課程改革的DNA。臺北市：高等教育。
蔡瑞君（2020）。消失或加劇的社會距離？新型冠狀病毒疫情下課程與教學數位化面臨的挑戰與契機。課程研究，15（1），35-51。
課程發展議會（2014）。基礎教育課程指引—聚焦•深化•持續﹙小一至小六﹚。香 港：課程發展議會。
賴英娟、巫博瀚（2022）。國中生所知覺到的教師自主支持、自我效能、任務價值對學習投入之影響。教育心理學報，53（3），543-564。
謝金青（2004）。國民小學九年一貫課程試辦成效之綜合評鑑---以桃竹苗地區為例。教育研究集刊，50（1），143-173。
謝慶華、段曉林、靳知勤、陳淑貞（2016）。國中自然與生活科技學習參與量表的發展與相關驗。教育心理學報，47（3），329-354。
邱皓政（2005）。量化研究法（一）研究設計與資料處理。雙葉書廊。
吳明隆（2011）。論文寫作與量化研究。五南。

 
二、英文部分
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. L.; S. Cermak and FIM Craik, Eds., Levels of Processing in Human Memory (Erlbam, 1979), 385-404.
Asunda, P. A., & Mativo, J. (2015). Integrated STEM: A new primer for teaching technology education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(4), 8.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1): Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence.
Cooper, K. S. (2014). Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 363-402.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Davis, M. H., & McPartland, J. M. (2012). High school reform and student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 515-539): Springer.
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational psychology review, 24(4), 499-567.
Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. L. (2018). Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 31-50.
Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5-15.
Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14-30.
Kardash, C. M., & Amlund, J. T. (1991). Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(2), 117-138.
Kelly, S., & Turner, J. (2009). Rethinking the effects of classroom activity structure on the engagement of low-achieving students. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1665-1692.
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(3), 517-528.
Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 20-32.
Marshall, J. C., & Morton, J. (1978). On the mechanics of EMMA. In The child’s conception of language (pp. 225-239): Springer.
Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163-174.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307-313.
AI-Saleem, N. E. (2018). Historical development of the interdisciplinary studies. In Promoting Interdisciplinarity in Knowledge Generation and Problem Solving (pp. 222–233). IGI Global.
Anderson, L. A., Binstock, R. H., & Prohaska, T. R. (2012). Public health for an aging society. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority (2016). ACARA STEM Connections Project Report. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3220/stem-connections-report.pdf
Aziz, F., Quraishi, U., & Kazi, A. S. (2018). Factors behind Classroom Participation of Secondary School Students (A Gender Based Analysis). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 211–217.
Baber, C. R., Faulkner, P. E., & Lyles, D. (2019). Relationships Between Cognitive Engagement and Self-Efficacy for High School Students Who Participate in Service-Learning. Journal of Research Initiatives, 5(1), 1.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine Themes of College Student Retention. In: Seidman, A. (ed.) College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Washington DC: ACE &Praeger, pp.215-244.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79.
Brandisauskiene, A., Buksnyte-Marmiene, L., Cesnaviciene, J., Daugirdiene, A., Kemeryte-Ivanauskiene, E., & Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene, R. (2021). Sustainable School Environment as a Landscape for Secondary School Students’ Engagement in Learning. Sustainability, 13(21), 11714.
Brandisauskiene, A., Cesnaviciene, J., Bruzgeleviciene, R., & Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene, R. (2021). Connections between teachers’ motivational behaviour and school student engagement. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 19(53), 165–184.
Chapman, C., Laird, J., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972-2008. Compendium Report. NCES 2011-012. National Center for Education Statistics.
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972‐2009. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. Psychology Press.
Christenson, S., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement (Vol. 840). Springer.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Condon, M., & Wichowsky, A. (2018). Developing citizen-scientists: Effects of an inquiry-based science curriculum on STEM and civic engagement. The Elementary School Journal, 119(2), 196-222.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: a motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61–97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 23. Self processes in development (pp. 43–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, K. S. (2014). Eliciting Engagement in the High School Classroom: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Teaching Practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 363–402. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213507973
Crick, R. D. (2014). Learning to learn: A complex systems perspective. In R. D. Crick, C. Stringher, & K.Ren (Eds.), Learning to learn: International perspectives from theory to practice (pp. 66-86). NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of education, 77(1), 60-81.
Davis, E. A., Zembal-Saul, C., & Kademian, S. (2019). Working towards a vision of sensemaking in elementary science. In Sensemaking in Elementary Science: Supporting Teacher Learning (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Deneme, S., & Ada, S. (2012). On Applying the Interdisciplinary Approach in Primary Schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 885–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.217
Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24,499–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7
Drake, S. M., & Savage, M. J. (2016). Negotiating accountability and integrated curriculum from a global perspective. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(6).
European Commission (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Brussels: European Union.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research. Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds, 25(3), 319–325.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk (No. NCES-93-470). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer, Boston, MA.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 421–434.
Finn, J.D., & Voelkl. K.E. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 249–68.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2017). The new curricula in a nutshell . Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_ education/curricula_2014
Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Porvoon Kirjakeskus. http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&isbn=9789521362590
Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out of school contexts: a multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 4, 327–335.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). New York: Springer.
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), 59–109.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Friedel, J., Paris, A., Moore, K. A., & Lippman, L. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development: What do children need to flourish?
Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M.-T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271–298.
Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15.
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. REL 2011-No. 098. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Garcia-Reid, P. (2007). Examining Social Capital as a Mechanism for Improving School Engagement Among Low Income Hispanic Girls. Youth & Society, 39(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X07303263
Gardner, H. (2008). The five minds for the future. Schools, 5(1/2), 17-24.
Garner, B. K. (2008). When students seem stalled. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 32–38.
Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 257–281.
Greene, B. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230.
Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers' conceptions of student engagement: engagement in learning or engagement in school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.006.
Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., Dong, N., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Can effective classroom behavior management increase student achievement in middle school? Findings from a group randomized trial. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Hong, O. (2017). STEAM education in Korea: Current policies and future directions. Policy Trajectories and Initiatives in STEM Education, 8(2), 92–102.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–27.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kelly, S., & Turner, J. (2009). Rethinking the effects of classroom activity structure on the engagement of low-achieving students. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1665–1692.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. A. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry: Learning and teaching in science (pp. 283–315). American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Krause, K.-L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper Presented as Keynote Address: Engaged, Inert or Otherwise Occupied, 21–22.
Lähdemäki, J. (2019). Case study: The Finnish national curriculum 2016—A co-created national education policy. In Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education (pp. 397–422). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Lam, R., Io-Low, M., & Li, J.-Y. (2018). Preparation for Future Collaboration: An interdisciplinary learning design in a Singaporean primary school. In Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia (pp. 156–165). Routledge.
Lam, S., Jimerson, S., Shin, H., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F., Kikas, E., Wong, B. P., & Stanculescu, E. (2016). Cultural universality and specificity of student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 137–153.
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891.
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Personal and ecological assets and adolescent academic competence: The mediating role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 801–815.
Li, Y., Lerner, R.M. (2013). Interrelations of Behavioral, Emotional, and Cognitive School Engagement in High School Students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9857-5
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24.
Maamin, M., Maat, S. M., & H. Iksan, Z. (2021). The Influence of Student Engagement on Mathematical Achievement among Secondary School Students. Mathematics, 10(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10010041
Mansilla, V. B., & Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for global competency. New York: Asia Society. Retrieved from: http://asiasociety. org/files/book-globalcompetence. pdf
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
McLaren, P.(1993). Multiculturalism and the postmodern critique: Towards a pedagogy of resistance and transformation. Cultural Studies, 7(1), 118-146.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2018). 21st-century-competencies. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/21st-century-competencies
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203.
Moore, T.J., Johnston, A.C., & Glancy, A.W. (2020). STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In Johnson, C.C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Moore, T.J., & English, L.D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education. (3–16) Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381-2.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027
Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163-174.
Odden, T. B., Russ, R. S. (2019). Vexing questions that sustain sensemaking. International Journal of Science Education,41(8), 1052–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1589655
OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/9789264277274-en.
Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 781.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). Springer, Boston, MA.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33.
Prohaska, T. R., Anderson, L. A., & Binstock, R. H. (2012). Public health for an aging society.
Purnomo, Y. W., Safitri, E., Rohmah, N., Rahmawati, R. D., & Abbas, N. (2021). Parental Involvement in Online Mathematics Learning: Examining Student Report and Links with Engagement. The New Educational Review, 66, 120–130.
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2021). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(1), 1–18.
Ruiz-Bañuls, M., Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., Rovira-Collado, J., & Rico-Gómez, M. L. (2021). Gamification and transmedia in interdisciplinary contexts: A didactic intervention for the primary school classroom. Heliyon, 7(6), e07374.
Sgro, C.M., Bobowski, T., & Oliveira, A. W. (2020). Current praxis and conceptualization of STEM education: A call for greater clarity in integrated curriculum development. In V. Akerson and G. Buck (Eds.) Contemporary trends and issues in science education: Critical questions in STEM education (185–210) Dordrecht: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_11.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In Applications of flow in human development and education (pp. 475–494). Springer.
Sias, C. M., Nadelson, L. S., Juth, S. M., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). The best laid plans: Educational innovation in elementary teacher generated integrated STEM lesson plans. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1253539
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher Behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., Morris, J. A., Miller, B. W., Ma, S., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., & Scott, T. (2022). Children’s engagement during collaborative learning and direct instruction through the lens of participant structure. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102061.
Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. J. (2001). Young children’s feelings about school. Child Development, 72(4), 1198–1213.
Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 294–318.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the　Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x
Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23.
Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26.
Wiggins G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V. W., Lu, L., & Cheng, S.-L. (2020). A person-centered approach to examining high-school students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101877
Yang, Y., Li, G., Su, Z., & Yuan, Y. (2021). Teacher's Emotional Support and Math Performance: The Chain Mediating Effect of Academic Self-Efficacy and Math Behavioral Engagement. Frontiers in psychology, 3611.
Yang, Y., Yuan, Y., Tan, H., Wang, Y., & Li, G. (2021). The linkages between Chinese children's both cognitive engagement and emotional engagement and behavioral engagement: Mediating effect of perceptions of classroom interactions in math. Psychology in the Schools, 58(10), 2017-2030.
Yazzie-Mintz, E., & McCormick, K. (2012). Finding the humanity in the data: Understanding, measuring, and strengthening student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 743–761). Springer.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.