School Engagement: Potential Of The Concept, State Of The .
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the EvidenceAuthor(s): Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis C. Blumenfeld and Alison H. ParisSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 59-109Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516061Accessed: 13-01-2016 02:35 UTCYour use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at s.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Sage Publications, Inc. and American Educational Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Review of Educational Research.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviewof EducationalResearchSpring2004, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 59-109School Engagement: Potential of the Concept,State of the EvidenceJennifer A. FredricksConnecticut CollegePhyllis C. BlumenfeldUniversity of MichiganAlison H. ParisClaremont McKenna CollegeThe concept of school engagement has attracted increasing attentionas representing a possible antidote to declining academic motivationand achievement.Engagement is presumed to be malleable, responsive to contextualfeatures,and amenable to environmental change. Researchers describe behavioral,emotional, and cognitive engagement and recommendstudyingengagement asa multifacetedconstruct.Thisarticle reviews definitions,measures,precursors,and outcomes of engagement; discusses limitations in the existing research;and suggests improvements. The authors conclude that, although much hasbeen learned, the potential contributionof the concept of school engagementto research on student experience has yet to be realized. They call for richercharacterizationsof how students behave,feel, and think-research that couldaid in the developmentoffinely tuned interventions.KEYWORDS:motivation,school engagement,self-regulatedlearning.The conceptof schoolengagementhas attractedgrowinginterestas a way to amelioratelow levels of academicachievement,high levels of n urbanareas(NationalResearchCouncil& Instituteof Medicine, 2004). Some studies examine how contexts interactwith individualneeds to promote or undermineengagement (Connell, 1990; Eccles & Midgley,1989; Skinner& Belmont, 1993). Othersexplore how classroom instructionandtaskscan n,Wehlage,& Lamborn,1992). Yet othersinvestigatethe relationshipbetween school engagement and droppingout (Finn & Rock, 1997; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, etical,andpracticalreasonsfor the growinginterestin schoolengagement.Historiansnotea generaldeclinein respectfor authority andinstitutionsamongstudents;one consequence,theyargue,is thatstudentscanno longerbe countedon to automaticallyrespectandcomplywiththe behavioralandacademic expectationsimposed by teachersand school administrators(Janowitz,1978; Modell & Elder,2002). As portrayedin recentpopularbooks, studentsview59This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fredrickset al.schoolingas boringor as a meregradegame, in which they try to get by with as little effortas possible(Burkett,2002; Pope, 2002). Studiesfindsteepdeclinesin motivationacrossthe gradelevels (Eccles, Midgley,& Adler, 1984;Fredricks& Eccles,2002). Some scholarsarguethatthese problemsare most intense for minoritystudents, whose group dropoutrates are the most severe (Rumberger,1987). Theseobservationsareparticularlytroublingin light of the claim thatthe new kerswho can synthesizeandevaluate new information,thinkcritically,andsolve problems.Even thoughattendanceiscompulsory,establishinga commitmentto educationis essentialif youthareto benefit fromwhatschoolshaveto offerandacquirethe capabilitiestheywill needto succeed in the currentmarketplace.School engagementis seen as an antidoteto such signs of studentalienation.Theterm,in bothpopularandresearchdefinitions,encapsulatesthe qualitiesthatareseenas lacking in many of today's students.For instance, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(11th ed.) lists "commitment"amongthe most commonusages y(4thed.) definesengagementas "[being]activelycommitted";to be engagedis "toinvolveoneselforbecomeoccupied;to participate"(a definitionbased on behavior).Finally, as definedin theNew OxfordAmericanDictionary,to engage is to "attractor involve"(a definitionbasedon emotion).The multifacetednatureof engagementis also reflectedin the researchliterature,which definesengagementin threeways. Behavioralengagementdrawson the ideaof participation;it includes involvementin academicand social or extracurricularactivities and is consideredcrucialfor achieving positive academicoutcomes andpreventingdroppingout. Emotionalengagementencompassespositive and negative reactionsto teachers,classmates,academics,andschool andis presumedto create ties to an