Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D.

Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D.
Student Engagement Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D.

Antidote to conditions noted by many educators…
A ‘meta-construct’ Brings together many separate lines of research (e.g., belonging, behavioral participation, motivation) Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004 Antidote to conditions noted by many educators… Students are characterized as bored, unmotivated, and uninvolved *Interest in engagement has exploded – nationally, internationally, across disciplines Theoretical level: Meta-construct Applied or practical applications:

Student Engagement Engagement is the primary theoretical model for understanding dropout and is, quite frankly, the bottom line in interventions to promote school completion. Student engagement has emerged as the cornerstone of high school reform initiatives. Both academic and social aspects of school life are integral for student success; engagement at school and with learning are essential intervention considerations. New construct – promising but there is a lot that we don’t know Generally can say that engagement is an alterable, multidimensional construct Means of understanding student behavior and performance as for addressing student needs 3 definite statements we can make about engagement right now Christenson et al., 2008

Engagement is the primary theoretical model for understanding dropout and is, quite frankly, the bottom line in interventions to promote school completion. Finn (1989) Participation-Identification Model Indicators of withdrawal and engagement over several years Belonging, Identification, Relationships Engagement comes from the dropout literature Primary theoretical model of dropout: Finn’s participation-identification model deescribes school completion and dropout in terms of engagement with school – there are behavioral and affective components Flip to next slide Fits with empirical work on dropouts and completers: can differentiate these groups based on engagement early in elementary school There is something about the affective of social side of schooling – What we know from the literature Teacher student relationships Peer relationships More specifically related to dropout, Qualitative and survey studies of dropouts

Finn’s Participation Identification Model
Participation in Successful Identification School Activities Performance with school participation leads to successful performance, promoting feelings of identification or belonging at school; which in turn, promote on-going participation. Opportunities for participation change as students progress through the educational system. Initially, successful participation may involve attending school and being prepared for class; in later years, class preparation requires greater effort (e.g., homework, outside projects), and there are more opportunities to participate in nonacademic aspects of school, such as band, clubs, or other extracurricular activities (Finn, 1989) For students who are at risk for dropping out - this cycle starts to break down. Less likely to show the increased and varied forms of participation as they go through school, less successful, reduced feelings of belonging… Begin to disengage Flip back

Engagement is the primary theoretical model for understanding dropout and is, quite frankly, the bottom line in interventions to promote school completion. Finn (1989) Participation-Identification Model Indicators of withdrawal and engagement over several years Belonging, Identification, Relationships Engagement comes from the dropout literature Primary theoretical model of dropout: Finn’s participation-identification model deescribes school completion and dropout in terms of engagement with school – there are behavioral and affective components Flip to next slide Fits with empirical work on dropouts and completers: can differentiate these groups based on engagement early in elementary school There is something about the affective of social side of schooling – What we know from the literature Teacher student relationships Peer relationships More specifically related to dropout, Qualitative and survey studies of dropouts

Dynarski & Gleason (2002) McPartland (1994)
Provided extra personal support for students Created smaller and more personal settings McPartland (1994) Provide opportunities for success in schoolwork Communicate the relevance of education to future endeavors Create a caring and supportive environment Help students with personal problems Currently what we know about dropout interventions is… BUT we can say those with evidence of effectiveness, like Check & Connect which we’ll talk about a little toward the end, address student engagement in a comprehensive way Dynarski & Gleason reviewed federally funded dropout intervention programs - - there are a lot of things that are ineffective; however, two recommendations from this larger database included McPartland’s

Student engagement has emerged as the cornerstone of high school reform initiatives.
National Research Council publication, “Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn” I can, I want to, I belong Competence, Autonomy, Belonging The other “ABCs” URL: Engagement is becoming a major issue among educators across the nation. Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Connell & Wellborn, 1990; NRC, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000

A common theme among effective practices is that they have a positive effect on the motivation of individual students because they address underlying psychological variables such as competence, control, beliefs about the value of education, and a sense of belonging. In brief, effective schools and teachers promote students’ understanding of what it takes to learn and confidence in their capacity to succeed in school by providing challenging instruction and support for meeting high standards, and by conveying high expectations for their students’ success. They provide choices and they make the curriculum and instruction relevant to adolescents’ experiences, cultures, and long-term goals, so that students see some value in what they are doing in school. Finally, they promote a sense of belonging by personalizing instruction, showing an interest in students’ lives, and creating a supportive, caring social context. National Research Council, 2004, p. 212

McPartland (1994); Dynarski & Gleason (2002)
Both academic and social aspects of school life are integral for student success; engagement at school and with learning are essential intervention considerations. McPartland (1994); Dynarski & Gleason (2002) More than…. Academic performance, behavior

