Articol (Pag 143-161)

Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola:
Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação /

Students’ Engagement in School: International
Perspectives of Psychology and Education
Feliciano H. Veiga
Coordenador
Envolvimento dos Alunos
na Escola: Perspetivas
Internacionais
da Psicologia e Educação /
Ficha Técnica
Students’ Engagement
Título:
in School: International
Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação /
Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education. Perspectives of Psychology
Coordenador …………………................................... Feliciano H. Veiga
and Education
Edição …………………............................................. Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa
Coleção ...................................…………….............. Encontros de Educação
Composição e arranjo gráfico ................………... Sérgio Pires

7 Nota de Abertura / Welcome Note 70 Mejora de la convivencia en la escuela
Disponível em ..............………………….................. www.ie.ulisboa.pt Gonzalo Musitu-Ochoa e Belén Martínez-
9 Introduction Ferrer
ISBN ..............………………….................................. 978-989-98314-8-3
11 Student engagement from a UK 88 Habilidades docentes básicas e
outubro 2014
perspective: Taking a whole school implicación de los alumnos en la escuela
approach to curriculum and pedagogical / Basic teaching skills and engagement
reform of students in the school
Robert Burden José-María Román
20 Measuring and intervening with student 112 Construcción de una escala de actitudes
engagement with school: Theory and frente al voluntariado: Un estudio con
application, U.S. and international results, jóvenes universitários portugueses /
and systems level implementations Construction of a scale of attitudes
James J. Appleton, Amy L. Reschly, Sandra towards the volunteering: A study with
L. Christenson Portuguese young universitarians
Adriana Y. Ortiz e Feliciano H. Veiga
38 Assessing students’ engagement: A
review of instruments with psychometric 129 Avaliação das aptidões sociais de
Este livro reúne um conjunto de investigações apresentadas no “I Congresso Internacional Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: qualities crianças da educação pré-escolar
Perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação” (ICIEAE), organizado no âmbito do “Projeto PTDC/CPE-CED/114362/2009 - Envolvimento dos
Alunos na Escola: Diferenciação e Promoção” (EAE-DP), financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), que ocorreu no Feliciano H. Veiga, Johnmarshall Reeve, Rosa Gomes, Anabela Pereira e Paula Vagos
Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa (IEUL), nos dias 15, 16 e 17 de julho de 2013. Kathryn Wentzel e Viorel Robu
143 Modeling the antecedents and outcomes
58 O envolvimento e a inovação pedagógica: of student engagement with school:
Um binómio de longa duração An exploratory study of Romanian
Justino Magalhães adolescents
Viorel Robu e Anişoara Sandovici
162 School engagement, psycho-social health 297 Os jovens e a cidadania em 2013: O 413 Envolvimento e percurso escolar de 534 Ensino da linguagem escrita e resultados
and perceived learning environments in olhar de alunos do ensino secundário / crianças com síndrome de X Frágil em leitura / Written language teaching
adolescence: Results of an Austrian study Pupils and citizenship: The person, the Vitor Franco, Madalena Melo, Graça and reading outcomes
Hannelore Reicher e Marlies Matischek- institutions and participation Santos e Ana Bertão Sérgio Gaitas e Margarida Alves Martins
Jauk Conceição Alves-Pinto
424 Análise às relações de amizade e 548 Questionário de Atitudes Face à
176 Fatores familiares do envolvimento dos 314 Práticas educativas docentes: As habilidades emocionais em turmas de Matemática (QAFM) – Desenvolvimento,
alunos na escola / Family factors of representações dos alunos / Teacher 3.º e 4.º ano do ensino básico (Programa Construção e Estudo Psicométrico com
student engagement in school education practices: Representations of de Inteligência Emocional em escolas da Crianças e Jovens do 2.º e 3.º Ciclos do
Sónia Abreu e Feliciano Veiga students região de C. Branco) Ensino Básico Português
Paula Borges Ernesto Candeias Martins, Juan de Dios G. Soraia Silva, e Adelinda Candeias
196 Students’ engagement in school and peer Hermosell e Isabel R. Merchán
relations: A literature review 333 Influencia del cyberbullying en la 567 Rendimento escolar em matemática vs
Feliciano H. Veiga, Kathryn Wentzel, autoestima académica y percepción 445 Reading self-concept of children with atitudes face à matemática: Fatores de
Madalena Melo, Tiago Pereira, Liliana del clima escolar en estudantes de dyslexia: Do they differ from their peers? contexto e efeito escola
Faria e Diana Galvão enseñanza secundaria / Cyberbullying Manuel Soriano-Ferrer, Carmen Rodríguez- Manuela Oliveira, José Verdasca, José
influence on academic self-esteem and Miguel e Emilia Soriano-Ferrer Saragoça, Adelinda Candeias, Clarinda
212 Family income, parents’ education, perception of school climate among Pomar e Nicole Rebelo
individual characteristics and secondary school students 460 Expectativas e envolvimento nos
engagement with school and civic society Sofía Buelga, Jessica Ortega e Eva Contextos de ensino superior: Análise dos 585 Estudio del componente de la auto-
among adolescents from diverse cultures Torralba discursos de estudantes envolvidos eficacia en la instrucción estratégica
in Hong Kong Sofia de Lurdes Rosas da Silva, Joaquim y autorregulada en la comprensión
Celeste Ym Yuen, Alan Cheung, Kerry 348 Students’ engagement in school, Armando Gomes Ferreira e António lectora / Study of reading self-efficacy
Kennedy e Yan Wing Leung academic aspirations, and sex Gomes Ferreira component in the strategy and self-
Feliciano H. Veiga, V. Robu, H. Moura, F. regulated instruction in reading
229 Envolvimento dos alunos na escola: Goulão e D. Galvão 479 Atitudes e Atribuições Causais do comprehension
Relações com a perceção de direitos e Rendimento escolar em Matemática Fátima Olivares e Raquel Fidalgo
apoio da família / Students engagement 361 Students’ engagement in school and / Attitudes and Causal Attributions of
in school: relation to perceived rights in creativity professed by students and School Performance in Mathematics 601 Envolvimento na escola: um estudo com
the family and perceived family support assigned to teachers: A literature review Maria da Graça Bidarra e Maria Manuela jovens do 9º ano do ensino regular e
Sónia Abreu e Feliciano Veiga Feliciano Veiga, Fátima Goulão, Sara Almeida do Programa Integrado de Educação e
Bahia, Diana Galvão Formação (PIEF)
248 Some social-relational correlates of 491 Creative climate and engagement of Vanessa A. Miranda e Feliciano H. Veiga
student engagement in Portugal 373 Relationships as a basis of engagement? students in school: How do they relate?
Joseph Conboy, Carolina Carvalho, Self-efficacy and school engagement of Sara Bahia, Feliciano Veiga e Diana 619 Desenvolvimento profissional do
Feliciano H. Veiga e Diana Galvão pupils in school Galvão professor no ensino básico: Contributos
João Nogueira e Feliciano Veiga de um projeto de promoção do sucesso
266 Olhares dos alunos sobre a escola: 507 Students’ Engagement in School, escolar
Clima e sentido de pertença / Students 386 Perspetiva temporal e envolvimento dos Giftedness and Creativity: A literature Cláudia Gonçalves e Cecília Galvão
perspectives about school: Climate and alunos na escola review
sense of belonging Isabel Janeiro e Feliciano H. Veiga Feliciano H. Veiga, Johnmarshall Reeve, 637 La coimplicación de las agencias
Manuela Teixeira Sara BahIa, Diana Galvão, Marta Tagarro, educativas: fundamentación pedagógica
399 Students’ engagement in school, Letícia Forno y notas para una agenda hacia la alianza
278 A pessoa do aluno e a pluralidade achievement goals and grade level: A / The joint involvement of educational
das interações: Filiação, realização, literature review 524 Social skills of Portuguese immigrant and agencies: pedagogical foundations
sociabilidade e valores / The student as Feliciano H. Veiga, Madalena Melo, Tiago native adolescentes and notes for an agenda leading to the
a person and their multiple interactions: Pereira, Ana Frade, Diana Galvão Telma Ribeiro, Cristina Nunes, Lara Ayala alliance
Affiliation, achievement, autonomy and Nunes e Ida Lemos José Luis Álvarez Castillo, Hugo González
values González e Gemma Fernández Caminero
Conceição Alves-Pinto e Tânia Pires
Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education
7
655 O papel dos pais, dos professores e 783 The Role of Life-skill-Programs for school
dos psicólogos no exercício da escolha engagement: Results of an austrian pilot-
académica: Potencialidades da uma study implementing lions-quest
relação tripartilhada
Marisa Carvalho e Maria do Céu Taveira
Marlies Matischek-Jauk e Hannelore
Reicher
Nota de Abertura Welcome Note
670 Home background and student 795 ¿Hacer ‘más de lo mismo’ en la aulas
engagement in a worker cooperative conduce a un mayor ‘engagement’?
/ Entorno familiar e implicación del El caso del programa de cualificación
estudiante en una cooperativa de trabajo profesional inicial en la región de murcia This E-Book comprises a group of papers
Este E-Book reúne um conjunto de investigações
asociado Mª Teresa González González e Mónica
apresentadas no “I Congresso Internacional presented at the “First International Congress on
Iker Ros, Arantza Rodriguez e Alfredo Porto Currás
Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Student Engagement in School: Perspectives of
Goñi
815 Desenvolvimento emocional e da Psicologia e Educação” (ICIEAE), organizado no Psychology and Education” (ICIESES) which took
687 Promoting student engagement and compreensão social em crianças âmbito do “Projeto PTDC/CPE-CED/114362/2009 place at the Institute for Education of the University of
learning outcomes in psychology course autistas (estudo de caso) / Emotional - Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Diferenciação Lisbon (IEUL) from the 15th to the 17th of July, 2013.
through technology infused learner- development and social understanding in e Promoção” (EAE-DP), financiado pela Fundação This Congress was organized as part of the “PTDC/
centred strategies autistic children CPE-CED/114362/2009 – Student Engagement
para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), que ocorreu no
Grace Adebisi Fayombo Ernesto Candeias Martins e Helena Isabel
Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa in School: Differentiation and Promotion” Project
F. Ceia
(IEUL), nos dias 15, 16 e 17 de julho de 2013. (SES-DP), funded by the Foundation for Science and
704 Programas de escrita inventada em
pequeno grupo e leitura em crianças de 837 Alunos do ensino superior e procura de O tema tratado adquire grande atualidade, Technology (FCT).
idade pré-escolar / Invented spelling apoio nos serviços de aconselhamento importância e multidimensionalidade. A sua Such a contemporary theme is of utmost
programmes in small groups and pre- psicológico colocação nas perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação importance and multi dimensionality. As a matter of
school-age children’s reading Filipa C. Cristóvão, Ricardo J. Teixeira e salienta, também, a sua transdisciplinaridade. study of both Psychology and Education it is also a
Margarida Alves Martins, Liliana Salvador Anabela S. Pereira transdisciplinary theme. The papers in this E-Book
Os artigos deste E-Book incluem produtos de
e Ana Albuquerque
conferencistas presentes no ICIEAE, de membros include presentations from speakers present at
853 Experiências de Cyberbullying relatadas
do Projeto EAE-DP e de outros investigadores, the ICIESES, members of the SES-DP Project and
722 Eficacia de un programa de instrucción, por estudantes do ensino superior
autoeficacia y comprensión lectora / politécnico / Cyberbullying experiences atendendo a uma pluralidade de abordagens que, other researchers, thus encompassing a variety
Efectiveness of a instructional program, reported by polytechnic students tendo como referência contextos internacionais of approaches in both national and international
self-efficacy and reading comprehension M. J. D. Martins, A.M. Veiga Simão, e P. e nacionais diversos, procuram refletir sobre contexts, all aiming to enlighten the subjects
Raquel Fidalgo e Fátima Olivares Azevedo um conjunto de questões que remetem para a around students’ engagement in school (SES).
importância do envolvimento dos alunos na escola Different perspectives of conceptualization and of
739 La participación en el aula de lengua 866 Social skills, negative life events and
(EAE). Procede-se à apresentação de perspetivas de students’ engagement in school (SES) assessment
extranjera a partir del tratamiento del school adaptation in adolescents in
conceptualização e de avaliação do envolvimento are presented. Also, there are several studies about
error an educational and training integrated
José Luis Estrada Chichón program dos alunos na escola (EAE), de estudos sobre os its background – personal, school, social and family
Ana Dutra, Cristina Nunes, Lara Ayala seus antecedentes — fatores pessoais, escolares, factors which relate to it – and research about the
752 A aprendizagem por problemas como Nunes, Ida Lemos familiares e sociais —, de investigações acerca dos outcomes of engagement in academic performance
potenciadora do envolvimento dos alunos consequentes do envolvimento no desempenho – efficiency, behaviour at school, absenteeism,
nas aulas de ciências da natureza 877 Promoting students’ engagement dropping out, hazardous behaviour. Research on
académico (rendimento, comportamento escolar,
Paula Costa e Isabel Chagas in school: Effects of the eclectic
absentismo, abandono, comportamentos de promoting students’ engagement follows, namely on
communication model
risco) e, ainda, de estudos sobre a promoção do developing and evaluating intervention programs.
771 Students Engagement in School and Feliciano H. Veiga, Fernando García, Sónia
Guidance Activities Abreu, Vanessa Miranda e Diana Galvão EAE (elaboração e avaliação de programas de Opinions hereby stated as well as content of this
Hélia Moura, Graça Breia, Edgar Pereira, intervenção). e-book are the responsibility of its authors, whose
Isabel Henriques, Paulo Fonseca 893 NOTAS BIOGRÁFICAS As opiniões e os conteúdos apresentados nesta texts (in Portuguese, English and Spanish) are an
obra são da responsabilidade dos seus autores, important legacy to both Psychology and Education.
8 Feliciano H. Veiga
9
cujos textos — escritos em língua portuguesa,