institutionandinfluencewillingnessto do the work.Finally,cognitiveengagementdraws on the idea of investment;it incorporatesthoughtfulnessandwillingness to exert the effort necessaryto comprehendcomplex ideas and masterdifficultskills.In many ways, the concepts includedin the threetypes of engagementoverlapwith constructsthathave been studiedpreviously.Forexample,researchon behavioralengagementis relatedto thaton studentconductandon-taskbehavior(Karweit,1989; Peterson,Swing, Stark,& Wass, 1984). Researchon emotionalengagementis related to that on studentattitudes(Epstein & McPartland,1976; Yamamoto,Thomas, & Karns,1969) and studentinterestand values (Eccles et al., 1983). Research on cognitive engagement is relatedto that on motivationalgoals and selfregulatedlearning(Boekarts,Pintrich,& Zeidner,2000;Zimmerman,1990).Becausetherehas been considerableresearchon how studentsbehave, feel, and think,theattemptto conceptualize and examine portions of the literatureunder the label"engagement"is potentiallyproblematic;it canresultin a proliferationof constructs,definitions,and measures of concepts that differ slightly, thereby doing little toimproveconceptualclarity.Despite these problems,we argue that engagementhas considerablepotentialas a multidimensionalconstructthatunites the three componentsin a meaningfulway. In this sense, engagementcan be thoughtof as a "meta"construct.In fact,some scholarssuggest thatthe termengagementshouldbe reservedspecificallyforwork where multiplecomponentsarepresent(Guthrie& Anderson,1999; Guthrie60This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
School Engagement& Wigfield, 2000). The fusion of behavior,emotion, and cognition underthe ideaof engagementis valuablebecause it may providea richercharacterizationof children than is possible in researchon single components.Defining and examiningthe componentsof motion,and cognition.In realitythese factorsare dynamicallyinterrelatedwithin the individual;they are not isolated processes. Robustbodies of work addresseach of thecomponents separately,but considering engagementas a multidimensionalconstructargues for examining antecedentsand consequences of behavior,emotion,and cognition simultaneouslyand dynamically, to test for additive or interactiveeffects.The idea of commitment,or investment(the two termsareused interchangeablyin this article),which is centralto the common understandingof the termengagement,also makesengagementan appealingandvaluableconceptbecauseit impliesthattheremay be qualitativedifferencesin the level or degreeof engagementalongeach component.Forinstance,behavioralengagementcan rangefromsimplydoingthe work and following the rules to participatingin the studentcouncil. Emotionalengagementcan rangefrom simple liking to deep valuingof, or identificationwith,the institution.Cognitive engagementcan range from simple memorizationto theuse of self-regulatedlearningstrategiesthatpromotedeep understandingandexpertise. These qualitativedifferenceswithin each dimensionsuggest thatengagementcan varyin intensityandduration;it can be shorttermand situationspecific or longtermandstable.The potentialfor evolutionin intensitymakesengagementa desirable outcome.It is reasonableto assumethatengagement,once established,buildson itself, therebycontributingto increasedimprovementsin more distal outcomesof interest.Anotherreasonfor the growing interestin engagementis that it is presumedtobe malleable. It results from an interactionof the individual with the context andis responsive to variationin environments(Connell, 1990; Finn & Rock, 1997).Routesto studentengagementmay be social or academicandmay stemfromopportunities in the school or classroom for participation,interpersonalrelationships,and intellectualendeavors.Currently,many interventions,such as improvingtheschool climateor changingcurriculumand standards,explicitly or implicitlyfocuson engagement as a route to increased learning or decreased droppingout. Forinstance,Guthrieand Wigfield (2000) arguethatengagementmediatesthe impactof curricularandinstructionalreformson achievement.A multifacetedapproachtoengagementarguesfor exploringhow attemptsto altercontext influence all threetypes of engagementanddeterminingwhetheroutcomes are mediatedby changesin one or more components.The studyof engagementas multidimensionaland asan interactionbetween the individualand the environmentpromises to help us tobetterunderstandthe complexityof children'sexperiencesin school and to designmore specificallytargetedand nuancedinterventions.The purposeof this articleis to criticallyevaluatethe strengths,weaknesses,andgaps in the literatureon behavioral,emotional,andcognitiveengagementso thatthepotentialof the conceptcan be realized.We includeresearchon engagementin theclassroomand in the largerschool community.Althoughit is importantto distinguish betweenthese two types of engagementbecausethey arelikely to have different antecedentsand outcomes,severalof the studiesreviewed have failed to makethis distinction.61This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fredrickset al.The centralinformationin this articleis organizedinto four sections.In the first,we define engagementand the assumptionsabout why each of the three types ofengagementis important.In the second, we outline the measurementof the construct.In the thirdandfourth,we examineresearchon the outcomesandantecedentsof engagement.To help synthesizethatinformation,the definitions(or measures),samples, methods, and key findings of studies that have explicitly used the termengagementaresummarizedin the Appendix.In each sectionwe indicatewheretheliteratureon engagement overlaps with other bodies of work that do not specifyengagementas a focus but use similarvariablesor concepts and are often cited byengagementresearchersas supportfor their ideas and findings.Our goal is not toreview these relatedliteraturesin detail;it is to suggest how insights gained fromthemcan contributeto ourunderstandingof whatengagementis andhow to enhanceit in practice.Finally,we make an overallassessmentof the qualityof the research,highlightingthe strengthsand limitationsof the currentwork on engagement.Weend with severalsuggestionsfor futureinvestigation.What Is Engagement?In this section,we describehow the threetypesof engagementhavebeen defined,how the definitionsvary, and wherethey overlap.Althoughwe presentbehavioral,emotional, and cognitive engagementseparately,we note where studies combinecomponentsof engagement.Finally,we discusshow iveconstructsandhow the literatureon those constructscaninformthe researchon engagement.Behavioral EngagementBehavioralengagementis most commonly definedin threeways. The firstdefinition entails positive conduct, such as following the rules and adheringto classroom norms,as well as the absenceof disruptivebehaviorssuch as skippingschooland getting in trouble(Finn, 1993; Finn, Pannozzo,& Voelkl, 1995; Finn & Rock,1997). The second definitionconcernsinvolvementin learningandacademictasksandincludesbehaviorssuch as effort, s, and contributingto class discussion (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Finn et al.,1995; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). A third definition involves participation inschool-relatedactivities such as athleticsor school governance(Finn, 1993; Finnet al., 1995).In general, these definitions do not make distinctions among various types ofbehavior, such as participationin academic and nonacademic school activities.One exception is Finn's (1989) definition of behavioralengagement. He dividesparticipationinto four levels, which rangefrom respondingto the teacher'sdirections to activities thatrequirestudentinitiative, such as involvement in extracurricular activities and student government. The assumption is that participationat the upper levels indicates a qualitative difference in engagement in terms ofgreatercommitmentto the institution.Fromresearchon classroom participation,there also is evidence of differences in typologies of behavior.Some studies separate cooperative participation,or adheringto classroom rules, from autonomyparticipation,or self-directed academic behaviors (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Buhs &Ladd, 2001).62This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EmotionalEngagementEmotionalengagementrefers to students'affective reactionsin the ess,and anxiety(Connell& Wellborn,1991; Skinner& Belmont, 1993). Some researchersassess emotionalengagementby measuringemotionalreactionsto the school andthe teacher(Lee & Smith, 1995;Stipek, 2002). Some conceptualize it as identificationwith school (Finn, 1989;Voelkl, 1997). Finndefinesidentificationas belonging(a feeling of being importantto the school) andvalue (an appreciationof success in school-relatedoutcomes).The emotionsincludedin these definitionsduplicatean earlierbody of work onattitudes,which examined feelings towardschool and included survey questionsaboutliking or disliking school, the teacher,or the work; feeling happy or sad inschool; or being bored or interested in the work (Epstein & McPartland,1976;Yamamoto et al., 1969). Emotions that were included in this construct, such asinterestand value, also overlapconsiderablywith constructsused in motivationalresearch.In fact, the authorsof a recentreportentitledEngagingSchools (NationalResearchCouncil & Instituteof Medicine, 2004) considermotivationandengagement as synonyms and use the words interchangeably.However, the definitionsused in engagementstudies are much less elaboratedand differentiatedthanthoseused in the