Engagement Theory 4 subtypes Antidote to: students characterized as bored, unmotivated, and uninvolved “the student’s psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote” “Energy in action, the connection between person and activity” Academic engagement refers to being a good learner, getting good grades, being promoted, etc. Behavioral engagement refers to being a good citizen in the school, getting to school regularly and on time, participating appropriately in class activities, getting homework done on time, and avoiding disciplinary infractions. Cognitive engagement refers to believing in the need for school and classes to achieve goals and believing that school matters. Affective engagement refers to feeling connected and having a feeling of belonging in school. Academic and behavioral engagement can be measured with the data we routinely collect on students. Cognitive and affective engagement are harder to measure; we are using the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) to collect data on these components of student engagement. Cognitive: relevance/utility of school work, autonomy, competence, Affective: belonging and identification with the values and goals of the school Dropping out is the most extreme form of disengagement Christenson & Anderson, 2002; Newmann, 1992; Russell et al., 2005

Student Engagement Model
Context Student Engagement Student Outcomes

We – Sandy Christenson, Jim Appleton, Sarah Berman, Patrick Varro, Deanna Spanjers, and myself, recently wrote a chapter on student engagement for Best Practices. We took the NASP pyramid of interventions – universal, targeted and intensive and divided it into universal and individualized strategies 3 tiers didn’t work for a number of the strategies – some could fit into either scenario – with small groups, individuals, etc. We reviewed the literature on engagement and complied a list of suggestions for each type of engagement. Intervention considerations: importance of the person-environment fit and the distribution of responsibility for change across the school, family, community as well as the student (Christenson & Anderson, 2002). Overlap among sub-types and suggestions & suggestions address social, academic, and behavioral goals – some of which won’t be new – viewing this instead as engagement organizing interventions under one rubric

Academic Engagement Universal Strategies
Ensure the instructional match is appropriate for the students and clear directions of what is expected are provided Use mastery learning principles to guide instructional planning and delivery Use principles of effective instruction (e.g., direct instruction, scaffolding, guided practice; informed feedback; pacing of lessons) Ensure that there is both academic press (high expectations, well structures learning environment) and support for learning (caring environment) Christenson, Reschly, Appleton, Berman, Spanjers, & Varro, 2008

Maximize instructional relevance (e.g., clearly stated purpose, graph progress toward goals) Attend to the effect of the organization/structure of the school on learning (e.g., smaller learning communities, Academies) Allow students to have choices within course selection and assignments (Skinner et al., 2005). Christenson et al., 2008

Increase time on task and substantive interaction through cooperative learning, whole class or group instruction (Greenwood et al., 2002) and peer assisted learning strategies (Boudah, Schumacher, & Deshler, 1997; Lee & Smith, 1993) Provide home support for learning strategies to fit content area Enhance critical thinking through project work and ungraded writing assignments Christenson et al., 2008

Use supplemental program within school, i.e., Academic Coaching Team (Hansen, Cumming, & Christenson, 2006) Increase opportunities for success in schoolwork Encourage parents to volunteer in the classroom (Lee & Smith, 1993) Enhance teacher-student relationships and/or teacher-student support (Hughes & Kwok, 2006) Christenson et al., 2008

Reinforce students frequently and base it on the amount of work completed (Skinner et al., 2005). Utilize a variety of interesting texts and resources (Asselin, 2004; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000) Incorporate projects that take place in the community (Lewis, 2004) Christenson et al., 2008

Academic Engagement: Individualized Strategies
Utilize after school programs (tutoring, homework help) Increase home support for learning – such as home-school notes, assignment notebooks, and academic enrichment activities Implement self-monitoring interventions Ensure adequacy of educational resources in the home Help parents to understand and set expectations (Klem & Connell, 2004) Christenson et al., 2008

Academic Engagement: Individualized Strategies
Help parents to understand and set expectations (Klem & Connell, 2004) Foster positive teacher-student relationship for marginalized students Utilize Behavior Education Programs: Have students check in with the teacher each hour to ensure they have pens, notebooks, etc. Check in with teacher each hour, check-out at the end of the school day (Hawken & Horner, 2003). Seek out and utilize college outreach programs and tutors for students (Rodriquez et al., 2004) Christenson et al., in press

Behavioral Engagement: Universal
Examine suspension policies; strive to eliminate out-of-school suspension Examine discipline policies; ensure they are considered fair, nonpunitive and understood by students. End reliance on negative consequences as a means of managing student behavior. Encourage social interactions and planning for the future though smaller learning communities that target vocational interests (e.g., Academies) Christenson et al., in press