inglesa e espanhola — deixam um importante
We aimed to search innovative ideas which could
take all students to be singularly motivated to
Introduction
legado que passa, assim, a estar disponível e a school as a place of personal as well as of academic
ampliar o património da Psicologia e Educação. achievement, a place where they can be happy. The
Foi este o sentido do que se fez, na procura de collection of E-Books of the Institute of Education
ideias inovadoras que levem os aprendizes, todos of the University of Lisbon was the ideal format for
os alunos, a sentirem uma força de atração para these selected papers. We hope that these works
Student engagement has attracted a lot of attention from both researchers
a escola como local de realização pessoal e contribute to make teachers, psychologists and
académica, onde se possa ser feliz. A coleção today’s schools feel challenged. We would like to and educators in the past 10 years. As a multidimensional construct, it covers
de livros em formato eletrónico do Instituto de generate critical thinking, creating projects that will the affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects of students’ learning in school. Its
Educação da Universidade de Lisboa criou o suporte transform the facts nowadays experienced, through comprehensiveness in the description of students’ motivation and learning provides
ideal para acolher os artigos selecionados. Espera- imagination and creativity, so that school becomes
researchers and educators with a useful and parsimonious tool to understand how well
se que esta obra contribua para lançar desafios a place of equality and inclusion which attracts
students adapt in schools. In addition, past research has shown that higher student
aos professores, aos psicólogos e às escolas de every student.
hoje, para gerar razão crítica que, à pragmática Besides the research documents included in
engagement is predictive of better grades and conduct in school, higher levels of self-
da gestão dos factos que passam, oponha uma this E-Book, a set of other works which enhance esteem and generally better adjustment outcomes. Given the comprehensiveness
cultura de projetos de transformação, baseados the importance and transdisciplinarity of SES, and predictive power of the construct of student engagement, the current e-book
na capacidade imaginativa e na razão criadora, are compiled in a book entitled “Selected Papers on student engagement is a timely endeavor. It is a collection of works from the
projetando-se numa escola de equidade e de of the First International Congress on Student
researchers and educators who have immense interest in student engagement. The
inclusão e que atraia todos os alunos. Engagement in School: Perspectives of Psychology
knowledge and insight generated from their works are invaluable.
Para além dos estudos de aprofundamento and Education”. I would like to thank all those who
incluídos neste E-Book, encontra-se disponível made this E-Book possible, namely the participants Most of the papers in this e-book are papers presented in the “First International
um conjunto de outros trabalhos que destacam a of ICIESES. A word of thanks to the FCT for funding Congress on Student Engagement in School: Perspectives of Psychology and
importância e a transdisciplinaridade do EAE, no the project and to the Institute of Education (IE) of Education” hosted by the Institute for Education of the University of Lisbon in July,
Livro intitulado “Atas do I Congresso Internacional the University of Lisbon, for welcoming everyone 2013. The Congress had three objectives: (1) dissemination of research findings on
Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas da and for their institutional support.
student engagement in school; (2) analysis of educational practices that promote
Psicologia e Educação”. Cumpre agradecer a todos This E-book is dedicated to Robert Burden, of the
engagement in school; and (3) consideration of new lines of research. The papers in
aqueles que tornaram possível a concretização University of Exeter, a consultant of the SES Project
deste produto, sobretudo aos participantes ICIEAE. who unfortunately passed away in March 2014. He this e-book are the testimonial that the Congress has achieved these objectives.
Destaca-se a FCT pelo apoio financeiro concedido was an outstanding Professor, mentor and colleague The authors of the papers came from many countries, including Austria, China,
e releva-se o Instituto de Educação (IE) da for all those who had the privilege to know him. Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, and Caribbean countries.
Universidade de Lisboa, pelo acolhimento e apoio
They examined different aspects of student engagement in different populations with
institucional. Dedicamos este E-Book ao Professor Lisbon, June, 3rd. 2014
different developmental stages. While some examined the theoretical framework of
Robert Burden, da Univeridade de Exeter, consultor Coordinator
do Projeto EAE, que faleceu em março de 2014. Ele
the construct, some studied the measurement of it. Many of the authors looked into
Feliciano H. Veiga
foi um grande Professor, mentor e colega generoso the antecedents and/or outcomes of student engagement. As student engagement
para todos os que o conheciam. develops in an intricate web of mutually influencing contexts, the antecedents being
investigated included both contextual factors and personal factors. The contextual
Lisboa, 3 de junho de 2014
factors included family influences, school climate, and teaching strategies whereas
Coordenador
the personal factors included self-efficacy and causal attribution. As for the outcomes
Feliciano H. Veiga
10 Shui-fong Lam 11
of student engagement, some authors examined school performance, academic

