Abstract
Student engagement is broadly defined by scholars as a multidimensional concept, making it challenging to measure and operationalize in teaching and learning contexts. This study focuses on foreign language (FL) teachers’ experiences and conceptualization of student engagement, as well as how they integrate technology based on their understanding of engagement. An interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) of 10 in-depth interviews reveals that teachers clearly distinguish between disengagement and passive engagement, as well as between task, classroom and academic engagement. Estonian FL teachers primarily perceive task engagement, analysed through the framework of cognitive engagement, as constructive and interactive. At the same time, they connect task engagement to academic engagement by recognizing the importance of the socio-affective dimension, along with other key factors such as self-regulation, motivation, volition and meaningful learning. Academic engagement is perceived as crucial by FL teachers, but their use of technology in this context is less instrumental, leaving room for further discussion. Technology is mainly used to support active and constructive modes of cognitive engagement, and is often seen as a tool to capture the attention of students with low self-regulation, who are at risk of disengagement.
Keywords
I Introduction
In the field of education, student engagement is widely recognized as a cornerstone of effective teaching and learning. Broadly defined, engagement refers to students’ active participation in and commitment to learning activities (Reschly & Christenson, 2022). It is a central concept in educational psychology, often associated with active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), and typically characterized through observable behaviours, emotional responses, and cognitive involvement (Appleton et al., 2008; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012) known as a three-dimensional model of engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). However, engagement remains ‘an elusive, emergent, and multifaceted concept – one that would be difficult to measure and complex to theorise’ (Eccles, 2016, p. 72), with its definition and application varying widely across contexts. Although scholars acknowledge that engagement is both complex and multidimensional, there is limited clarity on how its various components interact over time (Eccles, 2016; Symonds et al., 2025). As Symonds et al. (2025) point out, a process-oriented theory that accounts for the holistic and dynamic nature of engagement is still lacking.
In the context of foreign language (FL) education, student engagement proves equally complex and difficult to define. It is frequently understood through a three-dimensional framework comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioural components (Fredricks et al., 2004; Hiver et al., 2021; Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020), and has been further adapted to the specificities of language learning (Sulis, 2023; Svalberg, 2009, 2018). A systematic literature review examining 112 empirical studies revealed a wide range of (para)synonyms used to describe engagement in language learning (Hiver et al., 2024). This lexical diversity has raised definitional and conceptual concerns, prompting the question of whether ‘engagement’ is too broad a term to remain meaningful within language education.
While the three-dimensional model proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004) has significantly shaped research and educational practice, it has been critiqued for its wide scope and its strong emphasis on motivational elements, which can extend beyond the immediate context of classroom instruction (Chi & Wylie, 2014). In response, Chi and Wylie (2014) advocate a more focused view, placing cognitive engagement, defined as students’ mental effort and involvement in specific learning activities, at the centre. However, identifying how cognitive engagement manifests in FL classrooms remains a challenge, particularly due to the reliance on subjective observation. Research has shown that while external observers may perceive high levels of engagement, students themselves often admit to feigning participation (Fuller et al., 2018; Pierce, 2005).
Another concern lies in the instrumentalization of student engagement within pedagogical practice. Technology has become a major factor shaping engagement, with digital tools, especially emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), frequently promoted as enhancers of student engagement in language learning (Panagiotidis et al., 2018; Q. Zhang, 2021). However, research suggests that the mere presence of technology does not guarantee improved teaching or learning outcomes (Carhill-Poza & Chen, 2020). Instead, factors such as teachers’ beliefs, digital competence, and willingness to meaningfully integrate technology into their practice play a critical role (Hanson-Smith, 2016). As technological innovations continue to evolve rapidly, the emphasis must shift from the availability of tools to the preparedness and responsiveness of educators in using them effectively (Carhill-Poza & Chen, 2020). Despite growing interest in this area, there is lack of research on how teachers perceive and utilize technology to enhance student engagement in FL education (Hiver et al., 2021, 2024).
In light of these gaps, this study aims to critically examine the concept of student engagement in FL education, with a particular focus on teachers’ perspectives. It is grounded in the assumption that teachers shape their instructional practices according to their underlying beliefs, understandings, and professional competencies (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). The way in which teachers conceptualize engagement becomes clearer when explored through their concrete teaching practices. This study investigates those conceptualizations by analysing how technology is instrumentalized in self-reported teaching practices. Drawing on contemporary cognitive science theories, such as the ICAP framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014), the study aims to contribute to a more precise understanding of student engagement and its pedagogical implications.
To achieve this aim, the study is guided by the following research questions:
Research question 1: How do Estonian FL teachers conceptualize K-12 student engagement in foreign language teaching and learning based on the ICAP framework?
Research question 2: How do Estonian FL teachers integrate technology into foreign language teaching and learning, based on their concept of student engagement?
By addressing these questions, the study seeks to bridge theoretical and practical gaps, offering insights into the dynamic relationship between teacher beliefs, technology integration, and student engagement in FL education.
II Theoretical background
1 School engagement and engagement in language learning
Engaging students in the learning process remains one of the most significant challenges for educators and educational systems. This challenge can be approached from multiple perspectives: broadly, in the overall context of schooling (Willms, 2003); more specifically, within the classroom environment (Marks, 2000); or at the micro level of individual learning activities, often referred to as momentary student engagement (Symonds et al., 2025). In this article, we use the term student engagement as an umbrella concept that encompasses both broad and narrow levels of engagement within the context of language learning, as outlined by Skinner and Raine (2022).
The widely cited model of school engagement by Fredricks et al. (2004) defines engagement as a complex construct comprising three interrelated components: behavioural, affective, and cognitive.
Behavioural engagement involves the extent of a student’s participation in the learning process, considering factors such as attention, effort, and persistence.
Affective involvement pertains to the display of positive emotions during learning, such as interest, and the absence of negative emotions, like anxiety.
Cognitive engagement relates to the strategic approach a student takes to learning, emphasizing the use of advanced learning strategies, such as employing elaboration over memorization.
Building on this model, Mercer and Dörnyei (2020) argue that full engagement requires the simultaneous presence of all three components. The complexity of this concept within the field of language education lies in the isomorphic nature of language learning. Language serves as both an object of learning, a tool for thinking and learning, and an action (language use is a form of language learning and vice versa) (Puren, 2003). This complexity adds a layer of challenge for language educators, as fostering language learning requires students to actively use and communicate in the language that they still learn. This idea was conceptualized by Svalberg (2009), whose concept of engagement with language encompasses cognitive, affective, and social state and process in which a learner is actively involved with a language (usually a FL) as both an object of study and a vehicle of communication; it focuses on attention, noticing, reflection, and willingness to interact in learning one specific language. Furthermore, Sulis (2023) introduces a new perspective on student engagement with language incorporating the plurilingual dimension encompassing all languages ‘that learners come into contact with in and outside the school’ (Sulis, 2023, p. 1). The concept of engagement with languages highlights how learners use, reflect on, and connect with multiple languages across different life domains (school, home, digital spaces), extending the notion of engagement beyond the boundaries of schooling. Skinner and Raine (2022) note that, at its broadest level, student engagement encompasses a wide range of prosocial institutions, with school positioned as only one among them.
Another important construct is students’ ‘agentic engagement’, defined as their ‘contribution to the flow of instruction’ (Reeve & Tseng, 2011, p. 259), involving ‘an ongoing series of dialectical transactions between student and teacher’ (Reeve, 2013, p. 580). This means students actively participate in the classroom by asking questions about learning tasks, sharing their preferences and interests, taking initiative, expressing opinions, and offering suggestions to improve instruction. Researchers regard agentic engagement as more than simply an additional construct: it functions as a catalyst for the other three dimensions of engagement and represents a co-constructive approach to teaching and learning (Reeve & Jang, 2022). The traditional three-dimensional model of school engagement developed by Fredricks et al. (2004) has since evolved into a multifaceted concept. It now includes the social dynamics of interactions, learning, and the sociocultural status and capital of languages (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020; Sulis, 2023; Svalberg, 2009), along with students’ volition and agency (Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011; Skinner & Raine, 2022).
