A Qualitative Exploration of the Facilitators and Barriers of Cognitive Engagement Among Ninth-Grade Students in Accelerated Curricula

Abstract

In this study, we used an extreme case approach to examine the facilitators and barriers of cognitive engagement among freshmen in Advanced Placement (AP) or Pre-International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. Twelve ninth-grade AP/IB students participated in semistructured interviews focused on cognitive engagement. After analyzing the data using a generic approach with an emphasis on constant-comparative methods, we identified five themes related to facilitators (i.e., students’ role, teachers’ role, parents’ role, school connectedness, and technology's role) and three themes related to barriers (i.e., student perceptions, negative academic experiences, and distractions). Most themes aligned with a priori themes derived from the literature. The findings can help educators understand what accelerated students perceive as helpful or harmful in promoting their level of cognitive engagement, which, in turn, may influence their academic achievement.

Student engagement has gained an increasing amount of interest over the last few decades as research supports this construct as a potentially malleable factor that predicts school success (Bond, 2020; Reschly & Christenson, 2022; Schnitzler et al., 2021). This construct is also of interest to a wide range of educational stakeholders because it is linked with positive outcomes and is relevant to all students (Wang & Hofkens, 2020). Engaged students adhere to the school's behavioral norms and expectations, feel a sense of belonging to school, and attend to cognitive demands of coursework. Considering the benefits of promoting student engagement, this study explored the facilitators and barriers of cognitive engagement through the lens of freshmen in accelerated high school curricula.

Review of the Literature

This literature review provides an overview of student engagement as a construct, explores facilitators and barriers to evoke cognitive engagement, discusses the importance of student voice, and showcases the need to include accelerated students’ voices in the study of cognitive engagement. Student engagement is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that includes three types: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Groccia, 2018). In 2015, Greene summarized the different ways in which researchers have measured cognitive engagement over the past 20 years and concluded that the use of both cognitive and motivation theory is required to capture the construct. Reschly and Christenson (2022) agree with this viewpoint in the second edition of their Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Although there are varying definitions of cognitive engagement in the literature, they share some common features, namely motivation/self-regulation (ability to initiate and sustain behaviors and cognitive focus to reach goals), relevance/value (perceived significance of classroom learning to help achieve future aspirations), and goal setting (tendency to set learning-related goals; Appleton et al., 2006; Archambault et al., 2009; Blumenfeld et al., 2006; Fredricks et al., 2004; Griffiths et al., 2012). In the context of this study, we synthesized these features to define cognitive engagement as one's willingness to self-motivate and use self-regulation skills to master school-related goals (e.g., comprehend complex ideas) that are relevant to one's future aspirations.

Researchers have found consistent links between cognitive engagement and increased well-being and adaptive coping (Reschly & Christenson, 2022; Suldo & Parker, 2022). Cognitive engagement also serves as a protective factor against boredom, disaffection, school dropout, poverty, and unemployment (Archambault et al., 2022; Fredricks et al., 2019). The current body of research reveals that student engagement tends to decrease as students move from elementary to high school, which predicts declines in Grade Point Average (GPA) over time (Lam et al., 2015; Wang & Eccles, 2012a). In contrast, when level of cognitive engagement is high, it predicts higher academic achievement (Lei et al., 2018; Li & Lerner, 2013).

Regarding the relationship between motivation, engagement, and achievement, Siegle and McCoach's (2005) Achievement-Orientation Model suggests that gifted students who find school learning meaningful (i.e., goal valuation), perceive their school environment as supportive (i.e., environmental perception), and believe they have the necessary skills to succeed at school (i.e., self-efficacy) will develop motivation that leads to greater self-regulation and higher engagement, which in turn positively affect their achievements in school. In contrast, students whose attitudes are low on any of the three constructs will have lower motivation, poorer self-regulation, more disengagement, and likely underachievement in school.

Facilitators of Cognitive Engagement

Students, teachers, and parents play a role in influencing students’ level of cognitive engagement in the classroom. Regarding student-level facilitators, survey research indicates that adolescents’ level of positive affect and use of coping strategies are related to greater cognitive engagement (Reschly et al., 2008). Students who reported stronger sense of belonging to school and better peer relationships also tend to be more engaged (Allen et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2022). Patall et al. (2019) reported that students who believed effort, as compared to innate ability, played a bigger role in academic success had higher level of cognitive engagement. Taken together, existing studies suggest that students who report higher positive affect, use more adaptive coping strategies, and adopt a mastery approach in learning tend to report higher levels of cognitive engagement.

Teachers have also been found to play a critical role in facilitating cognitive engagement. Positive teacher–student relationship has been shown to associate with higher level of cognitive engagement (Quin, 2017). Students are also more likely to be cognitively engaged when their teachers offer choices and promote self-regulation (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Fredricks et al. (2019) identified classroom practices that facilitate cognitive engagement, including posing questions that are relevant to the real world and offering meaningful challenges. Moreover, increases in social support from teachers are associated with a slower decline, relative to the typical developmental progression, in adolescents’ cognitive engagement (Wang & Eccles, 2012b). In sum, prior research indicates that aspects of a teacher's instructional style and relationships with students are relevant to students’ cognitive engagement in the classroom.

The current literature shows that higher quality of parent–child relationships is linked to higher engagement, more positive attitudes toward school, and academic performance (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012). Parents who are more involved in school tend to have children who are more academically engaged (Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). Parents’ educational values and the way in which they communicate those values to their children also impact cognitive engagement in youth (Bempechat, 2019). In addition to parent involvement, other cognitive engagement facilitators that emerged from prior studies include parental autonomy support (i.e., encouragement of independent problem-solving skills and adoption of the child's perspectives; Lerner & Grolnick, 2020) and having a structured learning environment at home (i.e., clear and consistent guidelines and expectations, predictability of consequences, and authority; Raftery et al., 2012).

Barriers to Cognitive Engagement

Compared to facilitators of cognitive engagement, less is known about barriers to cognitive engagement. The Achievement-Orientation Model (Siegle & McCoach, 2005) theorized that perceived irrelevance of schoolwork, lack of support from others, and low self-efficacy can contribute to lower level of engagement. This theory is partly confirmed in studies where students who believe that innate ability, such as talent in Math, plays a bigger role in academic success compared to effort (i.e., low self-efficacy) tend to report lower level of cognitive engagement (Hufton et al., 2002; Patall et al., 2019). Rotgans and Schmidt (2011) also found that when students have less background knowledge on a topic, they perceived less relevance and independence in learning, and thus reported a lower level of cognitive engagement.