motivationalliterature.For example, motivationalstudies of interestdistinguish between situational and personal interest. The former is transitory,arousedby specific featuresof an activity,such as novelty. The latteris a relativelystable orientationthat is more likely to involve consistent choices to pursue anactivityor studyinga topic and willingness to undertakechallengingtasks (Krapp,Hidi, & Renninger,1992). The conceptualizationof personalinterestassumesthatinterestis directedtowarda particularactivity or situation.In contrast,the definitions in the engagement literaturetend to be general and not differentiatedbydomainor activity. As a consequence,the source of the emotionalreactionsis notclear. For instance, it may not be clear whether students' positive emotions aredirectedtowardacademiccontent,theirfriends,or the teacher.The theoreticalwork on values also outlinesfinerdistinctionsthanare currentlypresentin the engagementliterature.Eccles et al. (1983) describefour componentsof value:interest(enjoymentof the activity),attainmentvalue (importanceof doingwell on thetaskforconfirmingaspectsof one's self-schema),utilityvalue/importance(importanceof thetaskforfuturegoals),andcost (negativeaspectsof engagingin thetask). Furthermore,definitions of emotional engagement do not make qualitative entor investment.Theconceptof flow makesthisdistinction:Flow is a subjectivestateof completeinvolvement,wherebyindividualsare so involvedin an activitythatthey lose awarenessoftime and space (Csikzentmihalyi,1988). The definitionof flow providesa conceptualizationthatrepresentshigh emotionalinvolvementor investment.CognitiveEngagementResearchon cognitive engagementcomes fromthe literatureon school engagement,which stressesinvestmentin learning,andfromthe literatureon learningandinstruction,which involves self-regulation,or being strategic.One set of definitionsfocuses on psychologicalinvestmentin learning,a desireto go beyondthe requirements,anda preferencefor challenge(Connell& Wellborn,1991;Newmannet al.,63This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:35:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fredrickset al.1992; Wehlage et al., 1989). For example,Connell and Wellborn'sconceptualization of cognitiveengagementincludesflexibilityin problemsolving, preferenceforhardwork, and positive coping in the face of failure. Otherresearchershave outlined generaldefinitionsof engagementthatemphasizean innerpsychologicalquality andinvestmentin learning,implyingmorethanjust behavioralengagement.Forexample, Newmann et al. define engagementin academicwork as the "student'spsychological investment in and effort directed towardlearning, understanding,masteringthe knowledge, skills or craftsthatthe academicworkis intendedto promote" (p. 12). Similarly,Wehlage et al. define engagementas "thepsychologicalinvestment requiredto comprehendand master knowledge and skills explicitlytaughtin schools"(p. 17).These definitions are quite similar to constructs in the motivation literature,such as motivationto learn (Brophy, 1987), learninggoals (Ames, 1992; Dweck& Leggett, 1988) and intrinsicmotivation(Harter,1981). Brophydescribesa student who is motivatedto learnas valuing learningand strivingfor knowledge andmasteryin learningsituations.Similarly, studentswho adoptlearningratherthanperformancegoals arefocused on learning,masteringthe task,understanding,andtryingto accomplishsomethingthatis allenge and are persistentwhen faced with difficulty.Each of these concepts emphasizesthe degree to which studentsare invested in and value learningand assumesthatthe investmentis relatedto, but separatefrom, strategiclearning.The learningliteraturedefinescognitive engagementin termsof being strategicor self-regulating.Whetherdescribedas cognitivelyengagedor self-regulated,strategic studentsuse metacognitivestrategiesto plan,monitor,andevaluatetheircognition when accomplishingtasks (Pintrich& De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman,1990).They use learning strategiessuch as rehearsal,summarizing,and elaborationtoremember,organize,andunderstandthe material(Corno& Madinach,1983;Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). They manageand controltheireffort on tasks, for example,by persistingor by suppressingdistractions,to sustaintheircognitive engagement(Corno,1993;Pintrich& De Groot,1990). A qualitativedistinctionis madebetweendeep and surface-levelstrategyuse. Studentswho use deep entaleffort,createmorec
New Oxford American Dictionary, to engage is to "attract or involve" (a definition based on emotion). The multifaceted nature of engagement is also reflected in the research literature, which defines engagement in three ways. Behavioral engagement draws on the idea
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