Considering the current understanding of this concept, it becomes evident that engagement is intricate. It necessarily involves an agent (someone) acting out of volition (the will to do something), directed toward an object (being engaged with something) through a specific action (being engaged in doing something). This ‘energy in action’ is dynamic, goal-oriented, contextually situated in time and space, and adaptable (Appleton et al., 2008; Hiver et al., 2024; Reeve & Jang, 2022; Reschly & Christenson, 2022; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012; Symonds et al., 2025).
In practical learning situations, there may be instances where students are only partially engaged in the learning process. For example, they may exhibit behavioural engagement and remain on task, but are simply going through the motions to appear busy, lacking cognitive and emotional involvement in the learning. This phenomenon was highlighted in a study by Fuller et al. (2018), which used real-time student self-reports, researcher observations, and heart rate measurements to assess student cognitive, behavioural and affective engagement. The study found that students (n = 123) reported ‘pretending to engage’ for 23% of class time. Even in classes led by highly regarded instructors and across diverse learning activities, students often maintained a facade of engagement without genuine cognitive or emotional investment. Moreover, according to this study, the instructed observers failed to detect students’ disengagement, thus ‘students who reported pretending to engage were rated as engaged by the observer over 90% of the time’ (Fuller et al., 2018, p. 19). This demonstrates that observations based only on the use of student behavioural cues such as eye contact or nodding are not sufficient to assess student engagement.
In contrast with Fredricks et al. (2004), Chi and Wylie (2014) highlight the cognitive dimension of student engagement as the driving force behind active learning and better learning outcomes. They focused on students’ overt behaviours reflecting cognitive processes during learning activities and developed the ICAP framework, a theoretical taxonomy of these behaviours, designed to support meaningful and effective learning.
2 The ICAP framework of cognitive engagement
The ICAP framework differentiates learning activities in the classroom in terms of observable activities (i.e. the degree of learners’ activation) and underlying learning processes (i.e. learners’ cognitive engagement) (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Chi et al., 2018). The ICAP framework identifies four different types of learning activities or engagement modes that can be used to categorize student cognitive engagement: interactive, constructive, active and passive, hence ICAP (Chi, 2009). According to Chi (2009) and Chi and Wylie (2014), learning activities are referred to as passive mode of cognitive engagement when there is an absence of any overt behaviours to act on the information and/or absence of any products resulting from the overt behaviours. Learning activities might include listening to a podcast or a teacher, listening to a presentation, reading, or watching a video. They are believed to typically only allow isolated storage of information in terms of knowledge-change processes.
Active learning occurs when the students are activating previous knowledge, allowing new information to be linked and integrated into the structure of existing knowledge. This means that students have to have hands-on opportunities to interact and practise with the given instructional material and content; they have to observably and physically manipulate the learning material, for example, by highlighting a text or pausing or rewinding online videos. The first two modes of cognitive engagement – passive and active – are based on so-called ‘hands-on’ learning activities (Chi et al., 2018).
Constructive learning means going beyond the given instructional material or the content that has been taught by the teacher. Students have to rise above what is provided in the learning materials and generate something by themselves; otherwise, such behaviours are merely active. For example, creating concept maps and comparing information, taking notes in one’s own words, explaining concepts and reflecting out-loud (Chi & Wylie, 2014). Learners can articulate what a text, sentence, or solution step means to them (Chi et al., 1989).
Interactive learning activities are assumed to facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge by linking knowledge with the help of learning material and with the help and contributions of the learning partners. For example, sharing ideas and arguments and constructing a joint point of view. Chi and Wylie (2014) operationalize interactive behaviours in dialogues that meet two criteria: both partners’ utterances must be primarily constructive, and a sufficient degree of turn-taking must occur. This means that both partners have to be constructive and make an effort in order for the dialogue to become interactive. This is also why the authors argue against considering learning within the computer-based system interactive, as responses to an interactive computer-based system can also be classified as passive, active, constructive, or interactive, depending on the level of cognitive engagement required of the learners (Chi & Wylie, 2014). The last two modes of cognitive engagement are driven by so-called ‘minds-on’ learning activities (Chi et al., 2018).
The ICAP framework has also received its share of criticism. Chi and Wylie (2014) acknowledge the challenge of accurately determining what is truly occurring in students’ minds. Similarly, Thurn et al. (2023) argue that observing behaviours such as watching a video, taking notes, writing summaries, or participating in discussions is not sufficiently reliable for inferring learning processes or levels of cognitive engagement. Despite these limitations, the ICAP framework offers valuable insights for teachers aiming to understand and promote active learning. It helps educators assess the extent to which students are involved in ‘hands-on’ or ‘minds-on’ activities, rather than remaining disengaged from the learning process (Chi et al., 2018). In our study, the ICAP framework provides a fresh perspective for exploring FL teachers’ conceptualizations of ‘student engagement’ in foreign language learning. It also serves as a foundation for analysing how technology is integrated into teaching, based on those conceptualizations.
3 Student engagement and technology-enhanced instructional design
Another important aspect to take into consideration when designing learning environments and activities is technology and its use in FL learning. Recent research indicates that technology integration in classrooms positively correlates with student engagement and motivation (Alegre, 2023). At the same time, the readiness of both teachers and students in terms of technology skills and capabilities significantly influences student behaviour and engagement (Jha et al., 2022). So, we need to question the role of technology for student engagement as perceived by teachers.
As student engagement is a complex and multilayered concept, its relationship with technology is similarly multifaceted. Research has demonstrated a notable increase in learners’ overall willingness to communicate following the use of technology-mediated oral tasks in the English as a foreign language classroom (Chaisiri, 2023). Technology-enhanced instructional design creates authentic contexts for FL learning and is widely regarded as a means of increasing student engagement (S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). Studies emphasize that the integration of digital technologies in the classroom can enhance both cognitive and affective engagement by supporting conceptual understanding (Girdzijauskienė et al., 2022), or influence cognitive and behavioural engagement through the incorporation of gamification elements in out-of-classroom learning (Huang et al., 2019). Findings suggest that gamification is generally positively correlated with student engagement (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021; Sun & Hsieh, 2018).
However, growing concerns have also been raised about the overuse and indiscriminate adoption of digital tools in education. For instance, Gorjón and Osés (2023) found a strong negative correlation between excessive digital technology use in schools and academic performance, with performance declines equivalent to approximately half an academic year. While this study does not focus solely on language learning, it serves as an important cautionary reference: technology, when not purposefully integrated, may reduce learning efficiency or distract from meaningful engagement. This suggests a need for theoretical models that account not only for the potential of technology to enhance engagement, but also for the risks associated with its excessive or uncritical use.
Moreover, the case study of Duolingo reported by Hadi Mogavi et al. (2022) highlights how some tools, when gamified to excess, may inadvertently encourage addiction-like behaviours, stress, and superficial engagement. These findings underscore the importance of supporting teachers with not only tools but also the pedagogical frameworks needed to use them meaningfully and responsibly. Consequently, it is essential to understand how FL teachers can effectively engage students in language learning through technology, maximizing benefits while mitigating potential risks associated with misuse or overexposure.