Importance of Student Voice

Student voice matters because it encourages student agency—genuine student voice work allows students to provide input on issues related to their learning and use their voices to inform action and practice at school (Fielding & Bragg, 2003). There are several avenues to involve student voices in research (Cook-Sather, 2020). For example, researchers can invite students to participate in interviews to analyze pedagogical practices and provide relevant recommendations to inform changes in their school experiences. It is especially important to include voices of traditionally marginalized students.

The majority of cognitive engagement research to date has been correlational in nature, conducted through quantitative studies (e.g., Patall et al., 2019; Lerner & Grolnick, 2020; Allen et al., 2016), with some notable qualitative exceptions (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2019; Hufton et al., 2002). Deeper exploration of cognitive engagement via qualitative studies, especially through gathering minority student voice, can be beneficial to understand how cognitive engagement can be promoted among students and to identify the range of barriers and facilitators to adolescents’ cognitive engagement.

Cognitive Engagement Through the Lens of High School Students in Accelerated Curricula

Combining the need for more qualitative studies in examining cognitive engagement and the importance of incorporating student voice, there is a need to include students’ perspectives in exploring the facilitators and barriers of cognitive engagement. In addition to representation of youth from various developmental stages, it is also important to include the voices of students with varying levels of academic achievement to diversify the participant population (Pearce & Wood, 2019). For instance, it is equally important to study the two extremes of the academic spectrum: youth struggling academically (e.g., high school dropouts, students failing classes) and youth who are doing particularly well academically (e.g., students with high GPA or enrolled in accelerated coursework) since these groups will likely differ in their level of cognitive engagement. With the exception of a couple of quantitative studies that identified significant associations between student engagement and their mental health (DiLeo et al., 2022) and course grades (Shaunessy-Dedrick et al., 2015; Suldo et al., 2018), few published studies on cognitive engagement have focused on accelerated high school students. One potential population representative of youth who are doing well and who are likely to be cognitively engaged are those enrolled in accelerated high school curricula, namely Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) coursework.

Purpose of the Current Study

Studies of students who are cognitively engaged in school show subsequent beneficial outcomes, including academic achievement, though level of cognitive engagement tends to decrease during adolescence (Wang & Eccles, 2012a). Thus, it is particularly important to discover ways to facilitate long-term cognitive engagement among older students (i.e., middle and high school students). Moreover, as most studies focus on facilitators of cognitive engagement (e.g., Allen et al., 2016; Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012; Davis et al., 2022; Fredricks et al., 2019), there is a clear gap in the literature to further investigate potential barriers to feeling cognitively engaged. Emphasizing the need to focus on student voice, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the facilitators of and barriers to cognitive engagement among high school students in accelerated curricula (i.e., AP classes or pre-IB coursework). Through interviews with AP and IB students with diverse levels of cognitive engagement, we aimed to explore factors that helped and prevented this population of students from being cognitively engaged in the classroom.

Method

This exploratory study utilized two data sources. The first source was survey data, which were collected as part of a larger research project (described below in Recruitment and Selection of Participants) to identify and select participants representing extreme cases (Patton, 2002), or those at the highest and lowest ends of level of cognitive engagement. The second source of data was narrative case study collected through individual interviews with high school students about dimensions of cognitive engagement. Operating from an interpretivist paradigm (O'Donoghue, 2006), we acknowledged that there are multiple realities shaped by individual's subjectivity and communicated with participants in a reciprocal manner.

Recruitment and Selection of Participants

We recruited participants from a larger intervention development project that included ninth-grade students enrolled in either AP Human Geography (N = 167) or IB Inquiry Skills (N = 153) at two high schools located in one large district in a Southeastern state (Shaunessy-Dedrick et al., 2022). The larger study aimed to investigate the acceptability of a new intervention designed to teach and motivate AP/IB students to cope with academic stress effectively. That study involved initial delivery of a universal intervention intended to build students’ skills in coping and increase connections in order to maximize likelihood of success in AP and IB; the intervention included a series of 10–12 weekly lessons provided during students’ class time. Students in the participating classrooms were invited to complete a series of self-report measures before (baseline; August 2016) and after (post-intervention; May 2017). The battery of self-report instruments included surveys to assess student engagement (described in next section) as well as constructs not relevant to the current study but pertinent to the intervention (e.g., student stress and coping). Prior to baseline data collection, the research team obtained both written parental consent and student assent from 93.3% of recruited students.

Measure

To assess student engagement, the larger study utilized the School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R; McCoach & Siegle, 2003b). Cognitive engagement was measured through the SAAS-R, which has 35 items divided into five scales: perceived academic competence (Academic Self-Perception), and two types of student engagement: emotional engagement (Attitude Toward Teachers; Attitude Toward School) or cognitive engagement (Goal Valuation [GV]; Motivation/Self-Regulation [M/SR]). For the purposes of this study, only the GV and M/SR scales were examined. The GV scale measures students’ perceived relevance of school learning to their future aspirations and goals (e.g., “Doing well in school is important for my future career goals” McCoach & Siegle, 2003b, p. 424), and M/SR measures students’ willingness to invest effort in initiating and maintaining academic-related behavior through the use of cognitive strategies (e.g., “I spend a lot of time on my schoolwork” McCoach & Siegle, 2003b, p. 424). Participants rated how strongly they agree or disagree with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Prior use of the SAAS-R with AP and IB students has provided support for construct validity and reliability, for instance α = .89 and .90 for GV and M/SR, respectively (Dedrick et al., 2015). Other researchers have also utilized the GV and M/SR scales from the SAAS-R to measure cognitive engagement (Chong et al., 2018).