Student engagement from a UK
aspiration, time perspective, and mental health. The age range of the student
population studied in the e-book was wide. The students included preschoolers,
perspective: Taking a whole school
primary school students, secondary school students, and also college students. Not approach to curriculum and
only were local and mainstream students included in the research. The engagement pedagogical reform
of immigrants, minorities, and students with special education need also caught the
attention of some authors. Most importantly, some authors tried to examine what
intervention programs would be effective in enhancing student engagement. The
investigation of interventions is a commendable effort to bridge the gap between
Robert Burden
theory and practice. It contributes to the existing body of knowledge in evidence-
Cognitive Education Development Unit,
based interventions that would enhance student engagement.
University of Exeter
With the diverse perspectives and themes, the papers in this e-book have been
woven into a tapestry with rich colors that illustrate the state of art in the research of
student engagement. They provide intellectual stimulation for further discussion and Abstract
studies of this important topic in education that has strong relevancy to students’
learning. Researchers’ concerns about educational quality have, traditionally, focused school
effectiveness and school improvement, approaching schools as systems, and aiming
Hong Kong, August, 24th. 2014
to identify their critical features. Nevertheless, in considering the issue of student
Shui-fong Lam
engagement, the students’ perspectives on the nature of their learning environment
The University of Hong Kong
and the quality of their learning experiences, together with their understanding of the
learning process and their resultant perceptions of their own learning capabilities,
seems fundamental. In this context, by means of the Cognitive Education Centre -
University of Exeter’s Graduate School of Education, the Thinking School approach
has emerged, and appears related to high levels of achievement and with low levels
of absenteeism and bullying, in accredited schools. Further investigation on the links
between the Myself-As-a-Learner-Scale - MALS, a theory-based outcome measure,
and other pragmatically oriented measures is suggested, as well as a clarification of
the relation between the concept of student engagement and student perspectives
and system oriented work.
Key-words: Student engagement, UK perspective, approach to curriculum, pedagogical
reform
Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação / Students’ Engagement in School:
International Perspectives of Psychology and Education. Lisboa: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa, 2014 ISBN: 978-989-98314-8-3
12 Robert Burden
13
Introduction One reason for the ineffectiveness of this movement can be attributed to the failure
of the school psychology practitioners to focus on the humanistic outcomes of their
work, thereby losing sight of the student perspective. Another weakness of all these
The issue of student engagement is not one that has been widely researched in
approaches was that they were essentially too narrow and failed to take into account
the United Kingdom. In fact, a review of the UK literature on this concept is likely to
the complexity of the educational process. Moreover, they were not based upon
produce a blank slate. There are a number of reasons for this, among which, student
any sound theoretical rationale for how and why students could benefit most in the
rates of dropout from school have never reached the levels of concern found in parts
broadest sense from their educational experiences.
of the United States and other parts of the world. As this was one of the driving factors
If we begin from the perspective of socio-cultural theory, we can see immediately
behind the student engagement movement, it is hardly surprising that the issue was
the importance of the learning context, both social and historical, and the nature of
not seen as a priority by UK researchers. The term ‘engagement’ itself came to have
the interactions between teachers and learners by means of what is usually termed
a different meaning, relating more to how engaged students were with preparation for
the ‘curriculum’. In considering the issue of student engagement, therefore, we
standard assessment procedures.
need to take into account the students’ perspectives on the nature of their learning
This does not mean, however, that British educational researchers have not been
environment and the quality of their learning experiences, together with their
concerned with the relationship between the quality of educational input and various
understanding of the learning process and their resultant perceptions of their own
student outcome measures. They have merely employed different descriptors for
learning capabilities.
the research process. The two headings which most exemplify this work are ‘School
At Exeter, we came to this realisation by means of a longstanding association
Effectiveness’ and ‘School Improvement’, summaries of which can be found in
with the ideas and work of the Israeli educator and psychologist, Reuven Feuerstein
Reynolds (1995) and Creemers and Reynolds (1989).
(Burden, 1987; 1994; 2000). Basically, Feuerstein believes that the primary purpose
The main point about this work which distinguishes it from the student engagement
of any school curriculum should be to focus on teaching children how to learn rather
approach is that both the school effectiveness and school improvement literature
than what to learn. Instead of placing an emphasis on memorisation and regurgitation
focus upon schools as systems and seek to identify the features of what makes a
of instantly obsolescent information, the curriculum should be based upon essential
good school and how to accomplish this (it has to be said that there is also a long
learning skills and strategies. Again and again, numerous research studies have
standing US tradition in this form of research – see Brookover et al., 1979). What they
attested to the efficacy of this approach with children and adults manifesting a wide
tended to do was to take for granted certain outcomes such as examination success
range of learning disabilities, but with more limited success in mainstream schools.
as ‘givens’ and to focus almost exclusively upon what could be identified as effective
The major component of Feuerstein’s learning curriculum has been his thinking
organisational features relating to such outcomes.
skills programme known as ‘Instrumental Enrichment’ (Feuerstein et al, 1980). What
The school effectiveness and school improvement ‘gurus’ were, for the most
has received less attention has been his emphasis on the right form of pedagogy
part, sociologists. However, within the world of school psychology, there has been a
known as mediated learning experience (MLE). The important point here is that a
substantial body of theory, research and practice into systems oriented work, which
learning skills programme will only work if it is taught in the right way. The twelve
has been well summarised by Fox (2009). This movement suggested that instead of
elements of MLE have been found to relate directly to many aspects of the research
taking their traditional ‘fire-fighting’ role, seeking to ‘patch up’ the ‘walking wounded’
findings on student motivation (Burden, 2000).
of an educational system that failed to meet student needs, school psychologists
Although he has been one of the founding fathers of the cognitive education
should focus instead on finding ways of working within school systems to prevent such
movement, and one of the strongest advocates for this kind of approach to the
failures occurring (Burden, 1981). Despite some early enthusiasm, the movement
educational process, Feuerstein is by no means alone in this respect. The ideas
was a failure for a number of reasons well summarised in the article by Fox (2009).
of Matthew Lipman (1980), for example, have given rise to a powerful lobby to
14 Robert Burden
15
introduce Philosophy for Children into UK Schools (Fisher, 1998) with strongly Further reflection led to the development of the notion of a ‘Thinking School’. This we
supportive evaluative studies (Topping & Trickey, 2007; Trickey & Topping, 2007). came to define as an educational community in which all members share a common
Meanwhile, the advocacy of such luminaries as Howard Gardner and David Perkins commitment to giving regular, careful thought to everything that takes place. This will
at Harvard has kept the cognitive education movement alive in the UK (Burden & involve learning how to think, reflectively, critically, and creatively, and to employing
Williams, 1998) to the extent that an influential govern ment sponsored report made these skills and techniques in the co-construction of a meaningful curriculum and
strong recommendations as to how this approach could best be implemented in associated activities. Successful outcomes will be reflected in students across a wide
schools (McGuiness, 1999). Nevertheless, despite all the perceived advantages and range of abilities demonstrating independent and co-operative learning skills ,high
accumulated research support, the approach continued to limp along in a somewhat levels of achievement, and both enjoyment and satisfaction in learning. Benefits will
piecemeal fashion. also be shown in ways in which all members of the community interact with and
The breakthrough came in 2005 with the establishment of the Cognitive Education show consideration for each other and in the positive psychological well-being of both
Centre at the University of Exeter’s Graduate School of Education. On completing my students and staff.
period as Head of School, I found myself drawn once again to my quest to find effective The vision felt good and seemed to be one with which any enlightened educator
ways of providing meaningful applied psychology in schools. Despite the comparative could share. In the broadest sense, it also offered a strategy for promoting the mental
failure of Feuerstein’s ideas to take hold in mainstream UK schools (Blagg, 1989), well-being of all school pupils, by linking the cognitive approach to emotional literacy.
I remained convinced that teaching all children to learn how to learn must make a Here was the systems approach revisited, but how could we avoid some of the
worthwhile contribution to every school’s curriculum and that psychological theories mistakes of the past? It was clear that a total commitment by all members of a school
of learning have a significant part to play in this. community would be necessary if this vision was to be achieved. In the first place the
Other academics writing within British universities, on the same theme from school’s principal needed to ‘buy in’ to the cognitive approach and to convince her/
slightly differing perspectives, were all providing powerful evidence in support of the his governing body , teaching staff and, ultimately, parents and pupils, that this was
cognitive approach (Adey & Shayer, 1994; Adey, 1999; Mercer & Littlejohn, 2007; a positive way forward for the school. Then, the teachers needed to be trained to
Mercer & Wegerif, 2004; Moseley et al., 2005; Shayer & Adey, 2002), but little develop their own personal mastery of some effective techniques to get them started.
was coming together. It was only when we began to connect the lessons from the The national requirement to engage in regular professional development placed upon
school effectiveness and school improvement literature with the cognitive education all teachers provided the perfect opportunity for skills development focussing for
findings that the whole school approach to teaching thinking was born. With its roots once on positive action, rather than ‘fire fighting’, and making possible an ongoing
in sociology, the over-riding message from the school improvement literature was progression. A framework was clearly needed for this which we came to see as a
the need for the total commitment of all stakeholders. At the same time the school long term plan stretching over something like a three year period. This, in turn, led
effectiveness literature laid claim to having identified key variables in the organisation to the formation of a number of criteria that a school needed to meet in order to
of schools that represented successful achievement outcomes. What neither demonstrate that it really had achieved Thinking School status. In this way we were
approach managed to do, however, was to indicate what form of pedagogy was most able also to develop a meaningful criterion referenced approach to evaluation.
likely to lead to positive learning dispositions in the school’s pupils, together with a As we did not have the resources within our university to provide the intensive
caring, sharing school ethos that was enjoyed by all involved. and extensive training required to fully establish a Thinking School approach in
Here, then, was the opportunity of combining some helpful messages from the growing number of interested schools across the UK and beyond, the decision
psychology and sociology. If the cognitive psychology movement was to succeed and was made to concentrate on evaluation and accreditation whilst recommending
thrive in schools, what was needed was a whole school approach, drawing upon a other organisations that could offer high quality training in cognitive approaches to
combination of cognitive tools, with a wide range of educational outcomes in mind. teaching and learning. Our aim was to provide quality assurance for both training
16 Robert Burden
17
and its outcomes. By offering schools the opportunity to become fully accredited Recent developments
Thinking Schools, it was important for them to decide for themselves how to achieve
the fourteen criteria set by the Cognitive Education Centre with the ultimate aim of
Most recently, the CEDU has been devoting a great deal of its time and limited
achieving an agreed list of organisational and personalised outcomes, exemplified by
resources to developing appropriate techniques for assessing the effectiveness of
our thinking school definition. Essentially, there is a range of different ways in which
the cognitive approach. Foremost among those techniques has been the Myself-As-a-
the criteria can be met (none of the currently accredited schools are exactly alike),
Learner-Scale - MALS (Burden, 2012), which is aimed at measuring the development
and some of the most successful schools have developed and implemented their own
of students’ self concepts as learners, accompanied by a questionnaire for completion
in-house programmes.
by children on their perceptions of the quality of their mediated learning experiences
Once a school considers that it has met all the criteria set out in the CEC (recently
(MELQ), and others on teachers’ reflections on teaching children how to think. The
renamed the Cognitive Education Development Unit as a central part of the Graduate
MLEQ is a 28 item questionnaire which is divided into four dimensions: (a) the students’
School of Education’s ‘Thinking and Discourse Centre) website, it can, if it so wishes,
reflections on the supportive nature of their learning environment (How strong is
apply to the university for formal accreditation by a member of our team of teacher
their feeling of belonging?); (b) their perceptions of their teachers’ competence as
educators, educational psychologists and ex head-teachers. To do this, they are
mediators (Are they made to feel special?); (c) their understanding of the nature of
required to assemble a portfolio of evidence showing how they meet the criteria and
the learning process (What are the factors that contribute to successful learning?); (d)
send it to the CEDU. After the portfolio has been vetted by one or more members of
their perceptions of their own learning capabilities (Do they see any limits as to what
the CEDU team and found to meet all the set conditions, an appointment is arranged
they can achieve?). Involving both pupils and teachers in this kind of self reflection
for a site visit to observe some lessons and to meet with representatives of all key
has enabled us to provide highly informative feedback to schools on cognitive and
stakeholders, including pupils, parents, governors, and the teaching and support
affective outcomes. What this has enabled us to do is to highlight the important role
staff. As a result of this process, successful schools (more than 70 across England,
played by the learning environment, and to demonstrate that children’s dispositions
Wales and Northern Ireland, to date) are provided with a comprehensive report, a
to learn are far more important than their IQ; also to emphasise that intelligence is a
certificate of accreditation for three years, and a specially designed trophy. At the end
moveable feast (Dweck, 2006), demonstrating that psychology has so much more to
of the three year period they can reapply for accreditation (most do) or even apply for
offer to the wider world of education than many psychologists seem to think.
Advanced Thinking School status if they are able to meet an even more stringent set
of criteria, which include in-house research on process and outcomes and ongoing
success in inducting other schools into the cognitive approach. A recent informal Some final reflections
analysis has shown that the vast majority of accredited schools have achieved good
or outstanding inspection reports, as well as high levels of achievement, together
The potential implications of this work are numerous and varied. From a researcher
with low levels of absenteeism and bullying.
perspective the links between our theory-based outcome measures and the large
scale, more pragmatically oriented measures, constructed by Appleton and others,
clearly warrant further investigation. It would undoubtedly prove helpful, moreover, to
bring a measure of clarity to the field by establishing more coherence between our use
and understanding of the connection between such terms as ‘student engagement’,
‘student perspectives/voice’ and ‘systems oriented’ work. With regard to this latter
point, the major task, now, for all of us working in the field, is to show how listening to
the voice of the student can lead to major aspects of school reform to the benefit of all.
18 Robert Burden
19
Note: Creemers, B., Peters, T., & Reynolds, D. (eds). (1989). School Effectiveness and School
Deceased 22 March 2014. Professor Robert Burden was a consultant of the Project PTDC/CPE- Improvement. Rockland, Mass: Swets & ZeitlingerDweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new
CED/114362/2009, Students Engagement in Schools: Differentiation and Promotion, financed by Na- psychology of success. New York: Ballantine.
tional Founds through the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), and coordinated by Feliciano
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International
H. Veiga, in which he made the best professional and personal memories.
Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153-162.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment.
References Glenview, Illinois: Scott Forseman.
Fisher, R. (1998). Teaching Thinking. London: Cassell.