III Methods
1 Participants and context
Estonia presents a particularly promising context for investigating the intersection of technology and language learning. Compared to many other countries, Estonia introduced digital technology into its education system at an early stage through the government-initiated Tiigrihüpe (‘Tiger Leap’) programme in 1997 (Aru-Chabilan, 2020). This early investment provided a strong foundation for the swift and effective transition to distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020; Tammets et al., 2021). Estonian teacher training programs emphasize the pedagogical use of digital technologies, and schools benefit from the support of dedicated educational technologists. In addition, the national curriculum explicitly references the DigCompEdu framework (Punie & Redecker, 2017) and promotes the systematic integration of digital tools in teaching and learning practices across schools (Meristo et al., 2022).
Participants of the study were recruited before engaging in a co-creative and collaborative teacher training program. The training, conducted by FL teacher educators and researchers, targeted teachers of various foreign languages as well as educational technologists working alongside FL teachers. The goal was to develop technology-enhanced instructional designs for FL learners in lower-secondary school (ages 13 to 16 years) in Estonia. Sixteen teachers participated in the training, with 10 providing informed consent to take part in the current study. The gender proportion was unequal (nine women and one man), which reflects the broader demographics of the teaching profession in Estonia. As gender was not an aspect of interest, no gender-based comparisons were conducted or intended. Each participant retained the option to discontinue or withdraw their participation at any point. The data was anonymized and presented in a manner that ensured participants’ confidentiality and privacy. The overview of participants’ characteristics is presented in Table 1.
Participants’ profiles.
Note. Although Estonian is generally considered a second language in the national context, the teachers involved in this study worked with refugee students for whom Estonian functions as a foreign language (FL).
2 Data collection
Data collection involved conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participants. An interview guide was prepared by all researchers, and interviews were carried out online by two of them. The interview questions were developed through a two-step process. First, the research team generated an initial pool of questions aligned with the study’s objectives. In the second step, these questions were refined and finalized following a piloting phase with FL teachers, ensuring their clarity, relevance, and practical applicability. The final set of interview questions was designed in accordance with the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Smith et al., 2009; see Table 2).
Examples of interview questions for interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).
Researchers conducting the interviews were using the interview guide, posing open-ended questions about participants’ perceptions of student engagement, indicators of student engagement, and behaviours exhibited by engaged students. These interviews took place during one month in 2023, ranging from 40 to 55 minutes in duration, with an average of 45 minutes. While most interviews were conducted in Estonian, one interview was conducted in Russian and later translated into Estonian. Participants were encouraged to provide examples and elaborate on their responses as defined by the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis guide (IPA) (Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2009).
3 Analysis
The analysis was conducted collaboratively by three researchers, who first examined transcripts from two sample interviews to identify meaningful units of analysis. Through discussion, a coding framework was developed and subsequently refined into categories based on theoretical concepts related to student engagement in FL education. This refined framework was then applied to the analysis of the remaining interviews.
The next stage involved applying interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2009), focusing on participants’ unique experiences across three levels of interpretation: descriptive (capturing lived experiences in rich detail from the participant’s perspective), narrative (exploring the reasoning behind choices and contextualizing those experiences), and evaluative (interpreting the underlying meanings of lived experiences through the participants’ beliefs and emotions). At the initial, idiosyncratic level of analysis, we identified instances related to the ‘engagement of students’ – that is, students’ behaviours and observable learning processes as described by the teachers. The learning activities reported by teachers at this level were further examined using the ICAP framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Chi et al., 2018).
The second, hermeneutic level, involves teachers providing explanations and elaborating on the factors influencing their decision-making. Teachers interpret their pedagogical choices in alignment with their experiences and context. Our focus was on identifying constructions such as ‘these things happen because . . .’ where we sought connections between various phenomena (e.g. T1: ‘I use quizzes because students are tired . . .’). These connections were articulated using connectors such as ‘because’, ‘when’, or ‘that’s why’.
The third level of analysis, phenomenological, delves into how teachers formulate and assess their comprehension of the phenomenon, in this case, student engagement with FL learning and the use of technology in it. This level of analysis captures teachers’ deeper reflections on student engagement, revealing its meaning in alignment with teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and emotions.
After applying IPA, the categories of analysis were classified by level as student engagement with learning activities, student engagement in the classroom, or student academic engagement. The statement, ‘If a student is actively monitoring the lesson throughout, listening, and absorbing information, they are likely to remember something’ (T6), was coded as a passive form of cognitive engagement and thus reflects engagement at the level of learning activities, referred to here as ‘task level’. In contrast, the statement, ‘However, it [engagement] probably depends on the individual. One can be engaged in the lesson but afterwards leave the class and forget everything’ (T6), points to disengagement situated partly at the classroom level and partly beyond the classroom (academic engagement). Accordingly, this excerpt was coded as belonging to both classroom engagement and academic engagement. Here, the teacher’s remark that ‘engagement depends on individuals’ is interpreted as a hermeneutic statement. The complete coding scheme is presented in Appendix A.
Subsequent reflections among the research team facilitated a comparative analysis of participants’ narratives. Through this process, we identified both similarities and differences in the phenomena of ‘student engagement’, enabling the development of generalizations while also drawing attention to the unique aspects of individual experiences, as recommended by IPA (Smith, 2011). The analytical process is illustrated in Figure 1.
The collaborative process of data analysis.
4 Ethical considerations
In this study, we adhered to the ethical considerations according to the standards outlined by the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) and to the ethical guidelines of Tallinn University. All participants voluntarily enrolled in the research and were fully informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential impacts. Their consent was obtained prior to participation. Participants were given the option to withdraw or cease their involvement at any time. We ensured that the research was conducted in a way that did not harm any participant, and no sensitive or personal information that could potentially cause harm was collected. All data was anonymized to protect participant privacy and ensure confidentiality. The study design and methodology were carefully considered to prioritize the safety and well-being of all participants. The interviews were recorded verbatim using speech-to-text technology, transcribed, verified, and coded. Subsequently, the video files were deleted from the Zoom account, and the audio files were securely stored on a protected shared digital space accessible exclusively by the researchers of this study.
IV Findings
According to the analysis, FL teachers conceptualize student engagement from three distinct perspectives: a long-term view, referred to in this article as student academic engagement; a classroom-level view, relating to student engagement in the classroom; and a momentary view, referring to task engagement with specific learning activities. The findings are presented according to the components that emerged at the different levels of the IPA.
1 The idiosyncratic level of analysis
This section is based on the results of the idiosyncratic, or descriptive, level of the IPA, whereby the ICAP framework reflects teachers’ perspectives on what occurs in the classroom, particularly concerning students’ Task engagement (Table 3).
Foreign language teachers’ conceptualization of Student engagement at the idiosyncratic level of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).
First, the interviewed teachers described students’ observable learning behaviours through lesson activities such as listening, reading, thinking along with the lesson. These behaviours suggest that students are primarily receiving input without actively engaging with it, corresponding to the passive mode of the ICAP model. For example, T1 mentioned, ‘[the student] puts the phone in the pocket and listens to the teacher’; T3 stated, ‘[they] listen to the teacher, listen carefully’; T8 noted, ‘maybe read something’; and T10 explained, ‘They watched a video, then let’s say, they watched or listened for two minutes.’
It is worth noting that the passive mode of cognitive engagement is often described by what is absent, such as not taking notes, not asking questions, or remaining silent, and may initially be interpreted negatively. As noted by T5, ‘It depends on the student whether something actually sticks somewhere in the subconscious or not’; T6 added, ‘If they didn’t know a word and it appeared, they wouldn’t write it down’; and T8 observed, ‘But there are different types of quiet students, [some are] not completely engaged for the whole lesson.’ T10 further commented, ‘They may be completely quiet students to me. They may not ask me any questions. But if I see that they are constantly thinking along, then they are already active in my eyes.’