Identifying Prospective Participant Pool

We sought participation from AP and pre-IB students through purposeful sampling known as extreme cases (Patton, 2002). Using secondary data collected for the larger intervention study, we reviewed the distribution of average scores on the GV and M/SR composites of the SAAS-R (McCoach & Siegle, 2003b) at baseline to find mean score cut-points that corresponded to ≤10th percentile and ≥90th percentile of scores for GV and M/SR. On the 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest) range of scores for SAAS-R scale averages, cut scores for the low cognitive engagement group were M ≤ 6.0 and ≤ 4.3 for GV and M/SR, respectively. For the high cognitive engagement group M = 7.0 and ≥ 6.8 for GV and M/SR, respectively, were used as cut scores. These cut scores are similar to those reported in other studies with a similar population (McCoach & Siegle, 2003a; Miñano Pérez et al., 2017; Suldo et al., 2008), and it is noteworthy that students with lower GV and M/SR scores tend to have lower academic achievements compared to students with higher scores. With regard to high cognitive engagement, 32 students had mean scores above the cut-points on both scales; for relatively low cognitive engagement, 15 students had mean scores below cut-points on both scales. From this pool of 47 students, we used a maximal variation sampling strategy (Creswell, 2005) to select a balanced number of students from the high and low engagement groups and, to the extent possible, diversity in representation of gender and ethnic groups. Of note, there was only one female among the low engagement group and only three minority (i.e., Asian American) students among the pool of potential participants.

Thirteen students were deemed eligible and fit the criteria for an ethnically diverse and gender balanced pool. To recruit the eligible students, Kai Zhuang Shum (KZS) spoke with prospective participants and indicated that agreement to participate would entail attending one to two individual interviews during school hours in spring 2017, interviews which would be recorded and last approximately 30 min. Students who agreed to participate received a $10 gift card following each interview. Of the 13 students recruited, 12 agreed to participate (92.3% participation rate). KZS interviewed all the students (Table 1).

Table 1.

Student Participants’ Demographic Features and Baseline SAAS-R Scores.

Participant pseudonym	Cognitive engagement group	Score on GV subscale	Score on M/SR subscale	Program	Gender	Ethnicity
Ryan	Low	4.00	3.00	AP	Male	White
Danny	Low	5.50	4.30	IB	Male	White
Derek	Low	4.50	4.30	IB	Male	White
Larry	Low	5.00	4.30	IB	Male	White
Damian	Low	3.33	4.00	IB	Male	White
Brittany	Low	5.83	3.90	AP	Female	White
Jerry	High	7.00	7.00	AP	Male	White
Ivan	High	7.00	7.00	IB	Male	White
Kerry	High	7.00	6.90	AP	Female	White
Brenda	High	7.00	7.00	IB	Female	Asian American
Barbie	High	7.00	7.00	IB	Female	White
Angel	High	7.00	6.80	IB	Female	Asian American

Note. GV = Goal Valuation; M/SR = Motivation/Self-Regulation; AP = Advanced Placement; IB = International Baccalaureate.

Interview Protocol Development and Pilot

We developed a semistructured interview protocol for the first interview to gather student perceptions of barriers and facilitators to student cognitive engagement in their AP/IB classroom. The interview protocol began with an ice-breaker question (i.e., What led you to take AP classes or join the IB program?). The next part of the interview required the student to respond to a scenario about a high school student. First, we explained a scenario and the challenges the high school student is facing related to a cognitive engagement issue (i.e., willingness to self-motivate, use self-regulation skills to achieve self-determined academic goal, and perceptions of schoolwork as important to future aspirations). Next, we asked an initial question about how the interviewee would advise the student in the scenario to manage the cognitive engagement challenge (See the Full Interview Protocol in Appendix A).

After the student responds to the scenario, we ask a series of four probing questions related to ways others might support the student in the scenario, including the classroom teacher, a family member, the student, and a community member. The protocol continues with two more scenarios that include a different cognitive engagement issue, a question, and four probes each.

The scenarios serve as prompts that provide interviewees a realistic situation with cognitive engagement embedded, allowing the student the opportunity to grasp what may otherwise be an abstract concept if presented in more direct, formal language. The scenarios and subsequent questions and probes allow interviewees to discuss initial reactions to a prompt before further examination of more personal experiences relating to cognitive engagement. We also chose to use scenarios with the hope that they would foster rich responses from participants. Specifically, the interview questions that follow the scenarios are based on narrative inquiry to evoke stories from participants (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Stories collected from participants were compiled and used to answer the research questions. In this study, “story” is defined as any narrative information that provides insight into the lives of the participants, including their perspectives, experiences, worldviews, feelings, and opinions.

Prior to collection of interview data, we conducted a pilot study to gain feedback on the clarity and usability of the questions and to estimate the duration of the interview. Specifically, two undergraduate students in an honors college program at a university in the Southeast who had been enrolled in a high school IB program agreed to participate in a pilot test of the interview protocol with KZS, who audio recorded the interview. Pilot participants affirmed that the scenarios were relevant, easy to understand, and appropriate. Shannon M. Suldo listened to the interview audio files and provided feedback on interviewing techniques and protocol flow. Based on this feedback, we modified the interview design for the study involving high school students. Given the pilot students’ positive reactions to the interview experience and the quality of the information gleaned, no substantive changes to the interview protocol were made. Following the first round of interviews with high school participants, we also developed protocols to guide follow-up interviews (see Appendix B) with select participants. The purpose of the second round of interviews was to conduct member checking and further explore some of the themes generated from the first round of interviews. Individualized follow-up interview questions were generated by KZS following a review of transcripts and audio files from the first round of interviews.

Data Collection Procedures

KZS conducted all initial interviews in April 2017 and follow-up interviews in May 2017 during school hours at the school sites. The first round of interview sessions (N = 12) lasted, on average, 27 min, 33 s (SD = 4 min, 54 s), with the shortest interview at 23 min, 9 s and the longest at 39 min, 23 s. The second round of interview sessions (N = 4) lasted 21 min, 39 s on average (SD = 2 min, 15 s), with the shortest interview at 18 min, 31 s and the longest at 23 min, 25 s. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

Directly after the first round of interviews, KZS listened to the audio recordings and identified statements or passages that could be explored more fully to elicit greater depth, clarity of thought, or specificity from selected participants through a follow-up interview. In May 2017, four of the 12 students (representing two low and two high cognitive engagement) were invited to participate in a second round of interviews because they were the only students who provided statements that warranted additional exploration. Recruitment of additional students for participation in interviews ceased when we observed that saturation was reached (Guest et al., 2006), which was after 12 initial interviews and 4 follow-up interviews.