Adey, P. (1999). The Science of Thinking, and Science for Thinking: A description of Cognitive
Acceleration through Science Education (CASE). Geneva: UNESCO. Fox, M. (2009). Working with systems and thinking systemically: disengaging the crossed
issues. Educational Psychology in Practice,25(3) 247-258.
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards. London; Routledge.
Georgides, N., & Phillimore, L. (1975). The myth of the hero innovator and alternative
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannghaugh, F., Howes, A., &
strategies for organisational change. In C. Kiernan & E.P. Woodford (eds), Behaviour
Smith, R. (2006). Improving schools; Developing Inclusion. London: Routledge.
Modification with the Severely Retarded. Amsterdam Associated Science Press.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Gillham,B. (ed).(1978). Reconstructing Educational Psychology. London: Croom Helm.
Cultural, concept, conceptual and methodological issues. Psychology in the Schools, 45,
369-386. Lipman, M., Sharpe, A. N., & Oscangon, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Blagg, N. (1989). Can We Teach Intelligence? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McGuiness, C. (1999). From Thinking Schools to Thinking Classrooms: A review and
Booth,T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation
evaluation of approaches for developing students’ thinking. Norwich: Dept for Education
in Schools. Bristol: CSEI.
and Employment.
Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J. , & Wisenbaker, J. (1979) School Social
Mercer, N., & Littlejohn, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: a
Systems and Student Achievement. New York: Praeger.
sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Burden, R.L. (1981). Systems Theory. In B. Gillham (ed), Problem Behaviour in the Secondary
Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2004). Thinking Together: a programme of activities for developing
Schools. London: Croom Helm.
speaking and thinking skills. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.
Burden, R. L. (1987). Mediated Learning Theory: the challenge for the school psychologist.
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. P.
School Psychology International, 8(1), 59-62.
(2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Burden, R. L. (1994).Trends and Developments in Educational Psychology: An international
Pellegrini, D. W. (2009). Applied systemic theory in English educational psychology: Can the
perspective. Report commissioned by UNESCO. School Psychology International, 15(4),
twain ever meet? Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(4) 271-286.
293-347.
Reynolds, D. (1995). The future of school effectiveness and school improvement. Educational
Burden, R. L., & Williams, M. (1998) Thinking Through the Curriculum London: Routledge.
Psychology in Practice, 11(3), 12 – 21.
Burden, R. L. (2000). Feuerstein’s unique contribution to educational and school psychology.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (eds). (2002). Learning intelligence; Cognitive acceleration across the
In A. Kozulin & Y. Rand (eds), Experience of Mediated Learning (pp. (45-54). London:
curriculum for 5 to 15 year olds. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Pergamon .
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for school children:
Burden, R. L. (2012). The Myself-As-a-Learner-Scale (MALS) (2nd Edition). Exeter: Graduate
cognitive gains at 2year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,787-796.
School of Education.
Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2007). Philosophy for Children: A systematic review. Research
Papers in Education, 19(3), 365-380.
James J. Appleton, Amy L. Reschly, Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação /
20 Sandra L. Christenson Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education
21
Measuring and intervening with student 2) reliability estimates to determine consistency of measurement, 3) ANOVAs and
multi-level survival analyses to estimate the relationship between SEI results and
engagement with school: Theory and valued outcomes, and 4) diagnostic accuracy estimates (e.g., positive predictive
application, U.S. and international results, power, yield) to calculate the usefulness of engagement-to-outcome relationships
and systems-level implementations in applied settings. Results: Generally, we find 1) stable latent structures fitting SEI
responses across subgroups and translations, 2) sufficient reliability, 3) significant
and substantive relationships between SEI responses and valued proximal and
distal outcomes, and 4) both adequate and useful diagnostic accuracy of indicators
of several engagement subtypes to support applied uses such as Early Warning
James J. Appleton
Systems (EWSs). Conclusion: The time range for viewing student engagement affects
Gwinnett County Public Schools, GA
categorizations of facilitators, processes, and outcomes. Further, some categorizations
– Research and Evaluation (United
States) are meaningful while others appear to be artifacts of measurement limitations. We
University of Georgia (United States) contend that technological and behavioural changes increasing both the frequency of
jim_appleton@gwinnett.k12.ga.us student interactions with instructional content, peers, and school staff as well as the
appleton@uga.edu capacity to more efficiently capture and analyse these data call for efforts to reassess
the best indicators of student engagement. We suggest the evidence supports the use
Amy L. Reschly
of existing data to evaluate academic and behavioural engagement and the inclusion
University of Georgia (United States)
of student perceptions to assess cognitive and affective engagement.
reschly@uga.edu
Key-words: student engagement, school completion, Student Engagement Instrument,
Sandra L. Christenson Check & Connect
University of Minnesota (United States)
chris002@umn.edu
1. Conceptual framework
Abstract
Interest in the construct of student engagement with school spans educational
practitioners and researchers with interdisciplinary appeal. It is viewed as malleable,
Conceptual Framework: We describe a student engagement perspective originating multidimensional, and linked to important educational and social-emotional outcomes
from direct intervention research to promote student high school completion with of interest (see Reschly & Christenson, 2012). At least part of the interest seems to
skills sufficient for post-secondary opportunities and success. Objectives: Implicit result from the promise engaged learning holds not merely for a specific school-based
in this conceptualization is data-informed, tiered intervention and the importance interaction with either content or a teacher nor even sustained interest and effort
of a long-term view of engagement. Also valued are passive (i.e., existing data across the course of an academic year, but for long-term learning. Researchers and
source) indicators of engagement when available. We sought to detail differences educators alike see the potential for understanding and intervening with the learning
in engagement conceptualizations as a precursor to outlining specific results found experiences that affect the “holding power” of not just compulsory schooling, but of
using the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI). Methodology: We provide 1) learning itself, especially as students move into colleges, workplaces, and productive
confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) for assessing response structures and stability, citizenry. The interdisciplinary approach to engagement research can be a productive
23
endeavor where perspectives are shared and better understood and serve to advance systems-ecological, resilience, cognitive-behavioral, and autonomous motivation. The
the relevance and range of results of future work. Productive interdisciplinary research application of Check & Connect consistent with these perspectives requires 1) efforts
will require continuing dialogue on key differences and the value of these nuances in to achieve consistency of messages across contexts (e.g., home, school), 2) mentors
engagement conceptualizations. striving to be stable, positive, education-supportive influences in students’ lives, 3)
problem-solving to aid students in developing into self-determined, self-directed, and
self-regulated learners, and 4) mentors serving as instrumental support to facilitate
1.1 The Check & Connect conceptualization of student engagement
students’ autonomous motivation (Reschly & Christenson).
US Department of Education review of research for their What Work’s Clearinghouse
Our conceptualization of student engagement is rooted in research demonstrating (2006) as well as other research (see Reschly & Christenson, 2012) indicates
that the processes of disengaging and eventually dropping out of school have origins positive results of Check & Connect in both student engagement behaviors and
early in a student’s experiences with school and even prior to the beginning of formal valued longer term outcomes, such as reductions in course failures and dropout.
schooling (see Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997, Ou & Reynolds, 2008). Moreover, Our direct intervention work with students at high risk for dropping out revealed
certain characteristics or risks increase the likelihood of failing to complete school; the importance of the social context and more cognitive aspects of learning (e.g.,
these risks are usefully distinguished as demographic or functional (Christenson, relevance, self-regulation) for successfully re-engaging these students at school).
2008). Students with similar levels of demographic risk, or risk that is minimally We found, and continue to find in current efficacy studies (e.g., San Diego, U.S.),
amenable to practitioner intervention (e.g., low socioeconomic status or residing in a that student perceptions preceded changes in the academic and behavioral aspects
single-parent family), may have very different levels of functional risk (i.e., behaviors, of engagement. The Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) was created (Appleton,
perceptions, emotional experiences that are amenable to intervention). With research Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006) to systematically measure these perceptions –
supporting the marked differences in outcomes for students with similar demographic the cognitive and affective components of engagement not formally gathered within
risk but differing functional risk (e.g., Finn & Rock, 1997), we have focused on aspects early Check & Connect implementations. Cognitive engagement was assessed using
of functional risk as key targets for intervention. items to measure aspects such as the perceived: current and future relevance of
school and learning, strategies for addressing challenges faced, future plans, and the
1.1.1 Check & Connect ability to control one’s school experiences. Affective engagement items focused more
upon the student’s perceived connection with school via the peers and adults there
as well as their perceptions of family support while they undertook the tasks required
Check & Connect is a model of intervention designed to enhance student
to learn. The items selected and the conceptualization of cognitive and affective
engagement at school and with learning (http://checkandconnect.umn.edu/). The
engagement is consistent with Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson’s (2003, p.
model is rooted in dropout theory (e.g., Finn’s 1989 Participation-Identification Model)
30) differentiation of indicators from facilitators of engagement:
and the idea of regular monitoring of alterable variables associated with important
school outcomes (e.g., homework completion, school behavior, attendance) within Another level of differentiation, however, serves to bridge the gap
a long-term mentor-mentee relationship. The approach involves frequent checks between research and practice.
of indicators of the alterable variables to guide the timely delivery of interventions This distinction is between indicators of engagement and facilitators
designed to keep the student connected to school, learning, and strengthen his/ of engagement found within the large set of alterable predictors of
her social and academic competencies (see Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Also school completion. Indicators convey a student’s degree or level of
comprising the Check & Connect conceptualization are the theoretical perspectives of connection with school and learning, such as attendance patterns,
accrual of credits, problem behavior.
25
Facilitators of engagement are those contextual factors that influence intervention experience and desire to utilize existing data when possible and remove
strength of the connection, such as school discipline practices, students from instructional time as infrequently as possible. We use academic
parental supervision of homework completion, and peer attitudes and behavioral indicators of engagement from existing school data sources with
toward academic accomplishment [emphasis added]. academic indicators composed of data such as completion and success on course
assignments, weekly increments of accruing semester course grades, and the
In sum, the practical differentiation between student perceptions and the influences accrual of credits toward graduation and behavioral indicators comprised of period
upon those perceptions is a useful applied consideration. and day attendance, extracurricular involvement (see Finn, 1993), and disciplinary
infraction indices including frequency, average severity, and maximum severity. Our
2. Objectives experiences with these data suggest that technological limitations continue to be
removed and the granularity of these indicators largely depends on school data
systems and information delivery technology. For instance, ten years ago academic
Accompanying the broad appeal of the engagement construct are the challenges
and behavioral indicators were gathered once a week, on paper, and provided by the
of integrating research examining engagement at different levels of analysis (see
school data clerk upon request. Currently, districts update many of these elements
Skinner & Pitzer, 2012) in order to draw meaningful conclusions that both advance
much more frequently, even daily, facilitating regular monitoring and quick response
understanding of the collective research base and promote successful practice to
from educators following signs of disengagement. In the next few years we anticipate
improve student engagement in schools. We contend that engagement researchers
also having very frequently updated data on student interactions with digital content,
approach the construct with varying temporal perspectives seemingly as a function of
peers, and teachers. The resulting data from content interactions will be numerous
their disciplinary origins. Within the timeframe of analysis (e.g., a student’s interaction
and very formative to the point of being captured almost by second as students rewind
with a specific learning activity, a child’s repeated learning experiences within a
and respond to video-based materials. Communications among students and with
classroom, or a student’s experiences to date with a particular school), the relevant
staff will accrue frequently as routine instruction and interactions take place across
facilitators, indicators, and anticipated outcomes of engagement may differ. Certainly,
a digital medium where data are easily captured and stored for analysis. The result
indicators of engagement proper in one setting may be misleading in another. For
will be an opportunity to extract patterns of behavioral and affective engagement
example, a minimally engaged high school student (based upon his/her collective
well beyond the current capacity. The information gained from surveys, and that
high school experiences) could report tremendous engagement with certain class
mined from existing data sources may converge upon similar aspects of student
tasks or even one or two classes while remaining minimally engaged overall.
engagement. We see a balance between the less frequently obtained SEI results (we
typically obtain results in fall and spring and even our SEI – Brief (SEI-B) measure
2.1.1 Time span of engagement conceptualizations and utilizing has only been administered and examined across three to four week intervals) and
passive data the much more frequently obtained academic and behavioral engagement data that
do not provide student perspective information. These two data sources provide the
ability for mentors to access “high inference” engagement information – engagement
Our conceptualization of engagement is rooted in a period of time spanning primary
perspectives that are not currently available from existing data sources – while
and secondary grades with foci on proximal outcomes of annual progress toward
monitoring the dynamic nature of engagement between SEI administrations using
graduation and distal outcomes focused on graduating with academic and social-
the “low inference” academic and behavioral engagement indicators. This balance in
emotional skills sufficient for success in post-secondary education, an occupation,
engagement data sources supports formative decision-making for educators while
and a role as a productive citizen. Our conceptualization is also undergirded by our
minimally disrupting student time spent learning.
26
Sandra L. Christenson
James J. Appleton, Amy L. Reschly,
3. Methodology and results
Ireland, the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Sweden.

3.1 Latent variable structure and reliability
reliability of the SEI across U.S. and international samples.
3.1.1 Invariance: U.S. and international samples

accuracy of indicators of academic and behavioral engagement.
are anticipated from additional U.S. sites as well as Canada, China, Croatia, India,
Several sites collected SEI data within the United States (U.S.) as did sites
This section provides empirical results from analyses of the factor structure and
between the SEI and valued outcomes of interest, and estimates of the diagnostic
We provide results from research involving the SEI across several samples,
on the latent structure of the SEI, the consistency of the measure, the relationship
indicators of engagement and their long-term correlates. Our results include evidence
methodologies, and outcomes of interest along with academic and behavioral
internationally. Table 1 represents a portion of the SEI data analyzed to date. Results
Table 1 — SEI Samples and Fit Statistics
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS CFA FIT STATISTICS

(A) N = 418 (SC - U.S.)
N = 1,998 (MN - U.S.) 1) Configural 1) X2 = 6,081.53, df = 3,346, p < .001; BIC = 131,670; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.05
6th - 12th grade students 2) Metric 2) X2 = 6,419.69, df = 3,520, p < .001; BIC = 130,670; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.05
> 300 students / grade 3) Equal Residuals 3) X2 = 6,906.03, df = 3,718, p < .001; BIC = 129,633; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.05
50.5% female 4) Equal Covariances 4) X2 = 7,026.03, df = 3,778, p < .001; BIC = 129,291; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.05
86% White, < 2% English Learners
(B) N = 44,078 - Southeastern
N = 880 for each 1) X2 = 2,332.46, df = 485; CFI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.52; RMSEA = 0.067
U.S.
group: 2) X2 = 2,466.93, df = 485; CFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.53; RMSEA = 0.069
6th - 9th grade students
1) Special Ed. 3) X2 = 2,762.31, df = 485; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.64; RMSEA = 0.075
49.4% female
2) EBD/SLD 4) X2 = 2,852.77, df = 485; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.65; RMSEA = 0.076
34.9% White, 27.1% Black,
3) Low Achievement 5) X2 = 2,632.63, df = 485; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.64; RMSEA = 0.075
22.8% Hispanic, 10.6% Asian,
4) Office Referrals 6) X2 = 3,131.02, df = 485; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.60; RMSEA = 0.078
4.6% Other
5) Dropout/Alt. School 7) X2 = 2,647.34, df = 485; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.59; RMSEA = 0.072
11.7% SPED services
6) English Learner
42.4% eligible for free/reduced
7) Free Lunch
price lunch
(C) N = 2,495 - Finland
12-17 years of age 1) First order 1) X2 = 1,669.81, df = 391; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.05
52.3% female 2) Second order 2) X2 = 1,971.59, df = 395; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05
Regular education school
(D) N = 1,528 - Portugal
12-21 years of age
1) First order 1) X2 = 1,271.25, df = 356; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.04
51.8% female
2) Second order 2) X2 = 1,555.33, df = 364; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.04
77.9% Regular education school
22.1% vocational school
27
29
3.2 SEI Relationships to attendance, behavior, and achievement
Virtanen, Moreira, Dias, Oliveira, &

Virtanen, Moreira, Dias, Oliveira, &
An additional set of samples (Appleton, Reschly, & Martin., 2013b), from those
Lovelace et al., 2013a

in Table 1, consisted of sixth through twelfth grade students enrolled in a large,
urban fringe school district in the Southeastern U.S. Data were available for students
factor structure across grades and Betts et al., 2010
Kuorelahti, 2013
Kuorelahti, 2013
who completed both fall and spring administrations of the SEI for the academic
years of 2007-08 (37,880), 2008-09 (37,485), and 2009-10 (40,277). These data
CITATION
represented 48%, 47%, and 49% of the spring full-time equivalent (FTE) counts of
Table 2 — SEI Samples (continued), Reliability Estimates, and Conclusions
Evidence for the fit of the specified students in grades 6-12 for this district for the academic years of 2007-08, 2008-09,
General evidence of cross-cultural

General evidence of cross-cultural
subgroups of interest particularly
and 2009-10, respectively. These rates were representative given the mobility rate of
Evidence of invariance of the SEI
SEI factor structure to numerous
stability of SEI factor structure*

stability of SEI factor structure*
engagement may be especially
in terms of those for whom the district. SEI scores were categorized by school level (i.e., middle school: grades
6-8 and high school: grades 9-12) into those in the top 10%, those in the middle 80%,
and those in the lowest 10%. Relationships were examined between SEI scores in
these categories and attendance, behaviors, and academic achievement. The results
CONCLUSIONS
are described by level.