The participating teachers clearly identified moments of disengagement from the passive mode of engagement in their classrooms. As mentioned earlier, the passive mode is often characterized in negative terms, such as ‘not understanding’ or ‘not doing’. Disengagement is frequently associated with unrelated or parallel activities, particularly involving technology. For instance: ‘Distracted by other applications on smartphones’ (T5), or ‘When we start doing something on the computer, the students simultaneously open games; they try to do both. Of course, they get distracted’ (T6). Teachers define student engagement as being oriented toward learning goals, which should not be confused with social self-positioning within the group: ‘[Being engaged is] not always just being an active person; sometimes activity is like they just want to be a leader’ (T3).
The active mode, as described by the teachers, is associated with more participatory behaviours, such as responding to questions, working on assignments, and actively seeking information. For example, T2 stated, ‘[A student] responds. . . draws something on a topic or a word’; T8 noted, ‘They participate, think along, answer questions.’ This active mode appears to closely align with the behavioural component of engagement, where students visibly take part in tasks and demonstrate understanding through action. However, the concept of the active mode was sometimes defined in vague terms, often equated with simply ‘doing something’ or maintaining focus. For instance: ‘The student is actively engaged; they [. . .] immerse themselves in the topic’ (T9); or ‘For me, being active is more like directed activity in the sense that if they understand what needs to be done’ (T3). In this context, active engagement is often viewed as the antithesis of the passive mode, with emphasis placed on involvement with learning tasks.
Regarding the use of technology, only two participants mentioned its relevance at this stage: ‘We do a lot of online exercises in various online environments’ (T7); and ‘Students translate using the internet’ (T10).
In the constructive mode, students were perceived by teachers as exhibiting a deeper level of engagement. This included creating word clouds, using language creatively through writing, blogging, or portfolio creation, and participating in research or analysis. For example: ‘To create a blog or a small presentation’ (T4); ‘When you give them an opportunity to explore some examples, so they can do their own research’ (T5); ‘To compose a text’ (T6); ‘They write about themselves’ (T7); ‘[A student] offers ideas’ (T9).
Participants also gave specific examples of how they used technology to support the constructive mode of cognitive engagement. These included: ‘They [students] posted their videos on Flip [self-video recording platform]’ (T5); ‘I tried out the e-portfolio with my students’ (T7); and ‘And then, depending on the case, they [students] can either create a news video or an instructional video (using Adobe programmes for editing), or a video blog’ (T9).
In the interactive mode, collaborative activities such as group discussions, sharing opinions, brainstorming, and interacting with both peers and teachers are prevalent, fostering a dynamic learning environment where students actively contribute and engage with one another. Unlike the constructive mode, which focuses more on individual exploration and creation, the interactive mode emphasizes collective engagement and social interaction: ‘[a student] asks relevant questions’ (T1); ‘if they really want to, they ask clarifying questions; they are not only present, but they actually do something – talk, communicate with me, with others. So, I would say, [it is] to see that a person is genuinely participating in the process’ (T5).
Regarding technology, few participants provided a specific example of how it has helped boost collaborative projects in the classroom: ‘A platform like Miro, where you can do brainstorming, where students can initially map out their ideas within their group and then share them with others’ (T4) and ‘I used Flip with my students for peer-assessment and feedback’ (T7).
In our investigation into the use of technology to enhance student engagement, we found that teachers employed a diverse range of approaches. Responses revealed a wide array of technological tools and platforms utilized in classrooms, showcasing the adaptability and innovation of educators in leveraging technology to enrich language learning. Teachers identified a mix of hardware, including laptops, smartphones, and interactive whiteboards, alongside an assortment of digital platforms and apps such as LearningApps, Quizlet, and Kahoot. Additionally, tools like Flip were highlighted for their ability to facilitate individualized pacing of assignments, peer assessment, and collaborative activities online. This diverse range of technological tools was primarily used to activate students’ constructive modes of engagement. While technology aimed at the active mode of cognitive engagement was described in broad terms or as a list of tools. ‘We use smartphones, computers, and iPads’ (T8); examples of technology aimed at the interactive mode of cognitive engagement were the rarest.
2 The hermeneutic level of analysis
At the hermeneutic level, the analysis moves beyond learning activities and the ICAP model to interpret the underlying meanings, emotions, and intentions expressed by teachers as they reflect on student engagement in the FL classroom. See Table 4, which incorporates two levels of analysis: a hermeneutic level, addressed in this section, and a phenomenological level, presented in the following section of the article.
Foreign language teachers’ interpretations of student engagement at the hermeneutic and phenomenological level of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).
When considering the affective dimension of engagement, teachers reported efforts to create a positive classroom atmosphere in which students show enjoyment and enthusiasm for learning. One teacher described this affective response as follows: ‘When I say, ah, their eyes are sparkling, it’s a bit strange, maybe in the phrasing, but it is when they participate. This is the first thing’ (T5). Teachers employ various strategies to enhance engagement, including the incorporation of digital technologies to introduce elements of fun and relaxation into the learning process. For example: ‘Now, I try to incorporate it [interactive whiteboard] into every lesson because it always captivates the students’ attention’ (T6), and ‘When I notice that students are tired, I sometimes use digital technology at the end of the lesson to conclude with a softer tone’ (T1).
Opinions about the role of specific technologies, particularly smartphones, are divided. Some teachers believe smartphones distract from learning, with students already overexposed to them: ‘I’m not a big fan of working with phones. They are so engrossed in their phones during breaks and everywhere else’ (T6). Conversely, others see smartphones as convenient and practical tools: ‘In that sense, a phone might be the easiest option for the student’ (T8).
Teachers also reflect on possible reasons for student disengagement, often attributing it to the general emotional and physical state of learners. As one teacher explained: For example, mood, or whether it’s a class that starts at eight or nine o’clock, or if it’s at the end of the day or after a meal, or whether it’s the beginning of the term or the end of the term. (T7)
Social relationship is also seen as crucial for fostering learning and engagement in language classrooms: ‘If a student feels somehow excluded, distant, and doesn’t feel a connection with the group, then they might not be able to learn as well in that group’ (T2). Teachers reported efforts to cultivate a friendly and open classroom environment where students feel comfortable speaking up and expressing themselves: ‘If there is a question, so then they are not afraid to ask’ (T3); ‘To create such relationships in the class, so that students would continuously tell you, ‘Oh teacher, I didn’t understand at all’’ (T7). These insights reflect the interrelatedness of affective and social dimensions in language learning activities.
The socio-affective dimension of engagement, as described by the participants, extends beyond individual emotion to encompass broader ideas of social responsibility, peer collaboration, and mentorship. For instance: ‘The student finds it more interesting and easier when it requires them to take responsibility in the group and the leading role’ (T1). Students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning, fostering accountability to themselves and to their peers, while building supportive relationships and a sense of belonging within the classroom community: ‘In our school, we try to involve both older and younger children sometimes. They [older students] can be more engaged in the project by helping younger students to enter the computer lab or system, or online platform’ (T3); ‘If a student feels excluded or disconnected and doesn’t have a sense of belonging within the group, they might not be able to learn as effectively in that group or collective’ (T2).
Self-regulation emerges as a central aspect of engagement: ‘Students are better engaged when they think ahead about how they might apply it and what will happen next’ (T2). FL teachers guide students to remain focused on tasks and to stay mindful of their goals, helping them stay on track and participate actively in the learning process. They also support students in developing strategies for self-management and time awareness: For example, it’s important to consciously take breaks – when you’ve finished one task, take a short pause. Or if you’re working on something difficult and it’s not making sense, read a little, but if it still feels challenging, switch to something else for a while . . . then come back to the difficult one later. (T10)
Additionally, teachers highlight the importance of offering choices and attending to students’ moods and preferences, recognizing that a sense of autonomy can significantly enhance learner engagement. Providing space for students to make decisions about the scope or depth of their work encourages greater responsibility and involvement: ‘Here we can use asynchronous learning enhanced by technology. When a student has freedom, but within limits’ (T5).