Overview of Analyses

To analyze the interview data, this study adopted the interpretivist paradigm (O’Donoghue, 2006) and took a generic approach (Lichtman, 2013). A generic approach means integrating various qualitative analysis techniques to best answer the research questions. In this study, we incorporated the various techniques recommended by Ryan and Bernard (2003), including identifying repetitions, metaphors, theory-related material, creating key word lists, identifying similarities and differences, and sorting data into themes. KZS transcribed audio recordings and then read transcriptions line-by-line several times, underlining key words. As she immersed herself in the data, she incorporated the constant-comparative method. Themes and patterns were identified through systematic comparison of key words (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and by the frequency that particular responses occurred across participants. The higher frequency responses are reported as themes and were noted by two or more participants.

Codebook Development

After the first round of data analysis, KZS created an initial codebook that detailed each theme with a definition and examples from transcripts. The initial codebook was used to begin the process of intercoder agreement. Four independent coders (school psychology doctoral students) were oriented to the codebook by KZS and shown how the codes were organized and the meanings. The independent coders then coded the transcripts separately and discussed any inconsistencies in coding with KZS. They also helped merge, rename, or rearrange the codes. As a result, a final list of codes was formed. The themes are organized by main and secondary themes (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Themes, Secondary Themes, and Codes.

Facilitator Theme 1: Students’ role (n = 185)
Secondary themes	Codes and descriptions	Examples/Strategies	High CE	Low CE	N
Student Beliefs (n = 91)	Long-Term Goal: Believe in long-term benefits of AP/IB courses	“You have to constantly remind yourself that you are here for a reason, it's not just school, you’re here to get that extra transition to college, extra credits when you graduate.”	29	20	12
	Expectancy Value: Be confident in own ability to achieve academic goals	“Do all your homework and read all the assignments, then you’ll feel better about yourself. Once you get into class you’ll realize you did everything correctly it will keep motivating you to keep going.”	17	3	7
	Performance Approach: Be cognitively engaged to demonstrate competency to others	“I always see stuff that I’ve learned, I remember it and I can like sound smart in front of my parents and friends.”	5	7	9
	Performance Avoidance: Be cognitively engaged to avoid failure/disappointment	“You have to think about it like overall, if you don’t pass that class you’re out of the IB program.”	1	4	4
	Mastery Approach: Intrinsically motived to learn; genuinely enjoy learning	“I think school is supposed to be about learning and acquiring… Just focus how learning it add to your life.”	2	3	3
Student Involvement (n = 40)	Explore: Seek fun and new ways to learn; explore how learning applies in real world	“…not just use the same ways of studying… vary it up a little bit, sometimes you do this sometimes you do that, and that's fun for learning.” “I try all the time in real life to see what I’ve learned in school and how can I apply it. A lot of it is everywhere you just have to look around in the real world.”	12	8	12
	Get Involved: Involve learning in and outside of classroom	“I got a lot more involved in the class… I remember asking a question… I still remember it now. That helped me on the AP exam.”	6	14	8
Use of Coping Strategies (n = 36)	Effective Coping: Use effective coping strategies (i.e., seek academic support, turn to family, positive thinking, relaxation, and time and task management) to facilitate cognitive engagement	“She can get a tutor and get a different perspective of that subject can help her.” “Just talk to them, because your parents are going to help you grow and achieve your goals.” “Self-talk can usually help me get through it because I know it's going to be okay and a couple of bad grades really won’t hurt you.” “Just take a breather, take a chill…” “If there is something that you’d rather do then maybe schedule it at a later time and you’ll be able to do it.”	24	10	10
	Ineffective Coping: Use ineffective coping strategy (i.e., take a mental health day)	“If you are a parent let them stay home like at least once every three months”	0	2	1
Student Interests (n = 18)	Match: Try to relate AP/IB course content to personal interest and/or goals	“If you want to go into that particular field, you need to make sure you know basically a lot about that course.”	5	5	5
	Open: Be open to get interested in new topics	“You have to make sure you pay attention in class because you never know what you will end up being after high school.”	3	5	5

Facilitator Theme 2: Teachers’ Role (n = 90)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
Teacher Support (n = 34)	Provide Feedback: Help students monitor progress toward goal	“If the student wants an A the teacher sees that he has a C right now, she should probably talk to him…”	17	6	10
	Promote Autonomy: Be open to student feedback and input	“Give them a little bit of freedom. They can have breaks or little games that make the lesson fun for them.”	2	4	4
	Provide Structure: Set clear expectations in the classroom	“They don’t have to teach us directly, but they need to at least guide us to the correct direction, so we know what to learn.”	2	3	3
Instructional Practices (n = 33)	Real World Application: relate content to real life experiences	“I would want my teacher to go over more things that relate to the concept. Instead of telling us this is the function, this is how it looks, this is the definition of it, talk about how it is used in the real-world situation.”	9	5	8
	Hands On: Incorporate interactive and fun activities	“…it's fun to do it, not just sitting down and talking about it. More active, just moving around trying to do it right. You get to share it. It just helps.”	4	9	9
	Social: Incorporate group/pair work; allow students to work together	“…you are sat in a different group, you rotate throughout the groups and you get to meet everyone in there, you all work together and you usually understand it by the end.”	1	5	4
Teacher Care (n = 23)	Express Care: Be responsive to students’ needs	“Meaning they are willing to engage with the class, they are willing to do something to target some of the learners in the class, and they are willing to do one on one help with you if you do need it.”	10	13	10

Facilitator Theme 3: Parents’ Role (n = 47)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
Parents’ Value (n = 23)	Value Education: Convey the value of education to their child	“It's easier for a kid to see something directly in his parents, explaining what they did in school helped them do something they want to do.”	15	8	10
Parent Support (n = 17)	Emotional Support: Show encouragement and interest	“My parents talk to me and help me when I am stressed out with a bunch of homework. I just become happy again and feel motivated to finish my work.”	9	2	6
	Academic Support: Provide instrumental help related to academics	“Family members can try to understand what Cameron is going through and they can look at whatever he is trying to learn.”	0	6	5
Home Environment (n = 7)	Space: Provide a quiet space for learning at home	“We have a little study area in the front room of our house and we have to do our work there because my parents know that if I go to my room I am not going to get anything done”	1	4	5
	Time: Allow students to have ample time to study	“If they [parents] can go ahead and take off some of the burden of so we have more free time at home to either relax or do work, it really helps because that way you have a way to relieve yourself from a stressor at home, you go and take on more at school.”	0	2	2

