Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 45(5), 2008 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20302
ENGAGING STUDENTS AT SCHOOL AND WITH LEARNING: A RELEVANT CONSTRUCT FOR ALL STUDENTS MICHAEL J. FURLONG
University of California, Santa Barbara SANDRA L. CHRISTENSON
University of Minnesota
There is consensus that student engagement is a relevant and multidimensional construct that integrates students’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Furlong et al., 2003). Most typically, researchers have incorporated a three-part typology, emphasizing affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of engagement (Finn, 1989; Fredericks et al., 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003). Practitioners, however, have often been highly influenced by academic engaged time (i.e., time on task) or academic learning time (i.e., amount of time engaged completing an academically relevant task) when identifying a student’s difficulty in school and/or designing an intervention in collaboration with teachers. In this special issue, the articles represent the seminal nature of considering a four-part typology—the degree to which students are engaged academically, behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively (i.e., psychologically) at school and with learning—for creating an assessment-to-intervention link that enhances students’ connection to the school environment. Even a cursory reading of the literature supports that student engagement is defined as a concept that requires psychological connections within the academic environment (e.g., positive relationships between adults and students and among peers) in addition to active student behavior (e.g., attendance, effort, prosocial behavior). Effective interventions address engagement comprehensively, not only focusing on academic or behavioral skill deficits, but also on the social, interpersonal aspects of schooling, particularly the need for supportive connections to other adults and peers and the explicit programming for motivation to address students’ confidence and apathy (Brophy, 2004). Both academic and social aspects of school life are posited to be integral for student success, especially those students who are vulnerable to educational failure, showing signs of withdrawal from learning or motivational difficulties. McPartland (1994) provided an organizing framework for broad interventions to engage students. In this 2 × 2 framework, the type of school goals (academic or social) interact with the nature of the concern (within or out-of-school experiences) to produce four recommendations for engaging students. Opportunities for success in schoolwork and communicating the relevance of schooling experiences to students’ future endeavors are necessary to help students meet academic goals. Equally important, creating a caring and supportive environment and helping students with personal problems are necessary to facilitate students’ reaching social goals. This framework also reifies that student performance in school is best conceptualized from systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1992), wherein students are engaged because of what students do in the classroom; however, students’ engagement is influenced by the context, including instructional support from teachers and the academic and motivational home support for learning (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004).
Correspondence to: Michael Furlong, University of California, Santa Barbara, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. E-mail:
[email protected]
365
366
Furlong and Christenson
Student engagement focuses on identification of functional risk variables rather than solely demographic risk variables. With respect to a four-part typology, academic engagement is reflected in the amount of time a student spends actually doing schoolwork or related projects in school or at home, the number of credits the student has accrued, and the amount of homework completed. Behavioral engagement is reflected in attendance, active participation in classes (e.g., asking questions, participating in discussions), and/or involvement in extracurricular activities Academic and behavioral engagement involves observable, less-inferential indicators. In contrast, cognitive and affective engagements are internal indicators that are less observable. Cognitive engagement, which refers to the extent to which students perceive the relevance of school to future aspirations, is expressed as interest in learning, goal setting, and the self-regulation of performance. Affective engagement refers to a sense of belonging and connection to and support by parents, teachers, and peers. Thus, student self-report measures may be the most valid and reliable way to capture these latter two types of engagement (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006). We know that indicators of cognitive and affective engagement are associated with positive learning outcomes (Fredericks et al., 2004), are related to motivation (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004), and increase in response to specific teaching strategies (Marks, 2000). Given that school personnel cannot alter family circumstances (e.g., income or mobility), the focus on alterable variables, including the development of students’ perceived competence, personal goal setting, and interpersonal relationships to offer students optimism for a positive outcome are critical for school-based intervention efforts (Floyd, 1997; Worrell & Hale, 2001). Engagement is not conceptualized as an attribute of the student, but rather a state of being that is highly influenced by contextual factors—home, school, and peers—in relation to the capacity of each to provide consistent support for student learning (Wentzel, 1998). The distinction between indicators of and facilitators of engagement provides the conceptual base for creating an assessmentto-intervention link for students who are showing signs of disengagement. Indicators of engagement convey a student’s degree or level of connection with school and learning such as attendance patterns, accrual of credits, and perceived competence. Facilitators of engagement are contextual factors that influence the strength of the student connection with school, such as school discipline practices, parental supervision of homework completion, and peer attitudes toward academic accomplishment. Facilitators of engagement have implications for intervention, whereas indicators of engagement can be used to guide identification procedures—initiating referrals at the first signs of withdrawal, as well as directing the progress monitoring of individual students and