Meaningful learning is emphasized, with students encouraged to connect their learning to real-world contexts and personal experiences, thereby deepening their understanding and enhancing the relevance of tasks in the FL classroom. ‘For example, we use the Padlet Wall, where they post different things they do for their health in real life each week, and then write a brief description of it’ (T5). Integration across different subject areas is also highlighted, promoting students’ ability to form interdisciplinary connections and supporting a more holistic approach to learning. Teachers widely acknowledge that motivation plays a significant role in student engagement. Some described how extrinsic motivation encourages students to participate and complete tasks: ‘One thing that definitely motivates a student to learn is the grade’ (T1). Others emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation, noting that students are often more engaged when driven by personal interest, relevance, and the freedom to make meaningful choices in their learning. As one teacher explained: I said that it’s your choice how much you write, whether you want to include all your hobbies, activities, and achievements, or just three sentences. It was up to them, and they chose accordingly. If a student feels like talking about themselves, they will do it. (T7)
This approach not only respects students’ individuality but also fosters a sense of ownership, autonomy, and deeper personal investment, leading to greater satisfaction and a more meaningful educational experience.
Technology is seen by teachers as one possible means of fostering engagement. However, they are aware of the prerequisites for its effective use in FL contexts – particularly digital competence and, in some cases, English language proficiency, even when English is not the target language. As one teacher observed: For example, if a teacher uses a lot of technology, but a student isn’t skilled with it, the student might want to participate but doesn’t know how. In this case, the method of engagement is wrong and doesn’t work for that student, so it might be necessary to offer something different. Their [refugee students’] knowledge of English is also rather limited, so it’s genuinely difficult for them to navigate in this digital environment [Estonian e-school online platform]. (T4)
Teachers thus identified the development of digital competence as essential, not only for engagement but as a valuable skill in its own right.
As teachers reflected on their willingness to integrate technology into the classroom, a range of perspectives emerged, highlighting both the pedagogical and practical benefits of its use in supporting student engagement.
3 The phenomenological level of analysis
This level of analysis explores how FL teachers’ perspectives on technology use reflect their underlying beliefs about language learning and their conceptualizations of student engagement (Table 4).
Teachers perceive a strong interconnection between the components identified at the idiosyncratic and hermeneutic levels. As one participant explained: ‘In my opinion, the more we engage students, the more active they become. And the more active they are, the more self-regulated they will be’ (T3). Similarly, T5 reflected: Some [students] who are not self-regulated are lost in their thoughts; they don’t care about what’s happening [in the classroom], they’re just there, and I let them be . . . I definitely try to invite them to the lesson activities all the time, but if they don’t want to, I don’t force things.
Teachers hold strong beliefs in active learning and student-centred approaches in language education.
Teachers also emphasized that engagement is influenced by students’ volition: ‘If a student is not motivated to learn, then he/she doesn’t want to be an engaged student’ (T4). Furthermore, student voice was described as a key indicator of engagement. T1 commented: The more questions there are, including ones like ‘Why is it this way?’ or ‘Why do I need to do this?’, the more it indicates that the student is present in the class and not mentally somewhere else.
T10 highlighted the importance of giving students autonomy in how they approach learning tasks, including the choice of technology, whether personal smartphones or school iPads, and when the learning activity is undertaken: If there is, for example, some kind of task, then I ask how we could learn these words, what do you think? Should we come up with a game on this topic, or should we solve a bunch of exercises, for example? This way, they [students] can contribute.
These examples reflect aspects of agentic engagement, in which students take an active role in shaping the learning process, offering constructive feedback and participating in decision-making about methods and content. The interviewed teachers believe that satisfying learners’ fundamental psychological needs, such as autonomy, contributes to improved learning outcomes.
Teachers also described engagement as dynamic and malleable, influenced by contextual and socio-affective factors such as student age, time of day, or stage in the academic term, as well as feelings of belonging and emotional wellbeing. ‘I think it [student engagement] depends on the school level. Each level requires a different approach’ (T6). T10 elaborated: ‘If he [a student] is tired, he doesn’t want to interact with others at all. So, I can’t demand that he suddenly starts communicating with others or, for example, does pair work. Instead, I allow him to work individually.’ It confirms that teachers hold strong beliefs in interactive and communicative approaches to language learning, while also recognizing the need to differentiate instruction according to students’ needs, and are ready to make adjustments for those who are not keen to communicate in the foreign language.
While technology was primarily seen as a tool for supporting task completion and participation in class activities, teachers also recognized its potential to promote self-regulation and metacognitive awareness. Specifically, they highlighted the value of digital tools in helping students plan their learning, manage time effectively, and develop organizational strategies. Applications that support students in creating study timetables, setting reminders, and tracking their progress were seen as beneficial not only in language learning but across broader academic contexts. As T3 noted: When invitations appear in the Google calendar, we explain to them [students] that they need to respond so that the person who sent the invitation knows whether you even read it, whether you’re participating, and so on. It’s like, well, adult life.
Teachers thus highlighted the importance of fostering metastrategic competence in language learning.
T5 similarly stated that digital tools are particularly helpful in asynchronous learning environments, providing both autonomy and structure: ‘It provides students with freedom while also teaching them about limitations.’ Using platforms such as Formative, teachers can cater to individual learning speeds and preferences. Lessons may include core activities in written or video form, enabling students to progress at their own pace. This personalized approach also supports the development of digital literacy and allows the teacher to offer targeted feedback: I structure my lessons in a way that I have the main activities written down or available as videos, and then the general pace is not dictated by me, but we have lesson activities, and then I go to the class and give personal feedback, because we have such varying levels of IT skills, so it doesn’t make sense to pre-plan everything. (T7)
Overall, teachers expressed the belief that technology-assisted language courses help foster student autonomy. They also shared the understanding that students possess different levels of digital competence, and that differentiated instruction helps all learners more effectively achieve the intended learning outcomes.
The overall perception among FL teachers is that technology serves a primarily tool-centred role in the classroom, as previously noted at the idiosyncratic level. Teachers often focus on the affective dimension of engagement, emphasizing enjoyment, relaxation, gamified elements, and alignment with students’ general interest in digital media. They also report favouring activities that are less cognitively demanding when integrating technology, examples of which were also identified at the hermeneutic level (e.g. T1). T8 shared: Children still really enjoy playing Kahoot . . . It’s a very, very good way to engage and captivate children nowadays, so I actually use them [apps like Kahoot] quite often. I [also] use iPads, laptops, and I would like more time for [such] activities.
T9, however, noted the importance of designing tasks that elevate thinking while sustaining interest. Activities that require moderate effort and promote constructive engagement, such as creating videos, using robotics, or designing e-quizzes, make learning both challenging and enjoyable. One such task even introduced elements of programming, which students found exciting and rewarding.
T10 added that technology can also support physical wellbeing, particularly when used to combine learning with movement. For example, QR code-based activities encourage students to engage with learning content while being physically active: For example, when we have games with QR codes, which we have done, running around outside, I would say that supportive tools are indeed smart devices, with which they [students] can read the QR code to find out the task [and solve it] and move around the school premises in a civilized way, without crying and shouting.
Thus, while technology has an emotional and entertainment value, teachers also strive to integrate it in ways that foster holistic learning experiences, linking language use to physical activity, creative output, and authentic communication.