Facilitator Theme 4: School Connectedness (n = 28)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
None*	Peers: Having good relationships with classmates or other students at school matters	“Having friends in the class kind of motivated me a little bit too, so you’re not all alone.”	9	9	8
	Teachers: Good relationships with teachers matters	“A teacher–student bond is really good too. If you’re not interested in the class, you could talk to your teacher, you can ask her all the questions you need to, and you can get the more in-depth feel of the idea, and then maybe you’ll like the topics.”	6	2	4
	School Pride: Feeling proud to be part of the school facilitates cognitive engagment	“If you don’t like the school, if you say, ‘I came here and it was a mistake,’ then you’re not going to try as hard in your classes and your grades are going to fall off because you feel like I don’t belong here.”	0	2	2

Facilitator Theme 5: Technology's Role (n = 15)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
None*	Access: Technology enables students to access other sources of information and other individuals around the world	“I think just having extra resources I can rely on to help me with learning helps a lot and those YouTube videos, just other people teaching the subject too. It's like getting multiple teachers online teaching me.”	4	6	5
	Familiar: Students are familiar with and prefer using technology to learn	“Whenever I am on technology I feel more connected to it and whenever I’m using it I feel like I can learn better than having a book in front of me.”	1	2	2
	One for All: Technology accommodates all types of learners	“[Technology] helped a lot because it got into everyone's way of learning. All these different forms help different types of learners.”	2	0	2

Barrier Theme 1: Student Characteristics (n = 23)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
Mindset (n = 16)	Irrelevant: Perceiving AP/IB courses as irrelevant to personal goals impede cognitive engagement	“Sometimes in either History or Spanish I learn materials and I just don’t know how I am going to use it in my future career. I just kind of get lost and frustrated and I just don’t know how to focus.”	6	7	8
	Unsatisfactory Grades: Getting a bad grade can serve as a road block that discourages students	“Sometimes when I get a lower grade when I thought I was going to get a better grade, that kinds of pushes me back a little bit.”	3	0	3
Life Circumstances (n = 4)	Physical/Mental: Certain physical/mental barriers prevent students from being cognitively engaged	“Since I have ADHD, sometimes she [teacher] talks too fast, so when she goes to next slide I’m still behind.”	1	2	3
	Change in Home: Sudden, out of control change at home	“When I was moving I wasn’t paying attention in class, like I didn’t sleep well.”	0	1	1
Lack of Academic Skills (n = 3)	Time and Task Management: Difficulty in managing time	“I have been procrastinating not wanting to do anything and that has stopped me from getting an A because I just feel like I was getting too much work all at once.”	2	1	3

Barrier Theme 2: Negative Academic Experiences (n = 23)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
Classroom Experiences (n = 18)	Boring: Perceiving AP/IB class as boring (e.g., lack of interactions)	“[History] is definitely the most boring class because all we do is work on a text book. I really don’t think that there's much you can do in that situation.”	3	8	7
	Lack of Support: Perceived lack of support from teachers	“It's just weird because you would think a teacher will help you but some just don’t, I guess they’re just give you a book.	2	5	5
Disconnected (n = 5)	Isolated: Feelings of isolation from individuals at school	“Being disconnected it's not helping him and he won’t want to learn because he feels like the teacher is kind of ignoring him.”	3	0	3
	Stranger: Weak relationships with others at school	“If I don’t feel connected to the teachers, if I don’t know them that well, I just drift off.”	1	1	2

Barrier Theme 3: Distractions (n = 13)
Secondary Themes	Codes and Descriptions	Examples	High CE	Low CE	N
None*	Technology: Phones and computers distracts students from their academic work	“Sometimes I procrastinate, and I will realize that it has been 30 min and I have to put my phone away.”	7	2	6
	Social: Students can be distracted by individuals who interfere with their learning	“My sister, she is younger than me and she likes to bother me a lot and sometimes I get distracted by that and that prevents me a lot too.”	3	1	4

Note. CE = Cognitive Engagement. n = frequency with which the theme or code had been mentioned throughout all 16 interviews; N = number of participants across the low and high CE groups who mentioned the theme or code. The same participant may mention the same theme more than once, thus the number of participants (N) who mentioned the theme may be lower than the total n mentions.

*The codes are saturated and serve as its own secondary theme.

Reflexivity Statement

Education is one of the most important values of KZS, which is similar to the beliefs held by many students in accelerated curricula. Combining this factor with KZS's age at the time of study and outer appearances that resembles someone substantially younger than the adults the participants usually encounter at school, the participants may have found it easier to open up and speak freely during interviews. However, as an individual who genuinely enjoys learning in the classroom, KZS might possess assumptions on what might help the participants stay focused and interested in class. These preconceptions may affect the way she filters and interprets the participants’ responses. Thus, she kept a reflexive journal (e.g., recorded reflections on interactions with participants, data collection processes, decisions made during data analysis) to minimize the potential for personal biases to negatively impact the rigor of the study.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness refers to the extent to which a qualitative study is credible, dependable, transferable, and confirmable (Sandelowski, 1993). Several steps were taken to attain trustworthiness, including engaging in self-reflective practices (e.g., keeping a reflexive journal, getting feedback from peers on data interpretation process, and examining how personal values may impact the research process) during planning, interviews, and data analysis (Tracy, 2010). The study also uses crystallization, multivocality, and member checking. First, independent researchers were involved in data analysis to encourage crystallization (i.e., to reach a deeper understanding of the data; Tracy, 2010). KZS coded all the transcripts whereas four independent coders each coded a random selection of the transcripts. She then compared the codes and resolved any inconsistencies with other coders. Space for a variety of opinions (i.e., multivocality) was provided by including students who reported both low and high levels of cognitive engagement (Tracy, 2010). Participants were purposefully selected to ensure representation from different school settings as well as gender and ethnic backgrounds. In the member checking process, 4 out of the 12 participants completed a second round of interviews to seek their input on the credibility of the initial themes. Specifically, the four students were asked to clarify or expand upon some of their statements in the first round of interview.