important
gender
3.2.1 Middle school
For middle school (grades six through eight), a consistent relationship was found
between SEI-measured engagement and the outcomes of attendance, behavior,
and achievement. The least engaged students, as measured by the SEI, accrued
Coefficient Alpha:
Coefficient Alpha:
Coefficient Alpha:
significantly more negative outcomes, i.e., percent of enrolled days absent (2007-08:
RELIABILITY
0.69 - 0.89
0.78 - 0.92
0.70 - 0.80
0.75 - 0.87
F(2, 21617) = 53.19, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2, 22240) = 36.35, p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 22229) =
Raykov:
27.54, p<.001), behavioral incidents (07-08: F(2, 21617) = 137.58, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2,
0.59,
22240)
= 118.54, p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 22229) = 143.03, p<.001), and suspension days
(B) N = 44,078 - Southeastern U.S.
86% White, < 2% English Learners
per semester (07-08: F(2, 21617) = 198.15, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2, 22240) = 110.97, p<.001;
77.9% Regular education school
42.4% eligible for free/reduced
22.8% Hispanic, 10.6% Asian,
2009-10: F(2, 22229) = 110.11, p<.001),and had significantly lower mean scores on
34.9% White, 27.1% Black,
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Regular education school
standardized achievement tests (2007-08: F(2, 21293) = 239.92, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2,
22.1% vocational school
(D) N = 1,528 - Portugal

> 300 students / grade
(C) N = 2,495 - Finland

(A) N = 418 (SC - U.S.)
N = 1,998 (MN - U.S.)
11.7% SPED services
21918)
= 146.02, p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 21952) = 158.14, p<.001). This pattern persisted
12-21 years of age
12-17 years of age
across all academic years. Differences between each respective SEI group across
52.3% female
49.4% female
50.5% female
51.8% female
all outcome variables examined were each statistically significant at p < .05 or less
4.6% Other
after adjusting the density values to a family-wise type I error rate of .05. Given the
lunch
large number of degrees of freedom for these statistical tests, the meaningfulness
31
of differences is also important. The differences between the least and most of students achieving a “passing” score). Again, the least engaged students accrued
engaged students were related to percent-of-enrolled-days-absent differences from significantly more negative outcomes, i.e., percent of enrolled days absent (2007-
.007 to .009. For a full academic year, these differences would equate to a range of 08: F(2, 16358) = 68.48, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2, 15233) = 65.39, p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 17971)
.007*180=1.3 days to .009*180=1.6 days. In terms of disciplinary differences, the = 74.55, p<.001), behavioral incidents (2007-08: F(2, 16358) = 37.82, p<.001; 2008-
number of incidents per semester ranged from .34 to .39 or almost an incident per 09: F(2, 15233) = 53.20, p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 17971) = 97.68, p<.001), and suspension
academic year. Likewise, suspension days ranged from .57 to .75 or between one days per semester (2007-08: F(2, 16358) = 114.98, p<.001; 2008-09: F(2, 15233) = 62.81,
and one and a half days per year between the least and most engaged students. p<.001; 2009-10: F(2, 17971) = 81.05, p<.001),and tended to have significantly lower
Standardized score differences between the lowest to highest engaged groups mean scores on standardized achievement tests (2007-08: F(2, 3762) = 9.36, p<.001;
ranged from .40 to .54 across the three academic years. With test standard deviations 2008-09: F(2, 3476) = .401, p=.670(ns); 2009-10: F(2, 3878) = 5.18, p<.01).
across subjects and grades 6-8 ranging from 21.2 to 49.6 scale score points, these Attendance and behavioral differences between each SEI group mentioned above
differences could be as small as .4*21.2 = 8.5 or as large as .54*49.6 = 26. 8 (Highest 10%, Middle 80%, Lowest 10%) were statistically significant at a Bonferonni-
scale score points. Considering that the scale score range between “meeting” and corrected p < .05. In terms of state test performance, the most engaged students
“exceeding expectations” on these tests is composed of 50 scale score points these performed at significantly higher levels than both the moderately and least engaged
differences represent from 17% to 54% of that range. students in both 2007-08 and 2009-10 with no differences found in 2008-09.
Further analyses involved the use of state-provided means and standard deviations Substantively, the percent-of-enrolled-days-absent differences between the least and
for the state’s Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) (i.e., each grade level most engaged students were consistent across years at .016 or the full academic
and subject area is scaled differently) to standardize test results. Achievement was year equivalent of .016*180 = 2.9 days. Across academic years, the engagement-
then aggregated to a school average and correlated with school-level cognitive and group differences in the number of incidents per semester ranged from .25 to .52
affective engagement as reported on the SEI. Correlations across the 2007-08, or a half to full incident per academic year. Suspension days ranged from .43 to
2008-09, and 2009-10 years of data were significant (p<.001) with school mean .52 per semester or approximately one day per academic year. In general, the high
SEI scores explaining 69 – 78% of the variance. Examinations of scatterplots of the school findings maintained the pattern across academic years found within the
results combined across grade levels and by grade level suggested the large percent middle school results. Across subjects of English language arts, mathematics, and
of variance explained was not simply an artifact of the groupings of points within the science, standardized test result differences between the most and least engaged
data. These correlational findings were notable both for the strength of relationship ranged from .23 to .34. With test standard deviations ranging from 26.3 to 33.5
and the persistence of this relationship across the three academic years of data scale score points, these engagement group differences could vary from as small as
evaluated. .23*26.3 = 6.0 to .34*33.5 = 11.4 scale score points. These scale score differences
by engagement group are smaller than those for the middle school students as is
their variation.
3.2.2 High school
3.3 SEI Relationships to on-time graduation

In terms of high school findings, the disciplinary incident differences were more
pronounced and suspension day differences similar to middle school findings. The
achievement differences were generally smaller, perhaps due to the assessment Using sample B in Table 1, Lovelace and colleagues (2013) found sizeable
used and its main purpose of determining student acquisition of the minimal differences in high school graduation rates based upon student responses four years
knowledge required for graduation (also evidenced by the extremely high numbers earlier in ninth grade. There was a consistent pattern that graduation rates increased
33
as students moved from tending to respond “Strongly Disagree” (SD) to “Disagree” 3.5 Diagnostic accuracy and web-accessible engagement reports
(D) to “Agree” (A) to “Strongly Agree” (SA) on the SEI. When response counts were too
small to compute an average in the SD category, SD and D were combined. With a
Work with early warning systems (EWSs) converges well with engagement theory
district graduation rate of 68%, the five factors of the SEI had graduation rates ordered
and represents the harnessing of technological tools to provide frequent updates of
from SD to SA as follows. Affective Engagement: Teacher-Student Relationships (TSR)
dynamic data indicating student levels of engagement with school. EWS are considered
51%, 59%, 70%, 75%; Peer Support at School (PSS) 56%, 67%, 72%; Family Support
a best practice diagnostic aspect for intervening with students who are disengaging
for Learning (FSL) 52%, 63%, 72%; Cognitive Engagement: Future Aspirations and
from school and at-risk of dropping out (see Dynarski et al., 2008). Toward this end,
Goals (FG) 40%, 58%, 72%; Control and Relevance of School Work (CRSW) 50%,
with a sample of roughly 40,000 students at each grade level across three cohorts of
63%, 69%, 68%. In sum, 9th grade reported engagement four years prior was highly
students we find the following. In terms of positive predictive power, anywhere from
predictive of high school graduation.
64 to 82% of students in grades 3-10 with a percent of enrolled days absent value of
A separate sample of 10,067 first-time ninth graders consisted of 10% Asian, 27%
10% or higher failed to graduate with their cohort. Of students who failed a semester
Black, 22% Hispanic, and 36% White students as well as 41% of students eligible for
or more of a core course in 9th grade or did not advance to 10th grade with their cohort,
free or reduced priced lunch and 15% with limited English proficiency. Lovelace et al.
82% failed to graduate on time and 79% failed to graduate even after five years
(2013b) used multi-level survival analysis to examine the influence of the most highly
(rather than the four years used for a typical progression to graduation). Also, of these
related cognitive and affective engagement factors, FG and FSL, respectively, upon
nearly 40,000 students, for those not graduating on time, the yield, or proportion
dropping out of school. Results indicated that FG was a significant predictor (odds
of students not graduating on time found by this indicator, was almost 70%. These
ratio = 0.54, p < .01) beyond demographic and achievement indicators. FSL was
results are consistent with the results of the developers of this “On-Track” indicator
significantly predictive (odds ratio = 0.48, p < .01).
(see Allensworth & Easton, 2005). Our work with school district staff, university
researchers, and IBM consultants enabled the development of an EWS that paired
3.4 SEI Relationships to post-secondary education (PSE) enrollment daily updated indicators of academic and behavioral engagement with quick retrieval
of student perception data as gathered by the SEI. In the (A)ttendance, (B)ehavior,
and (C)ourse performance – ABCs Report, staff access portal-based information on
Using the sample of students completing the SEI from 2007-08 through 2010-11,
academic and behavioral engagement data as a year-to-date category (“At ABC Risk”,
Appleton et al. (2013) examined PSE enrollment rates in 2011-12. Although all factors
“Bubble”, and “No ABC Risk”) as well as a two-year historical heat map (see Figure
tended to produce rates increasing from the response options of SD, D, Neither Agree
1). “At ABC Risk” indicates a student has one or more attendance, behavioral, or
Nor Disagree (N), A, SA, the strongest relationship was found within the Cognitive
course performance risk(s). “Bubble” indicates a student is not currently beyond the
Engagement factor of FG. Only 15% of student who tended to respond SD across their
threshold predictive of not graduating with their cohort, but is close enough to warrant
high school years enrolled in PSE in the year following their fourth year of high school
concern and preventative efforts. Links within the system enable quick access of
(the enrollment period for typically advancing students). In contrast, 20% of students
SEI-based engagement perception data expressed both as an overall category (see
who tended to respond D and around 28% of students tending to respond N enrolled
Lowest 10%, Middle 80%, and Highest 10% research above) – not shown in figure -
in PSE. Students who tended to respond A or SA enrolled in PSE at rates of around
and as school level (middle or high school) district percentiles for each affective and
52% and 64%, respectively.
cognitive engagement factor (see Figure 2). The green and red lines mark the 75th
and 25th percentiles, respectively.
35
best indicators of student engagement. We suggest the evidence supports the use of
existing data to evaluate academic and behavioural engagement and the inclusion of
student perceptions to assess cognitive and affective engagement.
Important areas for future research include further examination of engagement
trajectories and, with almost seven years of engagement data, we plan to utilize
growth mixture models to do so. Janosz and colleagues (2008) provide a useful
methodological heuristic for undertaking these types of analyses. Moving beyond linear
models and even linear models with nonlinear terms (e.g., quadratic components) will
be an important next phase of engagement research. Processing power is sufficient to
support such examinations with computationally intensive methods even on smaller
types of machines such as laptop computers. It is possible, if not expected, that
relationships between engagement and outcomes deviate from linearity as those with
Figura 1 – Example Academic and Behavioral Engagement EWS Reports minimal amounts may benefit substantially more from improved engagement than
those with moderate to high amounts of engagement. We also propose improvements
Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) - District-Referenced Student Percentile
in scale metrics to move beyond ordinal levels of measurement to Item-Response
Teacher - Student Relationships Control/Relevence of Schoolwork Peer Support at School
84
methodologies that support interval level scaling (see Betts, 2012).
70
59
48
31 31 33 33
16 19 19
11 8
2 3
4.1 Reflections with colleagues
2007-F 2008-S 2008-F 2009-S 2009-F 2007-F 2008-S 2008-F 2009-S 2009-F 2007-F 2008-S 2008-F 2009-S 2009-F
Future Aspirations/Goals Family Support for Learning

86
One mark of a successful gathering of research colleagues is the extent to which
53 55 55
32 32
22
29 29 24 the sharing of results and ensuing discussions prompts richer conceptualizations and
plans for future research. In each of these areas we consider the Congress a success.
2007-F 2008-S 2008-F 2009-S 2009-F 2007-F 2008-S 2008-F 2009-S 2009-F
Discussions with colleagues prompted rich discussion on whether it is reasonable to