Teacher responses, however, suggest that excessive reliance on technology may impede student engagement and negatively affect learning outcomes. Both T3 and T4 expressed concerns that overuse of digital tools can lead to a shift away from educational aims towards mere entertainment: ‘Excessive use of technology hinders learning: when there is too much, too often technology. It becomes more about fun rather than focusing on learning’ (T3). The ease of access to distractions such as social media via smartphones presents a challenge for maintaining students’ attention, often causing them to alternate between academic tasks and recreational activities. As T6 explained: ‘Even though it’s said that they [students] can use it [smartphones], for the students, it often means they can continue playing games or messaging someone during the lesson. This, I think, is a somewhat less positive aspect.’ T4 further noted that limited digital literacy can exacerbate disengagement, particularly when students struggle to navigate online environments or understand the digital tools required for task completion. In addition to cognitive barriers, logistical challenges were also highlighted. T5 mentioned the considerable amount of time often needed for logging in and setting up activities, while T10 pointed out that a lack of reliable internet connectivity can disrupt lessons and reduce the effectiveness of planned activities. Moreover, T6 reflected on the pervasiveness of smartphone use beyond the classroom, particularly during breaks and after school, suggesting that students’ continuous exposure to technology may interfere with their ability to disconnect and engage meaningfully in offline learning experiences.
These responses reflect a shared understanding among FL teachers that the use of digital tools in the classroom is complex, requiring careful consideration to ensure that technology functions as a support for student engagement rather than becoming a source of distraction or disengagement.
V Discussion
1 Conceptualization of student engagement in language learning
Given the complexity of student engagement, the participating teachers conceptualized it from three complementary perspectives: a short-term view focused on learning activities, a medium-term view centred on classroom dynamics, and a long-term view connected to broader educational trajectories. They drew clear distinctions between engagement and disengagement at the levels of learning activities, the classroom, and the school, and offered nuanced insights into the factors influencing their pedagogical decisions, particularly in relation to the use of technology.
Regarding the short-, medium-, and long-term perspectives, our findings correspond with the work of Skinner and Raine (2022). The long-term perspective, referred to here as the academic perspective, was linked to psychological constructs such as self-regulation, volition, autonomy, and meaningful learning. Consistent with Skinner and Raine (2022), this perspective encompasses the concept of schooling but also extends beyond it, as the examples provided by teachers refer not only to students’ experiences within the classroom but also to their lives outside of school and the broader context of lifelong learning. In contrast, the medium-term perspective is rooted in classroom events and incorporates cognitive, behavioural, affective, and social dimensions. The most focused is the learning activity perspective, which, according to teachers, includes all four dimensions. Teachers appear to move flexibly between these three perspectives, often projecting short-term task engagement onto medium- and long-term academic development. Contextual factors such as grade level, student age, and time of day also influence this decision-making process.
In our study, the participating teachers clearly distinguish between disengagement, or ‘not trying’, as described by Skinner and Belmont (1993), and the passive mode of engagement. Disengagement is often associated with disruptive or off-task behaviour, whereas the passive mode is characterized by an absence of observable behaviour or effective learning strategies, such as not taking notes or not asking questions. According to the teachers, the reasons behind students’ disengagement are frequently related to their general emotional and physical state, though teachers also acknowledge the importance of the social environment and aim to create a supportive classroom atmosphere in which students feel safe and encouraged to participate. Reeve and Jang (2022) further differentiated types of disengagement – emotional, behavioural, and cognitive.
Our findings indicate that the interviewed teachers tended to perceive disengagement simply as the opposite of engagement, without further nuance. Interestingly, some components of cognitive engagement described by Chi et al. (2018) overlap with aspects of agentic engagement defined by Reeve and Jang (2022). For example, being ‘completely quiet, not asking questions, but at the same time thinking along’ was considered by teachers to be a sign of engagement. While this was classified as passive cognitive engagement in our study, it could also be interpreted as an instance of agentic disengagement, according to Reeve et al. (2020). Conversely, the act of asking questions, classified as an interactive mode of cognitive engagement in our study, could equally be regarded as an example of agentic engagement. An interesting perspective thus emerges when a more nuanced understanding of the dimensions of disengagement is introduced.
Although some of these observations may initially suggest disengagement, it is important to recognize that the passive mode of cognitive engagement can serve a valuable function in the learning process. This phase allows learners to process new information, providing time for reflection and laying the groundwork for deeper understanding and knowledge retention as stated by Sweller (2011). While some teachers appear to recognize this intuitively, the dominant perception tends to frame passivity as problematic. In educational contexts increasingly influenced by active learning methodologies and the communicative approach to language learning (Dörnyei, 2003, 2009; Oxford, 2016; Oxford et al., 1989), there is a strong emphasis on continuous participation. As a result, ‘passivity’ may be stigmatized and viewed as a lack of interest or effort. In fact, it may reflect minimal behavioural engagement, but this does not diminish the cognitive effort a student may be investing in processing input in a foreign language. As highlighted by Leow and Mercer (2015), the passive phase contributes meaningfully to deep cognitive processing in language learning, allowing time for mental rehearsal, semantic mapping, and the consolidation of learning, processes that support later retrieval and application. Moreover, not all students benefit equally from constant active engagement. For some learners, particularly those with educational needs or introverted dispositions, the passive mode provides necessary space for quiet reflection and cognitive readiness. Being required to engage constantly can be overwhelming for these students, who may need more time to process information before contributing actively (Green, 2018).
Rather than viewing the passive mode as inherently negative, it may be better understood as an integral and complementary aspect of the learning process, supporting a more inclusive and balanced approach to engagement. Our findings suggest that Estonian FL teachers do, in fact, value both active and passive modes of cognitive engagement and aim to provide learners with the flexibility to adopt strategies and moments that best support their individual learning needs.
The active mode of cognitive engagement, as perceived by teachers, is primarily expressed through participatory behaviours, such as being physically involved in learning tasks. It is often viewed as the opposite of the passive mode. However, following the work of Immordino-Yang (2015), genuine engagement also entails invisible cognitive and emotional investment in the learning process, which cannot be fully captured through observation alone. Engagement extends beyond observable actions; it encompasses the depth and quality of students’ thinking and emotional connection to the task. Therefore, relying solely on external behaviours to assess engagement may lead to misinterpretations. For example, a student may appear engaged by answering questions or completing assignments, yet their responses may reveal a superficial understanding, lacking critical depth or originality. Our findings are consistent with those of Fuller et al. (2018), who reported considerable variability in students’ self-reported engagement across different types of learning activities. Notably, students distinguished between their levels of engagement when watching boring versus interesting videos. Although these differences were less marked in small-group discussions, variations were still evident depending on the perceived interest of the topic.
The quality and depth of student engagement can be more effectively observed through the constructive mode, in which learners use language creatively – producing original oral and written texts, exploring topics from multiple perspectives, experimenting with language, and synthesizing information. In this mode, the use of technology is particularly versatile, supporting a wide range of activities such as video creation, information searching, and blog writing. This form of engagement is significant as it encourages the development of creativity and critical thinking. By engaging in exploratory and productive tasks, students are empowered to take an active role in their learning process. They are given opportunities to demonstrate their individuality and express their ideas in meaningful ways. Furthermore, participation in research and analytical tasks helps learners cultivate important academic and transferable skills, including problem-solving, information literacy, and effective communication. Students’ active collaboration and deep engagement are further boosted in the interactive mode that fosters group discussions, sharing opinions, brainstorming, etc.
