This case study analyzes how and why student engagement differs across 581 classes in one diverse high school. Factor analyses of surveys with 1,132 students suggest three types of engaging teaching practices—connective instruction, academic rigor, and lively teaching. Multilevel regression analyses reveal that connective instruction predicts engagement more than seven times as strongly as academic rigor or lively teaching. Embedded case studies of five classes use interviews and observations to examine how various classes combine connective instruction, academic rigor, and lively teaching and how these practices individually and collectively engage students. Across these analyses, this study introduces a typology for thinking systematically about teaching for engagement.
BlumenfeldP. C.KemplerT. M.KrajcikJ. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BridgelandJ. M.DilulioJ. J.MorisonK. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
4.
BrophyJ. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32.
5.
BurniskeJ.MeibaumD. (2012). The use of student perceptual data as a measure of teaching effectiveness (Briefing paper from the Texas Comprehensive Center). Austin, TX: SEDL.
6.
CarawayK.TuckerC. M.ReinkeW. M.HallC. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 417–427.
7.
ConchasG. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino student engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 475–504.
8.
ConnellJ. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In CicchettiD. (Ed.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (Pp. 61–97). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
9.
CooperK. S. (2012). Safe, affirming, and productive spaces: Classroom engagement among Latino high school students. Urban Education, 48(4), 490–528.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
DavidsonA. L. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools: Student narratives on race, gender, and academic engagement. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
12.
DavidsonA. L.PhelanP. (1999). Students multiple worlds: An anthropological approach to understanding students’ engagement with school. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 11, 233–273.
13.
DockterJ.HaugD.LewisC. (2010). Digital literacies: Redefining rigor: Critical engagement, digital media, and the new English/language arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 418–420.
14.
EastonL. B. (2008). Engaging the disengaged: How schools can help struggling students succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
15.
ElliottE. M.OlliffC. B. (2008). Developmentally appropriate emergent literacy activities for young children: Adapting the early literacy and learning model. Early Childhood Education, 35, 551–556.
16.
EriksonE. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
17.
FergusonR. (2007). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
18.
FieldingA. (2002). Teaching groups as foci for evaluating performance in cost-effectiveness of GCE advanced level provision: Some practical methodological innovations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), 225–246.
19.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
20.
FurrerC.SkinnerE. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.
21.
GándaraP.ContrerasF. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
22.
GoodT. L.BrophyJ. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
GreenJ.MartinA. J.MarshH. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 269–279.
24.
HarterS. (2006). The development of self-esteem. In KernisM. H. (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 144–150). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
25.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
26.
KlineR. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
27.
KrathwolhD. R.BloomB. S.MasiaB. B. (1999). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 2 affective domain (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
30.
Lannegrand-WillemsL.BosmaH. A. (2006). Identity development-in-context: The school as an important context for identity development. Identity, 6(1), 85–113.
31.
LarmerJ.MergendollerJ. R. (2010). 7 essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34–37.
32.
LeeV. E.SmithJ. B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 907–945.
33.
LoflandJ.LoflandL. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A Guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34.
MarciaJ. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558.
35.
MarshH. W. (2001). Distinguishing between good (useful) and bad workloads on students’ evaluations of teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 183–212.
36.
MarshH. W.MartinA. J.DebusR. (2001). Individual differences in verbal and math self-perceptions: One factor, two factors, or does it depend on the construct? In RidingR.RaynerS. (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences (pp. 149–170). London: Greenwood Publishing.
37.
MartinA. J.DowsonM. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.
38.
MarzanoR. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39.
MarzanoR. J.PickeringD. J.HeflebowerT. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
40.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
MayeroffM. (1971). On caring (Vol. 43). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
42.
Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
43.
MeschkeL. L.PeterC. R.BartholomaeS. (2012). Developmentally appropriate practice to promote healthy adolescent development: Integrating research and practice. Child Youth Care Forum, 41, 89–108.
44.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
NakkulaM. (2003). Identity and possibility: Adolescent development and the potential of schools. In SadowskiM. (Ed.) Adolescents at school: Perspectives on youth, identity, and education (pp. 7–18). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
46.
NakkulaM. J.ToshalisE. (2006). Understanding youth: Adolescent development for educators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47.
NasirN. S.HandV. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 143–179.
48.
National Center for School Engagement. (2006). Quantifying school engagement: Research report. Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement.
49.
National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
50.
NoddingsN. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
51.
OldfatherP. (1995). What’s needed to maintain and extend motivation for literacy in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 38(6), 420–422.
52.
ParrisS. R.BlockC. C. (2007). The expertise of adolescent literacy teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 582–596.
53.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
PedlowC. T.CareyM. P. (2004). Developmentally appropriate sexual risk reduction interventions for adolescents: Rationale, review of interventions, and recommendations for research and practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(3), 172–184.
55.
PogrowS. (2008). Teaching content outrageously: How to captivate all students and accelerate learning, grades 4–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
Programme for International Student Assessment. (2000). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation, executive summary (Report Code: 96 2003 13 1 P). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
57.
RabashJ.GoldsteinH. (1994). Efficient analysis of mixed hierarchical and cross-classified random structures using a multi-level model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19(4), 337–350.
58.
RaudenbushS. W. (1993). A crossed random effects model for unbalanced data with applications in cross-sectional and longitudinal research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(4), 321–349.
59.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
RavitzJ. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 290–312.
61.
RoeserR. W.PeckS. C.NasirN. S. (2006). Self and identity processes in school motivation, learning, and achievement. In AlexanderP. A.WinneP. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., 391–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
RumbergerR. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
63.
SchlechtyP. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
64.
SchusslerD. L. (2006). Beyond content: How teachers manage classrooms to facilitate intellectual engagement for disengaged students. Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 114–121.
65.
SchusslerD. L.CollinsA. (2006). An empirical exploration of the who, what, and how of school care. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1460–1495.
66.
ShaharG.HenrichC. C.BlattS. J.RyanR.LittleT. D. (2003). Interpersonal relatedness, self-definition, and their motivational orientation during adolescence: A theoretical and empirical integration. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 470–483.
67.
ShernoffD. J.CsikszentmihalyiM.SchneiderB.ShernoffE. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176.
68.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
69.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
71.
Van HornM. L.RameyS. L. (2003). The effects of developmentally appropriate practices on academic outcomes among former head start students and classmates, Grades 1–3. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 961–990.
72.
VermetteP. J. (2009). Engaging teens in their own learning: 8 keys to student success. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
73.
VigilJ. D. (2004). Gangs and group membership: Implications for schooling. In GibsonM.GandaraP.Peterson KoyamaJ. (Eds.), School connections: US Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 87–106). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
74.
WangM.HolcombeR. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662.
75.
WillmsJ. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
76.
WolfM. K.CrossonA. C.ResnickL. B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26(1), 27–53.
77.
Yazzie-MintzE. (2009). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University School of Education.
78.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
YonezawaS.JonesM.JoselowskyF. (2009). Youth engagement in high schools: Developing a multidimensional, critical approach to improving engagement for all students. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 191–209.