Offer developmentally appropriate social skills training to all students as part of the curriculum Implement school-wide positive behavioral support systems that include positive reinforcement and group contingencies Use coordinated, collaborative home-school interventions to address attendance Involve students in hands-on-learning that is directly related to future career paths or interests Christenson et al., 2008

Create an orderly routine environment that promotes consistency Offer professional development on classroom management strategies Gather student input about classroom rules, school climate and evaluation of coursework/assignments; use feedback to make appropriate changes Encourage participation in and provide extracurricular activities; actively seek to involve uninvolved students Christenson et al., 2008

Consider ways of having multi-level sports teams Ensure that the school climate, school culture is respectful to all students Systematically monitor student population on key variables (attendance, academics, behavior) for signs of disengagement from school and follow up with students showing signs of withdrawal. Christenson et al., 2008

Behavioral Engagement: Individualized
Provide additional, supplemental supports for students not responding to positive behavioral support systems implemented school-wide Devise an individualized approach to addressing attendance or participation issues at school; strive to understand student perspective and unique family circumstances Implement programs that work to build specific skills such as problem solving, anger management or interpersonal communication Christenson et al., 2008

Provide an adult mentor who works with students and families on a long term basis to foster engagement in school and deliver the message that school is important (i.e., Check & Connect) Develop specific behavior plans or contracts to address individual needs Provide intensive wrap-around services Provide alternative programs for students who have not completed school Christenson et al., 2008

Encourage parents to monitor and supervise student behavior Implement student advisory programs that monitor academic and social development of secondary students (middle or high) Implement school-to-work programs that foster success in school and relevant educational opportunities Christenson et al., 2008

Cognitive Engagement: Universal
Guide students in setting personal goals in courses and monitoring their progress Provide student with choices when completing assignments Enhance or explicitly identify relevance of schoolwork to future goals (see six year plan for St. Paul Public schools ninth graders at Focus on necessary steps to reach/pursue personal goals and career aspirations Christenson et al., 2008

Set learning/mastery goals over performance goals – ensure mastery goals permeate the philosophy of the classroom/school culture Provide students with challenging and motivating assignments that relate to life outside of school Model learning strategies when teaching specific concepts Provide feedback that emphasizes self control and the link between effort/practice and improvement Christenson et al., 2008

Provide professional development training to teachers (e.g., goal setting and self-regulation combined with informed feedback that focuses on improvement and enhancing intrinsic motivation) Encourage students who are “on the cusp” to put forth effort to earn credits by calculating a graduation achievement rate (e.g., number of credits earned divided by number of credits possible, compared with % needed to graduate) (Hansen et al., 2006) Encourage parents to deliver messages related to motivational support for learning (high expectations, talk to students about school and schoolwork) Christenson et al., 2008

Cognitive Engagement: Individualized
Enhance student’s personal belief in self through repeated contacts, goal setting, problem solving and relationship (e.g., Check & Connect) Implement self monitoring interventions (e.g., graph progress toward goals) Explicitly teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies (e.g., mnemonic strategies) and teach effective note-taking and study skills Discuss the link between student’s effort and the outcome/behavior/success achieved to increase the student’s perceived self control, self-efficacy, and self-determination Design tasks that have the characteristics of open tasks (e.g., student interests, autonomy, collaboration with peers) (Turner, 1995). Christenson et al., 2008

Affective Engagement: Universal
Systematically build relationships/connections for all students - Educators identify students who may not have a connection with a staff member (i.e., list all students names at grade levels and determine who knows the student) and match staff members and alienated students for future regular “mentor like” contact Address size through implementation of smaller learning communities Enhance peer connections through peer assisted learning strategies Implement a mentoring program (use of college age students) Christenson et al., 2008

Increase participation in extracurricular activities Combine social support for students (from teachers, peers, parents, and community) with high levels of academic press (i.e., teacher belief that they are challenging students and student perception that they are being challenged (Lee & Smith, 1999). Create a caring and supportive environment (ethos) (Baker, 2001) Christenson et al., 2008

Intervene early, persistently, and across the contexts of school peers, school adults, and the home and community to change student developmental trajectories. When evaluating results, be sure to check for delayed outcomes associated with early interventions Christenson et al., 2008

Affective Engagement: Individualized
Build personal relationship with marginalized students – enhance relationship with one caring adult Personalize education (e.g., alter assignments to match personal interests and goals) Assist students with personal problems Provide extra support for students in a timely fashion To improve generalizabilty, intervene across peer, family, and community contexts when possible Christenson et al., 2008