All participants valued the so-called ‘minds-on’ modes of cognitive engagement, constructive and/or interactive, as described by Chi et al. (2018), within the context of FL education. Some teachers in our study placed emphasis on fostering a constructive environment, encouraging individual exploration, creativity, and critical thinking. Others focused more on promoting an interactive environment through group work, classroom discussions, and peer collaboration. This variation in emphasis appears to be linked to the personalities and pedagogical beliefs of the educators involved, underscoring the importance of recognizing and accommodating diverse approaches to fostering student engagement in the foreign language classroom.
In contrast to Chi and Wylie (2014), who focus on cognitive processes visible through overt learning behaviour, teachers’ conceptualization of student engagement aligns more closely with the three-dimensional model of engagement proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004), as well as with more holistic approaches to engagement (Skinner & Raine, 2022). Teachers in our study attributed significant importance to the affective dimension, not merely in terms of enjoyment but also in relation to student autonomy and the personalization of learning experiences. In fact, the affective dimension often overlapped with cognitive engagement, particularly in cases where students’ interests, goals, and choices contributed to deeper involvement in tasks. The behavioural dimension features less prominently in teachers’ conceptualizations of student engagement but emerges more clearly in their descriptions of disengagement, as discussed later in the analysis.
Teachers highlighted both students’ emotions (e.g. mood, energy) and the broader socio-affective dimension, including responsibility, pride, and belonging. Promoting student autonomy in task selection was considered essential, echoing findings from Bergdahl (2022) and Bergdahl and Bond (2022), which underscore the influence of teacher choices on learner engagement. In our study, teachers connected affective elements such as motivation, meaningfulness, and self-regulation to both task-level and long-term academic engagement. These findings support Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of learning as a state of flow, where optimal engagement occurs when challenge and ability are well matched, avoiding boredom and anxiety (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 2014).
The social dimension is closely associated with the concept of student engagement, according to the teachers in our study. As Eccles (2016) argues, the social component cannot simply be added to the three-dimensional model proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004). Rather, the distinction between social and individual engagement appears to operate on two separate and independent levels. Like individual engagement, social engagement can manifest behaviourally, cognitively, and emotionally – suggesting a conceptual framework comprising at least three dimensions across two levels. In this study, we have discussed how social engagement is expressed cognitively, particularly through the interactive mode of student engagement as outlined in the ICAP model.
Several examples of agentic engagement (Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011) suggest that some of the interviewed teachers understand student engagement as emerging from dialogical classroom practices and involving learners’ voices in teacher–student interaction. However, most teachers tend to perceive student engagement as a kind of ‘holy grail’ and disengagement as a fact (e.g. ‘If they don’t want to . . ., I don’t force; it depends on the student’). This indicates that further professional development is needed, particularly concerning the role of agentic engagement in learning. As demonstrated in research by Reeve et al. (2020), autonomy-supportive teaching fosters student agentic engagement. Understanding how autonomy-supportive instructional behaviour can shape agentic engagement is crucial, as the latter functions as a driving force for other components of engagement (Reeve et al., 2020).
Our study indicates that student cognitive engagement, as defined by Chi et al. (2018), can be readily operationalized in the context of language teaching and learning. The different modes of cognitive engagement correspond closely with the concept of Cognitive Discourse Functions (CDFs) (Dalton-Puffer, 2013). These functions make learning behaviours observable through language use, such as classifying, comparing, defining, describing, exploring, and arguing, activities that are widely recognized as important for promoting deeper learning (Coyle et al., 2023), particularly in the domain of language education. In this respect, the ICAP model is highly relevant for FL teachers, but it needs to be implemented within the broader framework of autonomy-supportive teaching.
2 Technology-enhanced instrumentalization of student engagement
In both active and passive modes of engagement, technology was frequently used by teachers as a mediating tool – for activities such as watching videos, listening tasks, copying, or drill-based exercises. However, as R. Zhang and Zou (2022) point out, the impact of technology on language learning is highly dependent on the manner of its integration into the learning process. In our study, the constructive mode of engagement emerged as particularly relevant for fostering deeper learning. In this mode, students engaged in creative language use – such as writing blogs, producing videos, and synthesizing information – with technology playing a more dynamic role in facilitating exploration, experimentation, and independent work.
Our findings also suggest that teachers’ general conceptualization of technology use remains largely connected to its affective dimension, as a means to gamify content, reduce cognitive load, and increase initial student motivation. While these affective elements were considered valuable for encouraging participation and interest, teachers also demonstrated an awareness that a more comprehensive approach to technology integration should account for its potential to support cognitive engagement and promote meaningful learning outcomes. By moving beyond tool-centred practices, educators can create dynamic, learner-centred environments that foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and language development.
Looking ahead, there is a clear opportunity to broaden this understanding to include more cognitively demanding applications of technology, such as the development of interactive digital tasks, critical thinking exercises, and personalized learning pathways. In addition to low-effort or routine activities, learners may benefit from engaging in more complex tasks, such as designing videos, using robotics tools, creating e-quizzes, or developing virtual escape rooms, that require deeper cognitive involvement and allow for greater creativity and autonomy.
While combining the emotional appeal of technology with its pedagogical potential offers many benefits, particularly with the rise of AI-supported tools such as chatbots, it is essential to avoid over-reliance. The future of educational technology in language learning, as Zhao and Lai (2023) argue, lies in the design and development of comprehensive FL programmes that provide students with varied and meaningful opportunities for interaction, mediation, and authentic language use.
Findings indicate that teachers’ use of technology in language education is primarily centred on the Task Engagement level (cf. idiosyncratic level of analysis), rather than being conceptualized as part of the broader Academic Perspective (phenomenological level). Nonetheless, several important insights emerged about the potential role of technology in supporting academic engagement. Teachers identified both pedagogical and practical benefits: boosting initial engagement through enjoyable activities, supporting collaboration and communication, fostering a sense of responsibility, and developing students’ digital competencies as described by DigCompEdu (Punie & Redecker, 2017).
Engaging with digital tools in asynchronous learning contexts was also identified as valuable. According to teachers, such contexts help students develop not only technical skills but also the ability to manage learning independently – balancing freedom with structure to achieve their goals. The potential of technology to support academic engagement and enhance the overall learning experience was acknowledged, in line with findings by Alegre (2023).
Prior research (Banihashem et al., 2021; Cleary & Lui, 2022; Ramaswami et al., 2023) has highlighted the value of educational dashboards and learning analytics (LA) in helping students reflect on their learning strategies and monitor engagement. However, it is perhaps unsurprising that no teachers in our study referenced such tools. As Mohseni (2024) suggests, teachers often face considerable challenges in integrating LA into classroom practice due to limited institutional, technological, and pedagogical support. This points to an area of untapped potential that may require further development and training.
VI Limitations and further suggestions
One limitation of this study is its context-specific nature, though this can also be seen as a strength. Teachers in Estonia are extensively exposed to technology and enjoy significant autonomy in their pedagogical choices and use of technology. Additionally, the participating teachers had self-enrolled in a professional development program and already demonstrated a positive attitude toward technology in language teaching. The data, collected from 10 teachers, is self-reported, which may lead to a tendency for participants to represent themselves as more positive self.
For further research, it would be valuable to apply a differentiated approach to the concept of disengagement alongside engagement, which could yield important insights. It would also be fruitful to explore student perspectives more closely, particularly regarding how autonomy-supportive teaching can be supported by technology to foster students’ agentic engagement.
VII Conclusions
The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of in-depth interviews with 10 foreign language teachers and educational technologists reveals their understanding of the complex and elusive concept of student engagement and the use of technology based on that understanding. Previous research on the conceptualization of this complex concept is mostly focusing on higher education contexts, with a large scope of empirical data coming from English as a foreign or second language (Hiver et al., 2024). In our research, we focused on the empirical evidence gathered from teachers at lower-secondary schools teaching different foreign languages (Estonian, French, Russian, and English). However, as ours is a qualitative study with a small sample, we cannot make the comparison or generalize the results.