Data Reduction

To determine frequency, we summed the number of times each code in the codebook was mentioned across participants and within two subgroups (i.e., participants with high vs. low level of cognitive engagement; Lichtman, 2013). These frequencies are listed in Table 2. When a quote was long and focused on the same topic, the quotation was counted only once for the relevant code, even if a follow-up question fell in between. A code was only applied more than once if another quotation pertinent to the topic appeared in another part of the interview to ensure that the number of instances a specific code occurred across interviews was not inflated. Guided by conceptual understandings from existing literature (Fredricks et al., 2004; Reschly & Christenson, 2022), themes were generated based on a holistic examination of frequency, intensity (i.e., the extent to which the code was mentioned across participants), and the relationship of ideas within and across participants’ sentiments. In the results sections, we represent themes by bolded text. Secondary themes and codes are shown by italicized text.

Findings

Overall, thematic analyses revealed five themes related to facilitators of cognitive engagement: students’ role, teachers’ role, parents’ role, school connectedness, and technology's role, and three themes related to barriers of cognitive engagement: student perceptions, negative academic experiences, and distractions. However, it is noteworthy that when students were asked about cognitive engagement, they spoke about other types of engagement (e.g., emotional/behavioral). This finding supports claims in the literature that student engagement is multifaceted and interrelated (e.g., Reschly & Christenson, 2022). The following sections provide more details on each theme through descriptions of secondary themes. Table 3 lists the frequency that each theme is mentioned within subgroups (low vs. high cognitive engagement group) and across participants. The secondary themes and codes, accompanied by descriptions, selected quotes, as well as frequency counts are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 3.

Frequency Count of All Themes by High vs. Low CE Group and Total Across Groups.

	High CE	Low CE	Total
Facilitators			365
Facilitator 1: Students’ Role	104	81	185
Facilitator 2: Teachers’ Role	45	45	90
Facilitator 3: Parents’ Role	25	22	47
Facilitator 4: School Connectedness	15	13	28
Facilitator 5: Technology's Role	7	8	15
Barriers			59
Barrier 1: Student Characteristics	12	11	23
Barrier 2: Negative Academic Experiences	9	14	23
Barrier 3: Distractions	10	3	13
Total	242	213	455

Note. CE = Cognitive Engagement.

Facilitators to Cognitive Engagement

Students’ Role

Participants shared that student beliefs play a big role in keeping students cognitively engaged in accelerated courses. They conveyed that it is important to keep long-term goals in mind and find purpose in learning, as well as bolster confidence in one's ability to reach those goals, to sustain one's level of cognitive engagement. This sentiment can be illustrated with Brenda's (IB, High CE) words, “You have to constantly remind yourself that you are here for a reason, it's not just school, you’re here to get that extra transition to college, extra credits when you graduate.” In addition, participants affirmed that students can (a) explore new and fun ways to learn, as well as (b) get more involved in and out of the classroom to facilitate cognitive engagement (i.e., student involvement). Ryan (AP, Low CE) described how to get involved in class,

I asked my teacher a lot of questions on the stuff we were learning and try to answer questions in class… I remember asking a question about the organization of Eastern Europe like Yugoslavia and Russia and that kind of helped. I still remember it now. That actually helped me on the AP exam.

Participants also suggested behaviors that may be described as ways of coping with academic stressors although the scenarios that were used to prompt participants were not intended to depict stress. Furthermore, participants noted that (a) matching the content in accelerated curricula to one's interest or goal and (b) keeping an open mind in how what interests them can aid in maintaining cognitive engagement in class (i.e., student interest). Brittany (AP, Low CE) described why it is important to keep an open mind, “Each class represents a different subject or a different major. It's like showing you what you’re interested in and what you’re not. If she would just try to get interested or think of it that way then maybe she would realize that she might be interested in something she didn’t think she was.”

Teachers’ Role

Participants shared that teacher support (i.e., providing feedback, promoting autonomy, and having clear classroom structure) helps facilitate their level of cognitive engagement. Damian (IB, Low CE) described how this type of support looks like in the classroom,

It seems that if their [teachers] presence is not felt in the classroom then there's no order or organization to what the classroom is supposed to be. We are supposed to be self-taught in IB but without a guiding hand we don’t know where we are supposed to be going or what we are supposed to be learning at all. They don’t have to teach us directly but they need to at least guide us to the correct direction so we know what to learn.

They also hoped that their teachers would relate course content to real world experiences, share past students’ success stories, incorporate hands-on activities that are interactive and fun, and allow students to socialize and work with each other (i.e., instructional practices). As described by Kerry (AP, High CE), “The teacher could tell the students about past students, what they are doing now since they took that AP classes. I know Ms. P has talked about old students and like where they are now and how well they are doing and that has motivated me to keep taking AP classes.”

Lastly, they suggested that some teacher behaviors, such as being caring, enhance students’ level of cognitive engagement. Damian (IB, Low CE) explained what constitutes being responsive, “Meaning they are willing to engage with the class, willing to do something to target some of the learners in the class, and they are willing to do one on one help with you if you need it rather than just giving you busy work and letting you learn on your own.”

Parents’ Role

Participants affirmed that parents can help students be more cognitively engaged in their AP/IB coursework by conveying the importance and relevance of education (i.e., parents’ value) to their students. Danny (IB, Low CE) shared, “It's easier for a kid to see something directly in his parents, explaining what they did in school helped them do something they want to do.” Parents can also provide emotional and academic support to aid in facilitation of cognitive engagement. Barbie (IB, High CE) appreciated her parents’ emotional support during time of stress, “My parents let me take breaks from my homework and talk to me and help me when I am stressed out with a bunch of homework. I just become happy again and feel motivated to finish my work.” Moreover, parents can arrange the home environment (i.e., providing a quiet space and allotting time for learning at home) to support students’ cognitive engagement in learning. As described by Brittany (AP, Low CE), “Some parents just take away distractions, like my parents take my phone for like a certain amount of time after school so I can just focus on my work and not anything else.”

School Connectedness

In general, participants shared that peers provide emotional and academic support that is helpful to enhance one's level of cognitive engagement. For example, Barbie (IB, High CE) shared,

To help stay interested, students can set up a study group and have other people there to provide support. If they are going through the same thing they can connect and feel supported and feel like they can help me through this and we are all learning the same thing. That helps a lot.

Some participants mentioned the positive effects of having good relationships with teachers on their cognitive engagement. Table 2 illustrates what a good relationship with teachers looks like according to accelerated students and how the relationships benefited them. Lastly, a couple of participants shared how feelings of belonging and being proud of their school facilitates cognitive engagement.