Intensive Intervention Example: Check & Connect
A model designed to promote student engagement at school and with learning Approach is based on enhancing strengths and connections between home, school, and community through relationship building, problem solving, and persistence Drawn from the literature on resiliency, cognitive-behavioral interventions, systems theory to address complex social problem, person-environment fit, motivation

The “Why” of Check & Connect
Drawn from the literature on resiliency, cognitive-behavioral interventions, systems theory to address complex social problem, person-environment fit, motivation Dropout literature: Status vs. alterable variables Early signs of withdrawal & engagement Unusual things about the design of Check & Connect is that they had some built-in time to do research and really get into the literature when designing the program. One of the things we know from the resiliency literature is that a relationship with a competent and caring adult is the best documented asset of resilient children – this adult doesn’t need to be a parent Systems theory – dropout is a complex problem – schools, families, peers, and communities as well as students Person-environment fit – the universal intervention research goal is to understand what works, for whom, and under what conditions -- Not just about the env. Or the student but how these fit together. If we go to the dropout literature – there are a couple of things that we know – Some variables that predict dropout are not good intervention targets for schools – race, SES, region of the country We can, however, look at variables that are alterable – and we have these at student, family, and school contexts

A model designed to promote student engagement at school and with learning
Approach is based on enhancing strengths and connections between home, school, and community through relationship building, problem solving, and persistence

Check & Connect Components
Check….continuous assessment of student levels of engagement Monitored on a daily-to-weekly basis Alterable risk factors: Attendance, Behavior, Academics Connect….basic and intensive levels Basic: feedback, discussion, problem solving Intensive: problem solving, academic support, community service/recreation Attendance/Truancy Tardiness Skipping Absences Behavior Problems Aggression Bus referrals Suspensions Academics Failing classes/Behind in credits Literacy skills

Role of the Mentor/Monitor
Person responsible for helping a student stay connected to school. Described as a mentor, case manager, advocate Relationship is built over time, based on trust and familiarity: ongoing efforts (e.g., checking grades and attendance) informal connections (e.g., checking in with the student) Social Capital Mentor is the Key or linchpin to the Check & Connect program We have used different terms to describe this person – have shied away from the term ‘mentor’ because there are so many different kinds of mentoring programs – this is very different because of the monitoring, training, and structure. Primary goal is to keep youth from slipping through the cracks Sub-bullets: Systematic monitoring Informal connections When I was working as a monitor, I greeted students as they came in in the morning – said ‘hey’ during lunch We think of this as a means of increasing social capital – someone who cares about them

Develop individualized intervention strategies.
Promote access to services for students/families. Assist students and families in navigating secondary school system. Some of the things that monitors do: Bullet 1: Standard intervention all kids get – what monitors do is tailored for individual students Bullet 2: broker of services Bullet 3: in some cases, families need assistance in navigating secondary school system. This may be particularly necessary for families who were dropouts or had negative experiences in school themselves, for families with limited experience with our educational system, etc.

Monitoring is essential for students at-risk of dropping out for two reasons . . .
Provides a systematic and efficient way to connect students with immediate interventions Provides an essential link to students’ educational performance Bullet 1: Bullet 2: Alterable variables related to student performance – critical link to improving student performance

Check….. Student Levels of Engagement
Risk factors monitored regularly Increased risk leads to interventions to reconnect. At least weekly As soon as students who signs of incresed risk or disengaged, more intensive interventions begin

Connect… Basic and Intensive Interventions
General information about monitoring system. Monthly problem solving around different topics related to the importance of staying in school (e.g., economics of staying in school, how to ask for help). Regular feedback. Problem solving around risk factors.

We have hypothesized that:
The unique feature of the Check & Connect procedure is not the specific interventions per se, but the fact that interventions are facilitated by a person, the mentor, who is trusted and known by the student and who has demonstrated his or her concern for the school performance of the youth persistently and consistently over time.