The findings show that FL teachers’ perceptions of engagement encompass three perspectives: learning activity, classroom, and academic engagement. Learning activities engagement is defined through four modes of cognitive engagement (ICAP) and the mode of disengagement. In terms of cognitive engagement, language teachers are highly focused on constructive modes of engagement in their learning activities. Teachers seem to consider passive cognitive engagement less important, while active mode of cognitive engagement is defined in broader terms. Participants clearly distinguish student engagement, even in its weak or passive form, from disengagement. As engagement is clearly related to action, multitasking or focusing on other activities that are not related to learning activities are perceived as disengagement.
Our research confirms that for FL teachers, academic engagement is a broader concept than school engagement as defined by previous research (Fredricks et al., 2004; Willms, 2003). It comprises components from motivational theories, such as the socio-affective dimension, meaningful learning, and self-regulation. While making decisions about pedagogical choices, teachers constantly shift between task (short-term), classroom (middle-term) and academic (long-term) perspectives, like a driver looking at both close and far goals while driving a car.
The use of technology to enhance student engagement in language learning is perceived by teachers as a transversal component, emerging across all three levels of analysis – idiosyncratic, hermeneutic, and phenomenological. Teachers referred to technology in relation to both task-level and academic-level engagement, viewing it simultaneously as a tool to foster participation and as a potential source of distraction or disengagement. Its use spans all four modes of cognitive engagement, as outlined in the ICAP framework, though it carries different valences.
As passive mode of cognitive engagement is viewed less positively, teachers’ use of technology is more tool-centred (use of video and audio) and described in more general terms (watching a video, not doing parallel activities in smartphones). Teachers demonstrate wide use of technology in language learning to enhance students’ active mode of cognitive engagement. The perception of this type of engagement is very strongly linked to gamification and less cognitively demanding learning activities (Quizlet, LearningApps, Kahoot).
On the other hand, as FL teachers conceptualize constructive mode of cognitive engagement in a very detailed way, as they create their instructional designs integrating technology to help scaffold students in generating textual/audio/visual outputs (e.g. Google slides, Adobe, Flip for blogging, video creation, e-portfolio, etc.). The interactive mode of cognitive engagement is also conceptualized and valued by FL teachers. However, their use of technology is less operationalized to enhance students’ interactions compared to those used for constructive mode of cognitive engagement. Some teachers are more creative in their instructional design and integrate such tools as Miro (for group work), Flip (for peer assessment), or Padlet (for discussions) to foster students’ interactive mode of cognitive engagement. Other teachers prefer scaffolding interaction in the classroom without any appeal to technology, arguing for balanced use of technology and trying not to overuse it.
The majority of teachers in the study reflected on students’ academic engagement and sought to design classroom and learning activities that support student autonomy; however, only a few actually use technology as a tool for individualizing learning paths (Formative), time management (Google calendar), or self-regulation (e-school learning platform). There are also those who conceptualize students’ engagement through different types of skills that need to be developed, such as critical thinking skills (Internet), computational thinking, problem-solving skills (programming robots), or general digital skills (computers, smartphones, or iPads). Although universities advocate use of technology for data collection and learning analytics, teachers in our study do not see this potential and need better support to integrate technology for learning analytics in the future.
Agentic engagement, considered by researchers as the driving force that activates other components of student engagement, is only fragmentarily conceptualized by Estonian FL teachers and requires greater attention in both initial teacher education and professional development.
Footnotes
Appendix
An example of IPA coding derived from one interview.
| Transcript and units of analysis | Categories of analysis | Perspective | Level of the IPA |
|---|---|---|---|
| (T6) if a student is actively monitoring the lesson throughout, listening, and absorbing information, they are likely to remember something. | Passive mode of cognitive engagement | Classroom level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) However, it probably depends on the individual. One can be engaged in the lesson but after will leave the class and forget everything. | Disengagement | Classroom level / Academic engagement | Hermeneutic |
| (T6) Oh, I have students like that who will take notes for themselves without reminders. | Active mode of cognitive engagement | Task level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) . . . unlike others, who, if they didn’t know a word and it appeared, they wouldn’t write it down and forget it. | Disengagement | Task level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) They [engaged students] will take notes for themselves without reminders . . . | Self-regulation | Task level / Academic perspective | Phenomenological |
| (T6) With the advent of the interactive whiteboard, I find myself using it much more because when there was just a projector, it wasn’t very convenient. | Technology use | Task level | Hermeneutic |
| (T6) Students compose texts. | Constructive mode of cognitive engagement | Task level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) they are engaged [. . .], asking questions if something is unclear, and seeking clarification. | Interactive mode of cognitive engagement | Task level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) they are engaged from start to finish, actively monitoring the lesson’s progress . . . | Self-regulation | Task level / Classroom level | Phenomenological |
| (T6) I believe the most crucial factor is the friendly atmosphere in the classroom, where the child feels comfortable and participates. | Socio-affective component of engagement | Task level / Classroom level | Phenomenological |
| (T6) On the other hand, there are those [not engaged] who get distracted, do something else in parallel, manage to have conversations with someone, and even sneak a peek at their phones. | Disengagement & technology | Task level | Idiosyncratic |
| (T6) they set goals for themselves: ‘I need to learn this by such and such a time.’ | Self-regulation | Academic engagement | Phenomenological |
| (T6) They are more involved in the topics that are close to their lives. | Meaningful learning | Academic engagement | Phenomenological |
| (T6) [Engaged student is] Not afraid to make mistakes, even if he speaks with errors, but still speaks, not silent. | Affective component of engagement | Task level / Academic engagement | Phenomenological |
| (T6) It [engagement] depends on the school level. In elementary school, it was mostly songs, dances, drawing – and they were well engaged. In lower secondary school, it’s mainly active lessons, using unusual technologies like screens. So, we try to use computers – that’s a different story. | Additional aspects: age-dependent technology use | Academic engagement | Hermeneutic |
| (T6) Students make suggestions about how to fulfil the task, and we discuss them together. | Agentic engagement | Task level / Academic engagement | Phenomenological |
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the teachers that participated in this project. We would like to thank colleagues Kätlin Vanari and Kairit Tammets who contributed to earlier stages of the research and whose insightful feedback and support throughout the research process were instrumental to the success of this project.
Author contributions
Aleksandra Ljalikova: conceptualization, methodology, data collection and analysis, writing the original draft, project administration; Aigi Heero: conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, writing the original draft; Tiina Anspal: conceptualization, methodology, data collection and analysis, writing the original draft; Merike Saar: conceptualization, writing the original draft, review & editing; Terje Väljataga: conceptualization, methodology, review; Merilyn Meristo: conceptualization, methodology; Ekaterina Batrakova: conceptualization, data collection.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research has received funding from the Tallinn University interdisciplinary research fund FUR n 7.1-17/5 7.05.2021.
Ethical considerations
Institutional approval was not required. According to the guidelines of Tallinn University, only research projects that involve vulnerable populations, sensitive data, or high-risk activities necessitate formal ethical review. For instance, the current study involves adult participants who were volunteers to participate in the research project. However, ethical considerations were carefully addressed according to the standards outlined by the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA). Participants were fully informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential impacts, and their consent was obtained prior to their involvement. All participants had the possibility to withdraw or stop their participation. We have ensured that the research was conducted in a manner that did not cause harm to any participant. No sensitive or personal information that could potentially harm participants was collected. All data collected was anonymized to protect participant privacy and ensure confidentiality. The study design and methodology were carefully considered to prioritize the safety and well-being of all participants involved. Data was securely stored in a protected shared digital space accessible exclusively to the researchers of this study. It is available upon reasonable request.