Technology's Role

Participants mentioned that technology acts as a gateway for them to access other resources to enrich their learning experiences. For example, they shared that the ability to connect with other people around the world through technology enhanced their engagement in studying as they can find all kinds of teachers online to educate them on various topics. For example, Ryan (AP, Low CE) described, “I think just having extra resources I can rely on to help me with learning helps a lot and those YouTube videos, just other people teaching the subject too. It's like getting multiple teachers online teaching me.”

Some participants asserted that technology helps students be more cognitively engaged in their accelerated coursework because it feels familiar to students. There are also some who expressed that technology is helpful in facilitating students’ level of cognitive engagement because it accommodates all learning preferences (i.e., One for all).

Barriers to Cognitive Engagement

Student Characteristics

Participants shared that students’ mindset (i.e., perceive accelerated courses as irrelevant to future career or current interests) can hinder with one's attempt to be cognitively engaged. As described by Brenda (IB, High CE), “When we were learning World History. I am not into history, so it was a lot of extra work to try to retain some of the information since I wasn’t interested in it.” Others suggested that earning lower than desired grades prevented them from being cognitively engaged in their AP/IB coursework as it acts as a bump in the road discouraging students from persisting toward academic goal. Moreover, participants shared that there are sometimes physical or mental barriers that they have difficulty overcoming, which pose barriers to cognitive engagement (i.e., life circumstances). For example, Jerry (AP, High CE) explained, “Since I have ADHD, sometimes she [teacher] talks too fast, so when she goes to next slide I’m still behind. It's hard to write down and remember what she says because she goes so fast.” Lastly, some participants mentioned that lack of academic skills (e.g., time and task management) prevented them from pursuing their academic goals in their accelerated courses.

Negative Academic Experiences

Participants mentioned that classroom experiences matter and have a great role in subsequent cognitive engagement. Students shared that AP/IB classrooms that students considered boring and lacking in teacher support were spaces where students had difficulty being cognitively engaged. Brenda (IB, High CE) shared an example when she felt unsupported in her learning, “[The teacher] kind of just gives you the text book and go here it is, do work. That is very hard for me because it's not one of my strongest subjects. Hard for me to not understand the subject in the first place and not having a teacher.” Moreover, feeling disconnected from teachers, peers, and course content prevented some participants from being cognitively engaged in their AP/IB coursework. Ivan (IB, High CE) described, “He won’t want to learn because he feels like the teacher is kind of ignoring him.”

Distractions

Participants shared that technology, such as phones and computers, sometimes distract them from their academic work. Jerry (AP, High CE) explained, “Because when you look at your phone you are attracted to it. The work gets boring, and you just go on your phone and text your friends.” They also mentioned social distractors (i.e., individuals who interfere with their learning) as another classroom barrier to cognitive engagement.

Summary of Findings

Collectively, all 12 participants contributed rich information that formed the abovementioned themes. Through thorough analyses and member checking, we believe that their voices are appropriately represented. The discussion section considers the significance of these findings, including how these themes align with or expanded upon the findings from past studies on cognitive engagement.

Discussion

This study adopted a generic approach (Lichtman, 2013) with a focus on the constant-comparative method in analyzing qualitative data generated from narrative case study interviews. The goal of this study was to generate themes that reflect the collective voices of participants. During the interviews, participants shared strategies to (a) increase AP/IB students’ interest in accelerated coursework, (b) persist toward a self-determined goal in AP/IB courses, and (c) relate what students learn in their AP/IB courses to future aspirations. Participants also discussed the barriers that prevented them from performing the abovementioned tasks. It is noteworthy that all the barrier themes derived from this study contribute to the literature. As existing research on cognitive engagement often focuses on facilitators, there is scant information on what prevents students from being cognitively engaged in the classroom. A visual comparison of the frequency with which codes were mentioned by group reveals that there were minor differences between the thoughts shared by high and low cognitive engagement groups. Perhaps this unique population of students (i.e., high school freshmen in accelerated curricula) share similar views on the topic regardless of their personal level of cognitive engagement. Nonetheless, some of the small differences are telling and may warrant further exploration.

Thematic analyses illustrated that students (through beliefs, involvement, use of coping strategies, and interests), teachers (through support, instructional practices, and care), parents (through value, support, and home environment), school (through feeling of connectedness), and technology each facilitate cognitive engagement. Specifically, some of the students’, teachers’, and parents’ role, as well as the use of technology corresponded to the facilitator themes derived from current literature on cognitive engagement. For instance, consistent with the findings of Reschly et al. (2008), nearly all participants (N = 11) recommended using coping strategies during time of stress (students’ role) to increase one's level of cognitive engagement. Interestingly, students recommended coping strategies beyond seeking support and problem solving, such as positive thinking, relaxation, and time and task management. This might be because participants were exposed to these coping strategies through a class-wide intervention in which they participated as part of the larger project. The targets of this class-wide intervention include effective and ineffective strategies as deemed by research conducted by Suldo and colleagues (2018). Examples of effective coping strategies mentioned by several participants in the sample include (a) seeking academic support, (b) turning to family, (c) thinking positively, (d) relaxing, and (e) managing time and tasks. Only one participant who attended a pre-IB program and who was among the low cognitive engagement group suggested taking a day off from school (taking a “mental health day”) as an effective coping strategy because it helps them refocus on schoolwork. In prior studies, researchers classified a mental health day as a type of ineffective coping strategy due to its associations with lower academic outcomes—due to the cumulative effect of missing school and getting further behind in coursework—and greater social–emotional risks than other, more effective strategies (Shaunessy-Dedrick et al., 2015; Suldo et al., 2018).

School connectedness (feeling connected to school, teachers, and peers) was also a theme consistent with past studies (Allen et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2022). A majority (N = 8) of participants shared that feeling connected to school, teachers, and peers can increase students’ level of cognitive engagement. They stressed that friends are important for emotional and academic support, whereas having a good relationship with their teachers made them feel more comfortable in the classroom. They also emphasized that feeling a sense of belonging and feeling proud of their school facilitates cognitive engagement.