Figura 2 – Portal-based SEI Factor Reports
assume a single set of items would similarly measure engagement across cultures
and what such an outcome might represent. For instance, would collectivist and
4. Conclusions individualistic cultural perspectives engender similar styles of engagement not to
mention support similar queries/items for accurately extracting levels of engagement
from students. Likewise, cross culturally, what would be an indication of differential
The time range for viewing student engagement affects categorizations of
item functioning (DIF) versus an indication that different items are better-suited at
facilitators, processes, and outcomes. Further, some categorizations are meaningful
extracting a similar aspect of engagement across cultures? Future work in this area
while others appear to be artifacts of measurement limitations. We contend that
seems useful. An additional topic of discussion centered around more frequently
technological and behavioural changes increasing both the frequency of student
obtained data from technologically advanced learning management systems that
interactions with instructional content, peers, and school staff as well as the capacity
monitor student interactions with digital content. Conversation ensued on the
to more efficiently capture and analyse these data call for efforts to reassess the
distinction between useful monitoring for purposes of more timely intervention and
37
intrusive integration of data that may even contribute to student disengagement. We Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout
believe these technologies represent another beneficial are of future inquiry. Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
In sum, we wish to express gratitude to our esteemed colleagues for their many
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
contributions not only to the Congress but also to our understanding of student
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
engagement.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington D.C.: National Center
* These perspectives and research were presented at the Congress by the first author but represent for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
the collective conceptualizations and ongoing work of all three authors - as noted when the presenta-
tion was made.
Finn, J. D. & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234.
Janosz, M., Archambault, I, Marizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2008). School engagement trajectories
References and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 21-40.
Lovelace, M.D., Reschly, A.L., Appleton, J.J., & Lutz, M. (2013) Concurrent and predictive
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Horsey, C.S. (1997). From first grade forward: Early
validity of the Student Engagement Instrument. Manuscript under review.
foundations of high school dropouts. Sociology of Education, 70, 87-107.
Lovelace, M.D., Reschly, A.L., & Appleton, J.J. (2013b). Longitudinal characteristics and
Allensworth, E. & Easton, J. (2005) The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school
incremental validity of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI). Manuscript in
graduation. Consortium on Chicago School Research: University of Chicago.
preparation.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Ou, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (2008). Predictors of educational attainment in the Chicago
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools,
educational study. School Psych.logy Quarterly, 23 (2), 199-229. doi: 10.1037/1045-
45, 369-386.
3830.23.2.199.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
Reschly, A.L. & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
and future directions of the engagement construct. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, &
School Psychology, 44, 427-445.
C. Wylie (Eds). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. (pp. 3-19). New York:
Appleton, J.J., Reschly, A. L., & Martin, C. (2013a). Research to practice: Measurement and Springer.
reporting of student engagement data in applied settings. Manuscript under review.
Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., Lehr, C.A., & Anderson, A.R. (2003). Facilitating student
Appleton, J.J., Reschly, A.L., & Martin, C. (2013b). Student engagement: Pathways to post- engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California
secondary success. Manuscript in preparation. School Psychologist, 8, 29-42.
Betts, J. (2012). Issues and methods in the measurement of student engagement: Advancing Skinner, E. A. & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,
the construct through statistical modeling. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie and everyday resilience. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds). Handbook of
(Eds). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. (pp. 783-803). New York: Springer. Research on Student Engagement. (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.
Betts, J., Appleton, J.J., Reschly, A.L., Christenson, S.L., & Huebner, E.S. (2010). A study of Virtanen, T., Moreira, P., Dias, A., Oliveira, J.T., & Kuorelahti, M. (2013, July). Cross-cultural
the reliability and construct validity of the School Engagement Instrument across multiple validation of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): The cases of Portugal and
grades. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 84-93. Finland. Presentation at the First International Congress Student’s Engagement in School:
Perspectives of Psychology and Education: Lisbon, Portugal.
Christenson, S. L. (2008, January 22). Engaging students with school: The essential
dimension of dropout prevention programs. [Webinar]. National Dropout Prevention
Center for Students with Disabilities.
38 Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education
39
Assessing students’ engagement: A review This study aimed to review the literature on assessment of students engagement in
school through a focus on the psychometric characteristics of several instruments.
of instruments with psychometric qualities Methodology: The present paper focuses on self-report measures which are
multidimensional. These instruments were validated on heterogeneous samples.
Results: Twelve self-report measures designed to measure the students engagement
in school were referred, along with four other instruments targeting teachers’
Feliciano H. Veiga perspective as well as observational measures. Conclusions: Various measures
Institute of Education, stem from different theoretical perspectives and were developed with different types
University of Lisbon (Portugal)
of samples. Conceptual variations often expressed in the number of dimensions
fhveiga@ie.ul.pt
considered and in items content variability suggest limitations when comparing
Johnmarshall Reeve psychometric findings of different studies. Suggestions: Studies on instruments
Department of Education, we reviewed in the present paper suggest the need for further research on the
Seoul, Korea University (South Korea) multidimensionality of school engagement construct. Research should go beyond
reeve@korea.ac.kr investigation of differential and predictive validity of measures. Thus, there is little
evidence regarding the validity of engagement in school measures, when investigation
Kathryn Wentzel
of effects of specific intervention programs is aimed or validity of their use in quasi-
College of Education,
University of Maryland (USA)
experimental studies with useful applications in the field of education.
wentzel@umd.edu Keywords: Students engagement in school, self-report measures, measures based
on teacher report, observational measures
Viorel Robu
Department of Social
and Humanistic Sciences, 1. Introduction
University Petre Andrei of Iasi (Romania)
robuviorel_upa@yahoo.com
Engagement refers to the extent of a student’s active involvement in a learning
activity (Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009) or in school more generally (Appleton,
Abstract Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). It is a
multidimensional construct that consists of several distinct, yet highly intercorrelated,
aspects of task or domain involvement. According to different engagement theorists,
Framework: Students Engagement in School (SES) has been occupying a central
students’ involvement ranges from effort, persistence, and prosocial classroom
position in the discussions regarding factors of academic success and school
conduct (behavioral engagement) to high interest and enthusiasm with low anxiety and
dropout. A considerable amount of literature on this concept exists. Although its
boredom (emotional engagement) to concentration, strategic thinking, sophisticated
conceptualization varies according to authors and the theoretical framework they
learning strategies and self-regulation (cognitive engagement) to intentional acts of
have adopted, there is a wide agreement concerning its multidimensional nature. Key
agency to enrich one’s experience with the learning activity, subject matter, or school
dimensions of students engagement in school (i.e., cognitive, affective, behavioral
experience (agentic engagement). Given its multidimensional character, careful
and, more recently, agentic) have been described and empirically validated. Purpose:
attention needs to be paid to its assessment.
Feliciano H. Veiga, Johnmarshall Reeve, Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação /
40 Kathryn Wentzel e Viorel Robu Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education
41
The assessment of students’ engagement is characterized by both its importance Questionnaire (SCEQ; Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005) is a 23-item
and its variability. Assessing engagement is important because the extent and quality questionnaire with four scales, two of which assess engagement indicators, including
of students’ engagement is a strong predictor of students’ learning, achievement, participation and emotionality, and two of which assess engagement outcomes,
and academic progress (Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012; Ladd & Dinella, 2009). Assessing including skills and performance. Moreover, some inconsistencies have emerged
engagement is characterized by variability because several instruments fall under a in the conceptualization of engagement indicators. For example, “participation” has
variety of perspectives and serve a diversity of purposes (Lam et al., in press; Skinner, been conceptualized by different theorists as an indicator of the cognitive dimension,
Kindermann, & Furrer, 2008; Wang, Willet, & Eccles, 2011). Some educators and the behavioral dimension, and the agentic dimension (Fredricks et al., 2011; Reeve,
engagement theorists assess only a single aspect of engagement while others utilize 2013).
a two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or four-dimensional assessment strategy. The When selecting a measure of SES, two items are of particular importance. First,
validation studies samples consist of students from elementary school to college one needs to select from a range of possible engagement indicators. Some educators
and university population. Some countries (e.g., USA, UK) have adopted large-scale emphasize only a single engagement indicator, though most educators conceptualize
surveys, such as the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) which is student engagement by using either three or four indicators. Most contemporary
administered every year to middle and high school students, the National Survey engagement theorists highlight behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and
of Student Engagement (NSSE) or the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and cognitive engagement as central engagement indicators (Christenson, Reschly, &
Youth (NLSCY) which was initiated in 1994-1995 and collects information about the Wylie, 2012; Fredricks et al, 2004), though others add agentic engagement (Reeve,
way children develop every two years (Norris, Pignal, & Lipps, 2003). However, it has 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011) or academic engagement (Reschly & Christenson, 2006)
been suggested that these large-scale surveys present little evidence of their validity as a fourth important engagement indicator. Second, it is important to undertake
(NSSE, in particular), partly due to the difficulty in collecting external (criteria-related) a careful evaluation of the psychometric characteristics of any engagement
data (Fredricks et al., 2011). questionnaire, particularly its reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability
One necessity in clarifying and in advancing the assessment of students’ and inter-rater reliability) and validity (content, construct, factorial, and criterion-
engagement is to distinguish indicators of students’ engagement from its causal related validity). A major difficulty in the study of students’ engagement concerns the
factors and facilitating conditions (e.g., engagement-fostering aspects of the classroom lack of multidimensional measurement instruments possessing good psychometric
environment, students’ motivation) and from engagement-related outcomes such as properties (Lam et al., in press; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2008; Wang, Willet,
learning, achievement, and class-specific grades (Lam et al., in press; Tinio, 2009). & Eccles, 2011).
As one example, the 35-item Student Engagement Instrument (Appleton, The current paper reviews several widely-used engagement instruments,
Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006) was designed more to capture factors that affect including questionnaires that assess only a single engagement indicator but also
engagement rather than indicators of engagement per se. Its scales assess, for questionnaires that assess multiple engagement indicators (i.e., two, three, or four
instance, the quality of the teacher-student relationship (e.g., “Overall, adults at my engagement indicators). In reviewing these many questionnaires, our focus is on the
school treat students fairly.”), students’ perceived control and school work relevance psychometric characteristics of multidimensional measures that have been validated
(e.g., “The tests in my classes do a good job of measuring what I’m able to do.”), using heterogeneous validation samples.
peer support to learning (e.g., “Other students at school care about me.”), students’
aspirations and future goals (e.g., “I plan to continue my education following high
school.”), and family support to learning (e.g., “My family/guardians are there for me
when I need them.”). Other scales assess both indicators of engagement as well as
engagement-caused outcomes. For instance, the College Student Course Engagement
43
2. Instruments for assessment of engagement in school I can’t solve right away, I usually figure it out in the end.”). The BEQ
uses a 4-point response scale (1 = not at all true; 4 = very true),
and each scale has shown acceptable internal consistency. The
The assessment of students’ engagement in both short-term learning activities
scales are based on factor analyses and have been shown to predict
and in long-term schooling has been mostly based on the administration of self-
important school outcomes such as class grades (Miserandino,
report questionnaires for students. Researchers further assess student engagement
1996).
by asking for teachers’ ratings of students’ engagement and by asking trained raters
Cognitive Strategies is a subscale of the larger Approaches to
to observe and objectively score students’ engagement during classroom visits.
Learning Instrument (Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004).
The Cognitive Strategies subscale is a 12-item instrument to assess
2.1. Students’ Self-report Measures students’ study strategies (e.g., “I try to plan an approach in my
mind before I actually start homework or studying.”). The cognitive
engagement scale uses a 4-point Likert response scale and is
Measures Assessing One Engagement Indicator
generally used with secondary school students. The scale has been
A. Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ; Kember & Leung, show to produce high internal consistency (.88), to be sensitive
2009). The SEQ assesses the behavioral dimension of classroom to engagement predictors such as teacher support and students’
engagement. It does so with 17 separate scales, and includes items motivation (e.g., self-efficacy), and to predict engagement outcomes
such as “How often does your mind wander in each of these classes?” such as class-specific grade (Greene et al., 2004).
The SEQ was designed to measure behavioral engagement among D. Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire (Wolters, 2004). Wolters’
university students. It uses a response scale from 1 to 6. The 17 developed a 17-item instrument to assess two aspects of cognitive
scale have been shown to be reliable (range of internal consistency: engagement. The first aspect is an 8-item Cognitive Strategies scale
.74-.86), and Kember and Leung (2009) provide some evidence for (e.g., “When I study for math, I try to connect what I am learning with
construct and criterion-related validity. my own experiences.”), while the second is a 9-item Metacognitive
B. Behavioral Engagement Questionnaire (BEQ; Miserandino, Strategies scale (e.g., “Before starting a math assignment, I try to
1996). Miserandino’s BEQ, which is based on Wellborn’s (1991) figure out the best way to do it.”). The scales use a 7-point response
items and conceptualization of behavioral engagement, is a 32-item scale and were designed for secondary students and college students.
instrument that is typically used with elementary grade students, The two scales show acceptable levels of internal consistency, are
though it has also been used with middle school and high school sensitive to predictors of engagement (e.g., students’ self-efficacy),
students (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009). It assesses 7 aspects and predict class-specific grades (Wolters, 2004).
of behavioral engagement: “involved” (e.g., “I listen carefully in E. Student Perceptions of Classroom Knowledge-Building Scale
class.”); “persisting” (e.g., “If a problem is really hard, I keep working (SPOCK; Shell & Husman, 2008). The SPOCK is an 8-item measure
at it.”); “avoiding” (e.g., “When I have a hard problem on a test, I skip of students’ academic self-regulatory processes to assess extent of
it.”); “ignoring” (e.g., “I never seem to pay attention when we start cognitive engagement. It includes items to assess planning (e.g., “In
a new subject.”); “helpless” (e.g., “When I can’t solve a problem this class, I make plans for how I will study.”), goal setting (e.g., “In
right away, I just give up”); “participating” (e.g., “I participate in class this class, I set goals for myself.”), monitoring (e.g., “In this class, I try
discussions.”); and “concentrating” (e.g., “When I come to a problem to monitor my progress when I study.”), and self-evaluation (e.g., “In
45
this class, I check myself to see how well I am understanding what I students) and these studies reported strong predictive validity of
am studying.”). The scale uses a 5-point response scale (1 = almost student achievement as well as clear disriminant validity to separate
never; 5 = almost always), was designed for college students, has agentic engagement from the three other aspects of engagement
shown acceptable internal consistency, is sensitive to engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive).
facilitators such as students’ motivation (e.g., self-efficacy), and
predicts engagement outcomes such as knowledge building, asking Measures Assessing Two Engagement Indicators
questions in class, and study time (Shell & Husman, 2008).