programs (Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003). Facilitators are protective factors—what guides the specific content and contextual support provided to students of concern. Student engagement has practical implications. It has been considered to be (a) the primary theoretical model for understanding and intervening with potential dropouts to promote school completion; (b) the cornerstone of recent high school reform initiatives that explicitly focus on fostering high schoolers’ perceptions of competence and control, personal values and goals, and social connectedness to peers and teachers (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004); (c) interrelated with the construct motivation to learn (Appleton et al., 2006), and (d) relevant for all students who “cross our school doors.” Data from the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement, based on responses from 81,499 students in grades 9 to 12 from 110 schools in 26 states, illustrates the applicability of the engagement construct to all students (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). Students reported being less engaged across high school years, if they were male, if they were from an ethnic group other than White or Asian, if they were lower socioeconomic levels, or if they were in special education rather than vocational, general education, or advanced classes. It is noteworthy that 72% of the students indicated they were engaged in school; disturbing is the information from student self-reports that more than one fourth of students were not engaged. Psychology in the Schools
DOI: 10.1002/pits
Introduction
367
All schools have students who are uninvolved, apathetic, or discouraged learners—even those schools without the typical demographic-related risks (Brophy, 2004). In this miniseries, six articles, three of which were presented as part of a symposium at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, are included: •
•
•
•
•
•
Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong described the interrelated conceptual and methodological issues of student engagement and provided specific recommendations, particularly about reaching consensus on the label and need for psychometrically sound measures. McMahon, Keys, Viola, and Parnes proposed a model and examined the relationships among school stressors and resources; belonging; academic outcomes, specifically school satisfaction and academic self-efficacy; and psychological outcomes, specifically anxiety and depression for low-income, non-White students in elementary and secondary schools. Sharkey, You, and Schnoebelen examined a theoretically informed model to explain the relationships between school assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for students at both high and low risk for disengagement based on levels of family assets, specifically family support and relationship quality. Based on the broaden-and-build theory, Reschly, Huebner, Appleton, and Antaramian examined the role of positive emotions during school, adaptive coping, and student engagement among a sample of adolescent students. In a comparison of three approaches to reading instruction, Wigfield, Guthrie, Perencevich, Taboada, Lutz, McRae, and Barbosa examined the degree to which engaged reading adds explanatory to students’ level of reading comprehension for fourth-grade students. You, Furlong, Sharkey, Felix, Tanigwa, and Greif-Green examined the mediating role of school connectedness in the relation between three groups of students in grades 5 to 12 who had different levels of exposure to peer victimization or bullying.
It is hoped that the six manuscripts and the reaction by Dr. Larry Kortering will advance our knowledge of the construct of student engagement, scholarly inquiry of the impact of student engagement on outcomes for all students, and understanding of the construct as a helpful heuristic for intervention practices. We contend that paying attention to alterable functional risk factors—the identifiers and early warning signs of disengagement, as well as the facilitators of engagement— provides a framework from which to create assessment-to-intervention links to enhance all students’ connections in the school environment (Christenson et al., 2008; O’Farrell, Morrison, & Furlong, 2006). In addition, it is clear from the studies reported in this miniseries that the role of other related variables or constructs must be considered when understanding student’s disengagement at school and with learning. We concur with Fredericks and her colleagues’ (2004) point that student engagement serves as a useful “metaconstruct.” As coeditors, we want to thank the authors in this miniseries. In addition, we know that we speak for them when we state, “May the much needed dialogue on the role of student engagement in school success for all students begin.” R EFERENCES 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, 427 – 445. Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187 – 249). London: Jessica Kingsley. Psychology in the Schools
DOI: 10.1002/pits
368
Furlong and Christenson
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spangers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1099 – 1120). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 36 – 39. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117 – 142. Floyd, C. (1997). Achieving despite the odds: A study of resilience among a group of African American high school seniors. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 181 – 189. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109. Furlong, M. J., Whipple, A. D., St. Jean, G., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. California School Psychologist, 8, 99 – 114. Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7 – 27. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153 – 184. McPartland, J. M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In R. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 255 – 276). New York: Teachers College Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. O’Farrell, S. L., Morrison, G. M., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). School engagement. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs—III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 45 – 58). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147 – 169. Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. California School Psychologist, 8, 29 – 42. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202 – 209. Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 370 – 388. Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/HSSSE 2006 Report.pdf
Psychology in the Schools
DOI: 10.1002/pits