Check & Connect – Secondary Level
Pilot Study: Quasi-experimental design, students with Emotional or Behavior Disorders. C&C students were significantly more likely to.. be currently enrolled in school Never have dropped out Be on track to graduate Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998 Quasi-experimental study – High school students with EBD were significantly less likely to dropout, more likely to persist in school, and more likely to access educational services (alternative programs, transition planning). They were more likely to be on track to complete school in four years; and more likely to have completed school at the end of five years. Sinclair et al., 2005

Chronically truant students in grades 6-12 with and without disabilities in suburban schools on the School Success truancy prevention initiative (N=363) have shown improvement in attendance, skipped classes, out-of-school suspensions, and academic performance. About 65% of Check & Connect students (N=91) are successfully engaged (equivalent of 0-1 day absent per month), with no incidences of class failures. More effective if students are referred before absences exceed 25% of the school year. Last bullet: more effective if we start before the problems are the most severe

Check & Connect – Elementary Level
Pre-post intervention results for elementary students with and without disabilities (N= 147 with 2 years of intervention) in suburban settings reveals that tardies to and absences from school have declined, and overall attendance has improved. 86% of students who received intervention for at least two years (N = 147) showed increased levels of student engagement as evidenced by significant increases in the percentage of students who were absent or tardy less than 5% of the time, an improvement of 104% over baseline behavior. Also, over 90% of the school staff (N = 123) perceived students were showing improvement in homework completion, attendance, and interest in school. 87% of school staff reported parents were more supportive of their child’s education (Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2002).

Other Applications Early Risers I: Implemented with students in Kdg and 1st grade who were highly aggressive. Students in C&C displayed significantly fewer problem behaviors during the 2-years of intervention Early Risers II: 1st and 2nd graders who were highly aggressive and poor readers living in poverty Combined with Reading Interventions. Significant differences in phonological awareness; no differences in ratings of aggressive behavior

Project ELSE (Early-Literacy School Engagement Project) 2000-2004
Implemented Check & Connect with Kindergarteners at-risk for learning to read. 6 Schools randomly assigned to treatment and control Statistically significant differences in early literacy skills and engagement (attendance and tardies) for students in C&C with EL as compared to control Positive changes in teachers’ perceptions of children’s behavior and academic competence O’Shaughnessy, Draper, Christenson, Militch, Waldbart, & Gabriel (2004)

whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Intervention/techappendix06_312.html

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENT (SEI)
Jim Appleton also prepared this section of slides, which summarize the development and validation of the SEI.

Instrument Blueprint An instrument development blueprint was followed in much the same way that other rigorously-researched and professionally-developed measurement instruments have been created and published.

Urban Midwest Instrument Validation Study
8th graders (Think Aloud) 2,577 of 3,104 diverse, urban 9th graders 1,931 (~75%) in analyses 51% female, 40% Afr Amer, 35% White, 11% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 4% Amer Ind 61% FRL; 8% Sped Services A large-scale validation study was conducted to fine-tune the wording and the measurement characteristics of the SEI.

Conclusions Based on actual student responses, the six survey Themes and the overall instrument were valid and reliable. When checked against student’s academic and behavioral records, the SEI themes aligned as expected. The validation study data confirmed that the instrument is both valid and reliable.

Replication Studies Urban Midwest, Rural South Carolina, and Rural Midwest studies Instrument measurement characteristics were supported Construct (Theme) validity evidence is strong Three replication studies corroborated the evidence found in the original SEI validation study.

(For Advisors and Schools)
GCPS Data and Reports (For Advisors and Schools) The Research and Evaluation Office analyzed the data from the SEI that students took this fall.

Advisor Report—Side 1 Student Names Theme Key Subscale
(Theme) Averages Class Averages This slide shows key features of the Advisor Report.

Advisor Report Sample—Side 2
Interpretive Guide: Reminders about how to read and use the report SEI Themes and Item Text The back side of the report provides reminders about how to read the report and what items went into which Themes.

Dynamic Data Views – “Who”

Dynamic Data Views – “What, When, Where”

References & Resources
Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). School completion and student engagement: Information and strategies for educators. In A. S. Canter, L. Z. Paige, M. D. Roth, I. Romero, & S. A. Carroll (Eds.), Helping children at home and at school II: Handouts for families and educators (pp. S2-65–S2-68). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from Appleton, J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review,31(3), Christenson & Thurlow (2004). School dropouts: Prevention, considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Appleton, J.J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds). Best Practices in School Psychology (5th Ed). National Association of School Psychologists.

References & Resources
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replication study of the Check & Connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(3), National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Reschly, A. & Christenson, S.L. (2007). Reading and School Completion: Critical Linkages Among Reading Performance, Grade Retention, Special Education Placements and High School Dropout. Manuscript under review. Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley. (1998). Dropout prevention for high risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7-21. Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow (2005). Promoting School completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71,

Contact Information James Appleton, PhD Department of Research & Evaluation Gwinnett County Public Schools 437 Old Peachtree Road NW Suite 2.240 Suwanee, GA 30024 Amy L. Reschly, PhD Department of Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology 325N Aderhold Hall University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602

Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Amy Reschly, Ph.D. & James Appleton, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback