Commentary: Bridging student engagement research and practice

Abstract

This commentary is derived from the five empirical articles that appeared in the April 2017 special issue on student engagement (Liem & Chong, 2017). Drawing on others’ critiques of engagement theory and research, and with full appreciation for theoretical and disciplinary diversity, I provide a high altitude, inclusive perspective of each article’s relationship to three vital types of engagement theory and research. I offer this typology in service of two purposes: (1) to assist readers’ ability to categorize, classify, synthesize, and integrate engagement research, theory, concepts, and definitions; (2) to highlight the practice implications that follow each study. I conclude the commentary by highlighting needs for engagement research to better attend to the day-to-day practice realities of school psychologists, educators, and other pupil support personnel. Improvement science is offered as a means of helping researchers and practitioners pursue this important bridge-building work.

Keywords

improvement science knowledge production knowledge systems research paradigms student engagement student motivation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boekaerts

(2016) Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction 43: 76–83. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.001.

Bryk

Gomez

Grunow

LeMahieu

(2015) Learning to improve: How American’s schools can get better at getting better, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cai

E. Y. L.

Liem

G. A. D.

(2017) ‘Why do I study and what do I want to achieve by studying?’ Understanding the reasons and the aims of student engagement. School Psychology International 38(2): 132–148. doi:10.1177/0143034316686399.

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.

Cleary

Zimmerman

(2012) A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 237–258.

Crick

(2012) Deep engagement as a complex system: Identity, learning power, and authentic enquiry. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 675–694.

Conley

A. M.

(2012) Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 104: 32–47. doi: 10.1037/a0026042.

Connell

J. P.

Wellborn

J. G.

(1991) Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In: Gunnar

M. R.

Sroufe

L. A.

(eds) Self-processes and development, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 43–77.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1999) If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist 54: 821–827. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.821.

10.

Eagle

J. W.

Dowd-Eagle

S. E.

Synder

Holtzman

E. G.

(2015) Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote system level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 25: 160–170. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960.

11.

Eccles

J. S.

(2016) Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction 43: 71–75. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003.

12.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

Wigfield

Buchanan

C. M.

Reuman

Flanagan

Mac Iver

(1993) Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist 48: 90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90.

13.

Eccles

Wang

(2012) Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 133–145.

14.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Psychology Review 53: 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

15.

Filter

K. J.

Ebsen

Dibos

(2013) School psychology crossroads in America: Discrepancies between actual and preferred discrete practices and barriers to preferred practice. International Journal of Special Education 28(1): 88–100. Retrieved from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialed.com/issues.php.

16.

Finn

Zimmer

(2012) Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 97–132.

17.

Fredericks

Blumenfeld

Paris

(2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74: 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.

18.

Fredricks

J. A.

Filsecker

Lawson

M. A.

(2016) Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction 43: 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.

19.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2012) Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children 78: 263–279. doi:10.1177/001440291207800301.

20.

Goldin

G. A.

Epstein

Y. M.

Shorr

R. Y.

Warner

L. B.

(2011) Beliefs and engagement structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM Mathematics Education 43: 547–560. doi:10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z.

21.

Jang

Kim

Reeve

(2016) Why students become more engaged or disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction 43: 27–38. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.

22.

Kuhn

(2012) The structure of scientific revolutions, 4th ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Lawson

H. A.

(1990) Beyond positivism: Research, practice, and undergraduate professional education. Quest 42: 161–183.

24.

Lawson

H. A.

Van Veen

(2016) Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research, The Hague: Springer International.

25.

Lawson

Alameda-Lawson

(2012) A case study of school-linked, collective parent engagement. American Educational Research Journal 49: 651–684. doi:10.3102/0002831211427206.

26.

Lawson

M. A.

Lawson

H. A.

(2013) New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research 83: 432–479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891.

27.

Lawson

M. A.

Masyn

(2015a) Analyzing profiles, predictors, and consequences of student engagement dispositions. Journal of School Psychology 53: 63–86. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.11.004.

28.

Lawson

M. A.

Masyn

(2015b) Analyzing profiles and predictors of students’ social-ecological engagement. AERA Open 1(4): 1–37. doi:10.1177/2332858415615856.

29.

Lewis

(2015) What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher 44(1): 54–61. doi:10.3102/0013189X15570388.

30.

Liem, G. A. D., & Chong, W. H. (Eds.). (2017). Fostering student engagement in schools: International best practices [Special Issue]. School Psychology International, 38(2), 121–218. doi:10.1177/0143034317702947.

31.

Linver

Roth

Brooks-Gunn

(2009) Patterns of adolescents’ participation in organized activities: Are sports better when combined with others. Developmental Psychology 45: 354–367. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014133.

32.

Martin

A. J.

Papworth

Ginns

Malmberg

L. E.

Collie

& Calvo

R. A.

(2015) Real time motivation and engagement during a month at school: Every moment of every day for every student matters. Learning and Individual Differences 38: 26–35. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.014.

33.

Martin

T. G.

Martin

A. J.

Evans

(2017) Student engagement in the Caribbean Region: Exploring its role in the motivation and achievement of Jamaican middle school students. School Psychology International 38(2): 184–200. doi:10.1177/0143034316683765.

34.

Masyn

(2013) Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In: Little

(ed.) Oxford handbook of quantitative method, vol. 2, statistical analysis, Oxford: Oxford Press, pp. 551–611.

35.

Nowotny

Scott

Gibbons

(2003) Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179–194. doi:10.1023/A:1025505528250.

36.

Pekrun

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2012) Academic emotions and student engagement. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 259–282.

37.

Reeve

(2012) A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 149–172.

38.

Reschly

Christenson

(2012) Jingle, jangle and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 3–20.

39.

Rumberger

Rotermund

(2012) The relationship between engagement and high school drop-out. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 491–514.

40.

Salmela-Aro

Moeller

Schneider

Spicer

Lavonen

(2016) Integrating the light and dark sides of student engagement using person-oriented and situation-specific approaches. Learning and Instruction 43: 61–70. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.001.

41.

Schön

(1987) Educating the reflective practitioner, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

42.

Shernoff

D. J.

(2013) Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement, New York, NY: Springer.

43.

Shernoff

D. J.

Kelly

Tonks

S. M.

Cavanagh

R. F.

Anderson

Abdi

(2016) Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in classrooms. Learning and Instruction 43: 52–60. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003.

44.

Shernoff

D. J.

Ruzek

E. A.

Sinha

(2017) The influence of the high school classroom environment on learning as mediated by student engagement. School Psychology International 38(2): 201–218. doi:10.1177/0143034316666413.

45.

Shunk

Mullen

(2012) Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 219–238.

46.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

(2012) Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 21–44.

47.

Watt

H. M. G.

Carmichael

Callingham

(2017) Students’ engagement profiles in mathematics according to learning environment dimensions: Developing an evidence base for best practice in mathematics education. School Psychology International 38(2): 166–183. doi:10.1177/0143034316688373.

48.

Weiss

C. H.

(1995) Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: Connell

J. P.

Kubisch

A. C.

Schorr

L. B.

Weiss

C. H.

(eds) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, pp. 65–92.

49.

Zhou

Ren

(2017) A self-determination perspective on Chinese fifth-graders’ task disengagement. School Psychology International 38(2): 149–165. doi:10.1177/0143034316684532.