In terms of teachers’ role, the sentiments from the current study's participants align with Wang and Eccles's (2012b) findings—teachers’ social support was associated with a slower decline in cognitive engagement compared to the typical developmental trend. Participants (N = 5) shared that teachers who show care (i.e., genuine interest in students’ learning) help promote students’ level of cognitive engagement in accelerated courses, which is consistent with the summary derived from Quin's (2017) meta-analysis. With respect to parents’ role, most participants (N = 10) mentioned that having parents who communicate the importance of education helped them be more cognitively engaged in learning, which is consistent with Bempechat's (2019) finding that parents who value education and share their values with their children often have children who report being more cognitively engaged in school.

Lastly, for technology's role, participants (N = 6) in this study stressed the positive impacts of technology use on their level of cognitive engagement in the classroom. Interestingly, participants also viewed technology as a distractor that prevents them from being cognitively engaged in their learning. It seems like participants view technology as a double-edged sword, stressing that technology can be helpful in increasing cognitive engagement only when used appropriately (e.g., use YouTube to learn more about class topics).

A thematic analysis indicated that participants view the three types of engagement (emotional, behavioral, and cognitive) as highly related to each other and strategies that apply to one type of engagement could also apply to others. Specifically, participants reported that both emotional and behavioral engagement can facilitate cognitive engagement. Emotional engagement presented itself when participants shared the importance of feeling connected to peers, teachers, and school. For instance, Barbie (IB, High CE) affirmed the importance of emotional support from peers as she recommended holding study groups to get emotional support. Knowing that she is not the only one going through the accelerated courses helped her be more cognitively engaged in class. Regarding behavioral engagement, participants described that engaging in behaviors that lead to learning is a strategy for becoming more cognitively engaged in accelerated coursework. Some of the ways that students suggested to become more behaviorally engaged include paying attention in class, asking questions, and participating in extracurricular activities. There were also instances in which behavioral engagement facilitated emotional engagement, which ultimately led to cognitive engagement and increases in grades. This was demonstrated in Damian's (IB, Low CE) description of how joining a club led to forming relationships at school and liking school, which prevented him from leaving the IB program and, thus, enabled him to be physically present for classes where he could engage cognitively and experience academic success. Taken together, these findings suggest a complex relationship between cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions about which type of engagement precedes or is more important than the others, it appears that all three types of student engagement are indeed related and may influence each other.

Implications for Educators

As cognitive engagement has been found to be associated with positive academic outcomes, such as higher GPA, further education, increased well-being and coping (Chase et al., 2015; Pietarinen et al., 2014; Wang & Hofkens, 2020), it is important to understand how to facilitate this construct among students, especially since research shows students’ level of cognitive engagement tends to decline during adolescence (Wang & Eccles, 2012a). The results of the qualitative analyses of this study (i.e., five facilitators and three barrier themes) can inform teachers and other school staff about what students in accelerated coursework perceive as helpful or harmful in promoting cognitive engagement, which in turn may influence their academic outcomes. The “strategies” listed in Table 2, which are derived from findings in this study, may inform future research intended to develop and evaluate interventions intended to foster high school students’ cognitive engagement. In addition to providing insights into what facilitates or prevents cognitive engagement among students pursuing accelerated high school courses, the value of the findings of this study is that they are derived from student voices. As students are the main consumer of their own education, they should have a voice in shaping their own educational experiences.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Study participants were limited to ninth-grade students. During interviews, some students had fewer experiences to share as they had only taken one AP class during their freshmen year. Other participants are in multiple accelerated courses and likely have preferences for content or teachers that may affect their cognitive engagement. Without a ranking of the participants’ favorite accelerated courses, it was unclear whether their preference or dislike for the AP Human Geography class or the IB Inquiry Skills course impacted their cognitive engagement. Future studies should consider adding a ranking of accelerated courses. It is also noteworthy that this study was part of a larger project wherein participants were exposed to a universal intervention that aims to develop effective coping and engagement skills to respond to academic stressors. Thus, some mentions of coping strategies and school connectedness by participants of this study may have been inspired by the larger project.

Although this study added to the existing literature body on cognitive engagement, there is still much left to be explored. For example, the new themes generated from this study may be facilitators or barriers that are unique to students enrolled in accelerated curricula, but they may also be new themes that had yet to be discovered by other studies of multiple samples of youth. Future studies could include participants with a range of curricular experiences to investigate this matter. If the new themes are confirmed, perhaps they are transferable to students with a range of learning experiences. Moreover, it was out of the scope of this study to investigate how other constructs (e.g., open-ended learning tasks, application of problem solving, creative thinking) affect cognitive engagement, but future larger studies can benefit from this exploration. There is also a potential for sampling bias in this study. In regard to measure selection, future studies should consider expanding beyond solely using student self-report measures, such as getting input from teachers and caregivers or using direct behavioral measures.

Finally, future research should focus on exploring barriers to cognitive engagement. There are relatively few extant studies that mention barriers to cognitive engagement, and the current study discovered fewer barriers than facilitators of cognitive engagement. Understanding what factors can prevent students from being cognitively engaged in learning may be as important as understanding how to promote cognitive engagement. After all, it can be difficult to facilitate cognitive engagement if barriers are not addressed. Future studies should also assess the extent to which students’ cognitive engagement changes as a function of teachers and other school staff implementing strategies suggested by youth in the current study. A qualitative or mixed methods approach might be especially appropriate to explore these future directions.

Conclusion

This study explored the facilitators and barriers of cognitive engagement among ninth-grade students in accelerated curricula, specifically those taking AP and pre-IB coursework. Based on the 16 interviews conducted with AP/IB students (12 initial and 4 follow ups; interviews were divided equally between high and low cognitive engagement subgroups), qualitative analyses revealed eight themes; five themes concerned facilitators of cognitive engagement. Participants shared various actions or thoughts that students, parents, and teachers might adopt to facilitate cognitive engagement. They also mentioned the importance of being connected to school, teachers, and peers, as well as using technology to enhance learning experiences. The last three themes focused on barriers to being cognitively engaged. Participants discussed the impacts of student perceptions (e.g., mindset and life circumstances), negative academic experiences, and distractions on full cognitive engagement. Most of the facilitator themes overlap with the current literature, which has examined cognitive engagement among students who are not taking accelerated courses. Future research should focus on verifying the findings from this study with a larger and more diverse sample. Other researchers should also consider further exploring barriers that prevent students from being cognitively engaged to augment the scant literature in that area.