A. Engagement vs. Disaffection with Learning (EDL; Skinner, Furrer,
F. Cognitive Engagement scales from the Motivated Strategies for
Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). The EDL is a 20-item instrument
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,
that measures both behavioral engagement and emotional
1991). To assess cognitive engagement, the MSLQ offers the follow
engagement. The instrument assesses not only the presence of
four scales: Elaboration (6-items; “I try to relate the ideas in this
engaged learning (behavioral and emotional engagement) but also
subject to those in other courses whenever possible.”); organization
its absence (behavioral and emotional disaffection). Sample items
(4-items; “When I study for this course, I go through the readings and
from the four 5-tem scales include the following: “In class, I work as
my class notes and try to find the most important ideas.”); critical
hard as I can.” (behavioral engagement); “In class, I do just enough
thinking (5-items; “I treat the course material as a starting point
to get by.” (behavioral disaffection); “When I’m in class, I feel good.”
and try to develop my own ideas about it.”); and rehearsal (4-items;
(emotional engagement); and “When I’m doing work in this class, I
“When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself
feel bored.” (emotional disaffection). The EDL typically uses a 4-point
over and over.”). The very widely-used scale uses a 7-point response
response scale and has been used successfully with samples ranging
scale (1 = not at all true of me; 5 = very true of me), was designed
from late elementary school through college students. Scores on
for secondary and college students, has shown acceptable internal
all four scales show acceptable levels of internal consistency are
consistency, has shown acceptable factorial validity, and has shown
responsive to social-contextual engagement predictors, predict
predictive validity by predicting class grades (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,
important outcomes such as achievement, and correlate with
& McKeachie, 1993).
teachers’ ratings of students’ self-reported engagement (Skinner &
G. Agentic Engagement Scale (AES; Reeve, 2013). The AES is a
Belmont, 1993; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008).
5-item instrument designed to assess agentic engagement. Its five
items include the following: “I let my teacher know what I need and Measures Assessing Three Engagement Indicators
want; I let my teacher know what I am interested in; During this class,
I express my preferences and opinions; During class, I ask questions B. Academic Engagement Scale for Grade School Students (AES-GS;
to help me learn; and When I need something in this class, I’ll ask Tinio, 2009). The AES-GS Is a 34-item instrument that features the
the teacher for it.” The scale has been used with elementary and three scales of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. It
secondary school students as well as with university students. The was initially validated on a sample of compulsory and secondary school
AES uses a 7-point response scale that ranges from 1 (strongly students. The reliability is high (values of Cronbach’s α coefficient
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reeve (2013) and Reeve and Lee around 0.89). A confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-latent
(2013) reported high levels of internal consistency, with a range of factors structure, and evidence of convergent validity is reported.
alphas from 0.81 (for middle school students) to 0.86 (for university
47
C. High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE; Center for life.” (cognitive dimension); “In the mathematics class, I find the
Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University; Balfanz, 2009). mathematics knowledge interesting and mathematics learning
The HSSSE is a 121-item instrument that features three dimensions enjoyable” (affective dimension); “I listen to the teacher’s instruction
of cognitive engagement (65 items), behavioral engagement (17 attentively.” (behavioral dimension). For facets, the values of internal
items), and emotional engagement (39 items). It was designed for consistency ranged from .79 to .90.
use with compulsory and secondary school students. This widely F. School Engagement Measure (SEM; Wang, Willet, & Eccles,
used inventory lacks information on its reliability and validity, but 2011). This instrument comprises 23 items that measure behavioral
more information about the instrument can be found at the following (e.g., “How often do you have trouble paying attention in classes?”),
website: www.indiana.edu/~ceep/hssse/. emotional (e.g., “I feel happy and safe in this school.”) and cognitive
D. Student Engagement in School Scale (SESS; Lam et al., in press). engagement (e.g., “How often do you try to figure out problems and
This new measure of student engagement has been developed by planning how to solve them?”). The SEM uses a five-point Likert-
a team of researchers from 12 countries, in order to capture the type scale. Each of the dimensions includes two facets, as follows:
cognitive (12 items, for example: “When I study, I try to understand behavioral engagement – attention (α = .70) and conformity with
the material better by relating it to things I already know.”), affective school (α = .78), emotional engagement – belonging to school (α =
(9 items, for example: “I am very interested in learning.”) and .75) and valorization of schooling (α = .72), cognitive engagement
behavioral (12 items, for example: “I try hard to do well in school.”) – self-regulated learning (α = .78) and use of cognitive strategies (α
dimensions of engagement in school among 5th to 12th grade = .77).
students. It includes 33 items in which students are ask to indicate G. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S; Schaufeli
their agreement on a five-point scale, with 1 for strongly disagree et al., 2002). The UWES-S is a 9-item instrument that features scales
and 5 for strongly agree. Lam et al. (in press) employed a sample to assess vigor (3 items), dedication (3 items), and absorbtion (3
of 3420 students to report good reliability (internal consistency items). Vigor is said to assess the behavioral aspect of engagement
and test-retest correlation), along with a three dimensional factor (e.g., “I feel bursting with energy while studying.”), dedication is said to
structure and satisfying concurrent validity. assess the emotional aspect of engagement (e.g., “I am enthusiastic
E. Student Engagement in Mathematics Classroom Scale (SEMCS; about my studies.”), and absorption is said to assess the cognitive
Kong, Wong, & Lam, 2003). The scale design is framed within aspect of engagement (e.g., “I am immersed in my studies.”). The
problems with engagement among students which present a wide brief scale was designed to assess short-term fluctuations in student
range of motivations and more diverse interests. The scale is used day-to-day engagement, and it utilizes a 7-point response scale that
with middle school students, features 57 items, and relies on a ranges from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The scales have
Likert-type scale with five points (from 1 – total disagreement to 5 – been shown to report acceptable levels of internal consistency (.70
total agreement). Items measure three dimensions and ten narrower to .79), to show factorial validity, and to predict students’ classroom
facets of engagement in mathematics: cognitive (superficial strategy, behavior, such as learning behaviors during class (Mills, Culbertson,
deep strategy, trust); affective (interest, success orientations, & Fullagar, 2012; Salanova et al., 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
anxiety, frustration); and behavioral (attention, effort, time spent). H. Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES; Martin, 2009). This
Some examples of items are: “When I learn mathematics, I would instrument comprises 11 scales, some of which assess indicators
wonder how much the things I have learnt can be applied to real of engagement but others of which assess indicators of students’
49
motivation: self-confidence, learning focus, school valorization, factor analysis, the factor structure was replicated in another
persistence, planning, study management, disaffection, self- sample of high school students (N = 472). Starting from a cross-
sabotage, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain controlThe sectional design, Tufeanu (2013) conducted a study which aimed
engagement scales assess various aspects of behavioral at exploring the relationship between academic underachievement
(persistence), emotional (disaffection, anxiety), and cognitive and engagement in school among adolescents. Participants were
(planning, study management) engagement. Each scale includes 254 Romanian high school students in grades 9th or 10th. In order
four items (e.g., “I’ve given up being interested in school.”). Martin to explore the internal validity of Romanian version of SES-4DS, an
(2009) reported internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α coefficient) exploratory factor analysis was performed. Data revealed a four-
that ranged from .61 and .87. Empirical evidence of construct and factors structure accounting for 55.29% of the common variance in
criterion-related validity are also provided. items. In addition, underachievers (N = 49) scored significantly lower
than non-underachievers (N = 181) in the cognitive, behavioral, and
Measures Assessing Four Engagement Indicators total engagement in school. This finding may be added to the body
of yet unpublished empirical evidence regarding criterion-related
I. Student Engagement in School-Four-Dimensional Scale (SES-4DS;
(concurrent) validity of SES-4DS. A good psychometric version, with the
Veiga, 2013). This new measure consists of 20 items and uses a
items placed in semantic alternation, is on page 779 of this E-Book.
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (total disagreement) to 6 (total
agreement). Attached is the English version. The validation study In addition to the above-described measures, other instruments may be found in
sample included 685 students attending middle and high schools the work of Fredricks et al. (2011) which reviews 21 engagement measures (out of
from various regions of Portugal. The four dimensions of engagement which several have been published prior to 2003) and provides information on their
feature 5-items per scale and include items such as the following: psychometric qualities.
cognitive (e.g., “When writing my work, I begin by making a plan for
drafting the text.”), affective (e.g., “My school is a place where I feel
excluded.”), behavioral (e.g., “I am absent from school without a 2.2. Teachers’ Ratings of Student Engagement
valid reason.”) and agentic (e.g., “During classes, I put questions to
the teachers.”). For different groups of students, values of internal While self-report measures are most widely used to assess students’ engagement,
consistency ranged from .70 to .87. Evidence for factorial validity is some researchers prefer a more objective measure of students’ engagement. To
provided (Tufeanu, 2013). Evidence for convergent validity is provided collect more objective engagement measures, educators and researchers generally
in the form of significant correlations with scores on The Student ask for ratings either from teachers (this section) or trained classroom observers (next
Engagement in School Scale (SESS; Lam et al., in press). The four- section). Here, we review five teachers’ rating measures of students’ engagement.
latent factor structure was replicated in three independent samples
of Romanian high school students. Using a convenience sample of A. Rochester School Assessment Package (RSAP; Wellborn & Connell,
529 high school students in grades 9th to 12th, Robu and Sandovici 1987) has separate versions for students, parents and teachers to
(2013) reported a four-factors solution which explained 54.12 % of assess students’ behavioral and emotional engagement as well as
total variance in item scores. For the corresponding subscales, values students’ behavioral and emotional disaffection. Examples of items
of internal consistency ranged from .73 to .79. Using confirmatory to assess behavioral and emotional engagement and disaffection
51
from the teachers’ version are: “In my class, this student works as D. The Teacher-Child Relationship and Children’s Early School
hard as he/she can.” (behavioral engagement), “In my class, this Adjustment (Betts & Rotenberg, 2007) allows the evaluation of
student is enthusiastic.” (emotional engagement), “When we start perceptions that teachers have about children from 1st and 2nd
something new in class, this student thinks about other things.” grade.
(behavioral disaffection) and “When we work on something in E. The Effortful engagement scale is a 10-item teacher-report
class, this student appears to be bored.” (emotional disaffection). measure that uses 8 items from the Conscientiousness scale of
The validity of RSAP is supported by significant correlations among the Big Five Inventory and 2 items from the Social Competence
teacher ratings of students’ engagement and students’ own self- Scale. While the items were originally designed to assess students’
reported engagement ratings. consciousness and social competence, the items nevertheless
B. Teacher Ratings Scale Of School Adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997) ask explicitly about students’ attention, effort, persistence, and
provides perceptions that teachers have regarding the behavioral participation in learning activities.
and emotional engagement of their preschool and 1st year students.
The rating scale features four scales to assess students’ school Additionally to instruments based on self-reports and inferences provided by
enjoyment, school avoidance, cooperative participation and self- teachers, there are observation grids grounded in a more qualitative type of research
directing. methodology.
C. Teacher Rating Scale (Lee & Reeve, 2012) provides four single
items that ask teachers to assess students’ behavioral, emotional, 2.3. Observers’ Ratings of Students’ Engagement
cognitive, and agentic engagement using a 7-point response scale
(1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The scale uses only
The Engagement Rating Sheet was developed explicitly for trained raters to visit
one comprehensive item for each teacher rating (instead of asking
classrooms to observe students’ engagement during learning activities (Reeve, Jang,
teachers to complete the same multi-item scales the students
Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). It consists of single items to assess each of the four
completed) to avoid overburdening teachers with an unreasonably
aspects of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement. On the 5-item
long instrument. The four teacher ratings are as follows: “Behavioral
Engagement Rating Sheet), teachers use a 7-point response scale (1 = unengaged;
engagement: This student shows high on-task attention and
7 = engaged) to rate each student’s behavioral (effort), emotional (enjoyment),
concentration, high effort, high persistence, especially on difficult
cognitive (extent of learning), agentic (verbal participation), and overall (passive vs.
tasks.”; “Emotional engagement: This student shows frequent and
active) engagement. The validity of the Engagement Rating Scale is supported its
strong positive emotions (interest, joy, and curiosity) and infrequent
sensitivity to engagement facilitators, including teachers’ supportive motivating style
negative emotions (anger, boredom and discouragement).”; “Cognitive
and students’ self-reported motivation (e.g., psychological need satisfaction; Jang,
engagement: This student uses sophisticated learning strategies, is
Reeve, & Deci, 2010).
a panful and strategic learner, and monitors, checks, and evaluates
Observational measures often utilize scoring grids containing a list of various
work.”; and “Agentic engagement: This student offers suggestions,
behaviors which are conceptually linked to students’ engagement in school or
asks questions, expresses interests, preferences, and likes vs.
disaffection. Through an evaluation which may be performed at certain time intervals,
dislikes.” The validity of the Teacher Rating Scale is supported by
these grids allow the researcher or practitioners to classify the students according
each item’s significant correlation with students’ own self-reported
to the presence or absence of a specific behavior. They are mostly employed by
behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement.
53
researchers bound to qualitative methodologies. Other researchers may also use Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2008; Veiga, 2013; Wang, Willet, & Eccles, 2011).
them as a complement of self-report questionnaires, in order to compare perceptions The purpose of the present paper was not only to introduce the reader to a large
that students have about themselves with what occurs in reality. A wide range of number of widely used engagement measures but also to provide commentary on
observation-based protocols may be found in previous studies, according to the their psychometric properties.
conceptual framework that authors have adopted (Fredricks et al., 2011).
Note:
This article is a product of the project PTDC/CPE-CED/114362/2009 - Envolvimento dos Alunos na
escola: Diferenciação e Promoção/Students Engagement in School: Differentiation and Promotion,
3. Conclusions
financed by National Funding, through the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT). Correspon-
dence related to this paper should be sent to Professor Feliciano H. Veiga, Instituto de Educação, Uni-
versidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisboa. E-mail: fhveiga@ie.ul.pt
There is a real need for well-validated and reliable instruments which allow the
multidimensional measurement of students engagement in school, as well as its
prevalence and quality (Christenson et al., 2012; Fredricks et al., 2011; Fredricks & References
McColskey, 2012; Lam et al., in press; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2008; Wang,
Willet, & Eccles, 2011). Only a few psychometrically strong 3- and 4-dimensional Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools,
measures of student engagement exists, so some researchers prefer to put together
45, 369-386.
their own multidimensional measures of student engagement by selecting one
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
measure at a time (e.g., one measure for behavioral engagement, another measure
psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of
for cognitive engagement, etc.). A determinant contribution in the direction of
School Psychology, 44 (5), 427-445.
psychometrically strong multiple-dimensional measures was provided more recently
Balfanz, R. (2009). Can the American high school become an avenue of advancement for all?
by Lam et al. (in press). In an attempt to broadening the multidimensionality of
The Future of Children, 19 (1), 17-36.
engagement, some authors developed four-dimension scales which have shown to
Betts, L. R., & Rotenberg, K. J. (2007). A short form of the Teacher Rating Scale of School
be quite promising in terms of psychometric characteristics (Reeve & Tseng, 2011;
Adjustment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25 (2), 150-164.
Veiga, 2013). A variety of operational definitions support the design of the instruments
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school
we reviewed in this paper.
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 61-79.
Engagement among students is assumed as an important indicator to consider
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of research on
when dealing with issues and challenges concerning school setting and students’
student engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science.
adjustment. A considerable amount of empirical evidence suggests consistent
Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic
relationships between engagement in school and the adjustment of students to
achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 (12), 1649-
their school career (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; 1660.
Lam, Wong, Yang, & Liu, 2012; Wang & Holcombe, 2010) and in the extent to which
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
they perform well academically in terms of learning, skills, and grades (Jang, Kim, & concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59-109.
Reeve, 2012; Ladd & Dinella, 2009). There are a number of instruments designed to
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A
measure this construct in elementary, middle and high school-aged students, as well comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L.,
as in university undergraduates. However, several conceptual and methodological Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of research on student
issues raised making this topic a research field in developing (Lam et al., in press; engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY: Springer Science.
55
Fredricks, J. A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Lam, S.-f., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with
Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary Through High School: A Description a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
of 21 Instruments. (Issues & Answers Report, REL–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Research on Student Engagement (pp. 403-420). New York: Springer.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2012). Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement:
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved
Being in synch with students. Educational Psychology, 32, 727-747,
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life span: A
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high
developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/
school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom
college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (5), 794-824.
perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462-482.
Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring
Handelsman, M., Briggs, W., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student
engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Journal of Happiness
course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98 (3), 184-191.
Studies, 13, 519-545.
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful
Miserandio, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived
engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Psychology, 100, 1-14.
88, 203-214.
Jang, H., Kim, E.-J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s
Norris, C., Pignal, J., & Lipps, G. (2003). Measuring school engagement. Education Quarterly
motivation mediation model in a naturally-occurring classroom context. Journal of
Review, 9 (2), 25-34.
Educational Psychology, 104, 1175-1188.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: Its not
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 588-600. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The University of Michigan,
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain
Ann Arbor, MI.
what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistic ally-oriented
South Korean adolescents? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644-661. Printrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’
Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance.
Learning Environments Research, 12 (1), 15-29. Robu, V., & Sandovici, A. (2013). Measuring school engagement among adolescents:
Exploring psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional scale. In The Fourth National
Kong, Q., Wong, N., & Lam, C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development
Conference of Romanian School Psychologists. Book of Program and Abstracts (pp. 55-
of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15
56). Oradea: The National Association of School Psychologists.
(1), 4-21.
Reeve, J. (2014). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement:
themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105
Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of
(3), 579-595.
Educational Psychology, 101, 190-206.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement
Lam, S-F., Jimerson, J.,Wong, B., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F. H., Hatzichristo, C., Polychroni ,
by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
F., Cefai, C., Negovan, V., Stanculescu, E., Yang, H., Liu, Y., Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P.,
Nelson, B., & Zollneritsch, J. (in press). Understanding and measuring student engagement Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes
in school: The results of an International study from 12 Countries. School Psychology in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (2), 527-540.
Quarterly.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during
learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 257-267.
57
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild Wang, M. T., Willet, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement:
disabilities: A case for inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity.
Education, 27, 276-292. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (4), 465-480.
Robu, V., & Sandovici, A. (2013). Measuring school engagement among adolescents: Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and
Exploring psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional scale. In The Fourth National measurement of motivation in the academic domain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Conference of Romanian School Psychologists. Book of Program and Abstracts (pp. 55- University of Rochester.
56). Oradea: The National Association of School Psychologists.
Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Manual for the Rochester Assessment Package for
Salanova, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement Schools. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
of Happiness Studies, 7, 71-92.
orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250.
Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.
Annex
Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2008). Control, motivation, affect, and strategic self-regulation
in the college classroom: A multidimensional phenomenon. Journal of Educational Student Engagement in School - Four Dimensional Scale (SES-4DS)
Psychology, 100, 443-459.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of 01. When writing my work, I begin by making a plan for drafting the text.
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational 02. I try to connect what I learn in one discipline with what I learn in others.
Psychology, 85, 571-581. 03. I spend a lot of my free time looking for more information on topics
discussed in class.
Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection
04. When I’m reading, I try to understand the meaning of what the author
in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology,
wants to transmit.
100, 765-781.
05.I review my notes regularly, even if a test is not coming up.
Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading 06. My school is a place where I feel excluded. (R)
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 210-223. 07. My school is a place where I make friends easily.
08. My school is a place where I feel integrated.
Tinio, M. F. (2009). Academic Engagement Scale for Grade School Students. In The
Assessment Handbook (vol. 2, pp. 64-75). PEMEA. 09. My school is a place where it seems to me that others like me.
10. My school is a place where I feel alone. (R).
Tufeanu, M. (2013). The relationship between academic underachievement and engagement 11. I am absent from school without a valid reason. (R)
in school among adolescents. In I Congresso Internacional Envolvimento dos Alunos na
12. I am absent from classes while in school. (R)
Escola: Perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação. Livro de Programa e Resumos (p. 336).
13. I deliberately disturb classes. (R)
Lisboa: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa.
14. I am rude toward teachers. (R)
Veiga, F. H. (2013). Envolvimento dos alunos na escola: Elaboração de uma nova escala 15. I am distracted in the classroom. (R)
de avaliação. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 1 (1), 16. During classes, I put questions to the teachers.
441-449. 17. I talk to my teachers about my likes and dislikes.
Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, 18. I comment with my teachers, when something interests me.
engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational 19. During lessons, I intervene to express my opinions.
Research Journal, 47 (3), 633-662. 20. I make suggestions to teachers about how to improve classes.
(R) Reversed items.

