Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct

Abstract

Research supports the connection between engagement, achievement, and school behavior across levels of economic and social advantage and disadvantage. Despite increasing interest and scientific findings, a number of interrelated conceptual and methodological issues must be addressed to advance this construct, particularly for designing data-supported interventions that promote school completion and enhanced educational outcomes for all students. Of particular concern is the need to (a) develop consensus on the name of the construct, (b) identify reliable measures of the dimensions of the construct, and (c) complete the construct validation studies needed to move research and intervention forward. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.The importance of student engagement with school is recognized by educators, as is the observation that far too many students are bored, unmotivated, and uninvolved, that is, disengaged from the academic and social aspects of school life. More than 20 years ago, researchers remarked that although attendance at high school was compulsory in the United States, engagement could not be legislated (Mosher & MacGowan, 1985). Laws may regulate the structure of the educational system, but student perspectives and experiences substantially influence academic and social outcomes.Despite the passage of time, the importance of engaging all students in their education continues to resonate strongly with families, students, educators, and researchers. The purpose of this article is to critically examine how the engagement construct has been used by researchers and to propose a way to integrate perspectives that have been used in research. We first identify myriad conceptualizations of engagement and describe definitional similarities and differences. Relevant student engagement research (i.e., behavior and psychological connections with school) is then reviewed, and it is emphasized that engagement is malleable and relevant for predicting and preventing school dropout, as well as facilitating positive educational outcomes for all students. To further clarify the boundaries of the engagement construct, we explicate the motivational theories that are foundational to engagement and provide an explanation of the relationship between the constructs of motivation and engagement. We conclude with a discussion of core conceptual and methodological considerations for advancing the engagement research. Engagement, a potentially important and useful construct, is at a critical crossroads, one in need of conceptual clarity and constancy (Blumenfeld, 2006). This article is intended as a step toward that important end. MYRIAD CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENTThe short, approximately 22-year history of engagement highlights its need for a clear definition. In 1985, a review by Mosher and MacGowan found only two studies that actually used the term "engagement," and one of these studies defined engagement as student participation in school-offered activities, but proceeded to infer it by examining disengagement (Na...

Towards a Model of Engaging Online Students: Lessons from MOOCs and Four Policy Documents

“…Numerous number of models been proposed to describe the various aspects of engagement. Nevertheless, despite the fact that different models accentuate different aspects of engagement, there are substantial overlaps and similarities among them [4], [5]. In a major literature review, Fredricks et al [5] identified three main aspects of engagement -a) behavioral engagement which refers to students participating in a learning activity such as completing an assignment, attending classes, or contributing in discussions, b) affective engagement which refers to students" emotional responses or feeling (positive or negative) toward teachers, peers, learning, and school, and c) cognitive engagement which refers to "the deliberate task-specific thinking that a student undertakes while participating in an activity" [6].…”

Student Engagement in a Team-Based Capstone Course: A Comparison of What Students Do and What Instructors Value

“…A multidimensional view of the engagement construct (Appleton et al, 2008;Appleton et al, 2006) highlights its complexity as it is often regarded as a meta-construct (Axelson & Flick, 2011;Jimerson et al, 2003;Lam et al, 2012;Sinclair et al, 2003). Specifically, Fredericks et al (2004) identified three dimensions of student engagement that included behavioral, emotional, and cognitive factors; a conceptualization echoed by Marx, et al (2016) in their examination of student course engagement.…”

“…As a result, a variety of definitions and conceptualizations of what is meant within the engagement literature have been extended. Several researchers have promulgated this issue in recent years (Appleton, et al, 2008;Axelson & Flick, 2011;Bowen, 2005;Shulman, 2002). Specifically, Bowen (2005) declared that a consensus on what is meant by engagement or why it is important is nonexistent, while Shulman (2002) posited that learning begins with engagement, therefore making it one of the most important aspects in the learning process.…”

The Relation Between the Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying and Schoolwide Academic Achievement.

“…cognitive and affective engagement (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Cognitive engagement is defined as motivation and investment in the process of learning whereas affective engagement is having feelings of pride and attachment to school (Appleton et al, 2008).…”

“…Cognitive engagement is defined as motivation and investment in the process of learning whereas affective engagement is having feelings of pride and attachment to school (Appleton et al, 2008). Student engagement has been positively associated with higher achievement and negatively associated with factors related to achievement such as school dropout and truancy (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris, 2004;Marks, 2000).…”