Cognitive and Emotional Engagement for Students with Severe Intellectual Disability Defined by the Scholars with Expertise in the Field

Abstract

Although a great deal has been written about the complexities of engagement in learning, this is less true for students with severe intellectual disability. The concept of engagement of these students remains strictly behavioral. Engagement as a complex construct, consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional components, must be addressed as conversations continue to grow around instructional practices for these learners. The current study employed phenomenological analysis to examine the perceptions of 23 scholars with expertise in the field of severe disability related to cognitive and emotional components of engagement. The findings demonstrate that the essence of cognitive engagement involves academic responding, meaningful instruction, and learning outcomes, while the essence of emotional engagement consists of both the factors influencing emotional engagement and the variety of means with which to express it. Across both topics, the challenges with defining and measuring engagement remain.

Keywords

cognitive engagement emotional engagement severe intellectual disability phenomenology experts

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agran

(2011). Promoting literacy instruction for people with severe disabilities: Achieving and realizing a literate identity. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 89-91. doi:10.2511/027494811800824561

Bagatell

Mirigliani

Patterson

Reyes

Test

(2010). Effectiveness of therapy ball chairs on classroom participation in children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 895-903. doi:10.5014/ajot.2010.09149

Bock

A. K.

Erickson

K. A.

(2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40, 138-153. doi:10.177/1540796915591987

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

Brooks

Todd

Tofflemoyer

Horner

(2003). Use of functional assessment and a self-management system to increase academic engagement and work completion. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 144-152. doi:10.1177/10983007030050030301

Brophy

J. E.

Good

T. L.

(1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Browder

Lee

Mims

(2011). Using shared stories and individual response modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple, severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 339-351.

Chi

M. T.

(2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In Ericsson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796.002

Cihak

Gama

(2008). Noncontingent escape access to self-reinforcement to increase task engagement for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 556-568.

10.

Delano

Snell

(2006). The effects of social stories on the social engagement of children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 29-42. doi:10.1177/10983007060080010501

11.

Finn

J. D.

Rock

D. A.

(1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221

12.

Finn

J. D.

Zimmer

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

Reschly

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). New York, NY, Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7

13.

Fredricks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

Paris

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

14.

Fredricks

J. A.

McColskey

(2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY, Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7

15.

Glesne

(2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

16.

Green

C. W.

Reid

D. H.

(1996). Defining, validating, and increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 67-78. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-67

17.

Guess

Mulligan-Ault

Roberts

Struth

Siegel-Causey

Thompson

. . . Guy

(1988). Implications of biobehavioral states for the education and treatment of students with the most profoundly handicapping conditions. Journal for the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 163-174. doi:10.1177/154079698801300306

18.

Harvey

(2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11, 431-441. doi:10.1177/1468794111404329

19.

Hidi

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179. doi:10.3102/00346543070002151

20.

Hollingshead

Carnahan

Lowrey

K. A.

Snyder

(2017). Engagement for students with severe cognitive disabilities: The need for a common definition in education. Inclusion, 5, 1-15. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-5.1.1

21.

Hollingshead

Wappett

Erickson

(2015). Examining the effectiveness of technology-based intervention on student engagement and products of learning in an Earth science class. DADD Online Journal, 2(1), 146-156.

22.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).

23.

Keefe

E. B.

Copeland

S. R.

(2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 92-99. doi:10.2511/027494811800824507

24.

Kleinert

H. L.

Browder

D. M.

Towles-Reeves

E. A.

(2009). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79, 301-326. doi:10.3102/0034654308326160

25.

Lancioni

G. E.

Singh

N. N.

O’Reilly

M. F.

Oliva

Basili

(2005). An overview of research on increasing indices of happiness of people with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 83-93. doi:10.1080/09638280400007406

26.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1994). Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-certification

28.

Newmann

(1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. In Newmann

(Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 62-91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

29.

Pellegrino

Chudowsky

Glaser

(Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, National Academies Press.

30.

Poland

(2003). Transcription quality. In Holstein

Gubrium

(Eds.), Inside interviewing. New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Ruppar

Gaffney

Dymond

(2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 209-226. doi:10.1177/0014402914551739

32.

Ryndak

Jackson

White

(2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12 inclusive education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1, 28-49. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

33.

Skinner

E. A.

Belmont

M. J.

(1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

34.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

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

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylier

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2108-7_2

35.

Steinbrenner

J. D.

(2015). Enhancing engagement in the classroom for students with ASD. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 22, 22-30. doi:10.1044/lle22.1.22