58 Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education
59
O envolvimento e a inovação pedagógica: engagement / pedagogical innovation in the context of contemporary pedagogical
trends.
Um binómio de longa duração Keywords: engagement, school engagement, educational innovation, pedagogical
trend
1. Envolvimento e inovação pedagógica

Justino Magalhães
Instituto de Educação
da Universidade de Lisboa Jean-Jacques Rousseau, em Du Contrat Social (1762), fez uso do conceito
justinomagalhaes@ie.ulisboa.pt s’engager para reportar o acto de associar-se, sem opor radicalmente submissão
e contrato. Pelo contrato social, o que o homem perde de liberdade natural (e de
ilimitação no direito natural àquilo que lhe é necessário) ganha em liberdade civil e
Resumo
em protecção de propriedade. Obrigar-se é estar informado, participar, convencionar,
responsabilizar-se. Envolver-se é sair de si sem se confundir com outros. A Ilustração
O envolvimento é um conceito cuja definição se opera por aproximações sucessivas ganhou sentido formativo ao legitimar e substantivar a interacção entre o indivíduo e
ou se obtém por derivação semântica. Em sentido genérico, refere-se ao interno o colectivo. Nesse binómio, a Escola, como instância fundamental da modernização
da participação, à combinatória entre comprometimento e fruição, posto que está social, tornou possível um sujeito colectivo.
associado a acção e responsabilização. É um conceito reflexivo, que concilia interesse Com a institucionalização da escola, a tendência foi instrumentalizar a escolarização,
e obrigação. O envolvimento escolar é hoje essencialmente uma categoria psicológica. em função do nacionalismo de Estado, do regime político, da hegemonia de classe,
Mas, sendo educação, constitui um desafio interdisciplinar que deu substância e do domínio cultural. Cedo emergiram as vozes de desescolarização, como ruptura
sentido à inovação pedagógica. Neste texto, referir-me-ei ao binómio envolvimento/ contra a hegemonia do poder político, como autonomia escolar, como condição de
inovação pedagógica, no âmbito das correntes pedagógicas contemporâneas. realização do sujeito.
Palavras-chave: envolvimento, envolvimento escolar, inovação pedagógica, corrente O envolvimento escolar é hoje essencialmente uma categoria psicológica. Mas
pedagógica pedagogicamente constitui um desafio interdisciplinar. Assim, por contraponto à
escola tradicional caracterizada por pedagogias de prémio e castigo, a Escola Nova,
Abstract cujos princípios estruturantes Adolphe Ferrière sistematizou e publicou em 1915
, deu consequência à aplicação pedagógica da lei biogenética, como garantia de
1
conciliação entre interesse e esforço. Em A Educação pelo Trabalho, Celestin Freinet

Engagement is a concept whose definition operates by successive approximations
analisou um conjunto de princípios pedagógicos organizadores, designadamente o
or that is obtained by a semantic drift. In a generic sense, it refers to the internal

Idioma

Articol (Pag 143-161)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Articol (Pag 143-161)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola:

Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação /

Coleção ...................................…………….............. Encontros de Educação

Composição e arranjo gráfico ................………... Sérgio Pires

cujos textos — escritos em língua portuguesa,

of student engagement, some authors examined school performance, academic

Fisher, R. (1998). Teaching Thinking. London: Cassell.

3. Methodology and results

Ireland, the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Sweden.

reliability of the SEI across U.S. and international samples.

3.1.1 Invariance: U.S. and international samples

Table 1 — SEI Samples and Fit Statistics

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS CFA FIT STATISTICS

3.2 SEI Relationships to attendance, behavior, and achievement

Virtanen, Moreira, Dias, Oliveira, &

Lovelace et al., 2013a

General evidence of cross-cultural

SEI factor structure to numerous

stability of SEI factor structure*

are described by level.

3.2.1 Middle school

6th - 12th grade students

Regular education school

(D) N = 1,528 - Portugal

(C) N = 2,495 - Finland

11.7% SPED services

3.3 SEI Relationships to on-time graduation

Future Aspirations/Goals Family Support for Learning

Discussions with colleagues prompted rich discussion on whether it is reasonable to

questions in class, and study time (Shell & Husman, 2008).

(R) Reversed items.

1. Envolvimento e inovação pedagógica

conciliação entre interesse e esforço. Em A Educação pelo Trabalho, Celestin Freinet