THE IMPACT OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ON AN

8TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM

by

Jennifer LaGrone

Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of

Trevecca Nazarene University

School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

Doctor of Education

in

Leadership and Professional Practice

May 2011
 UMI Number: 3460555

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3460555
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 THE IMPACT OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ON AN

8TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM

by

Jennifer LaGrone

Dissertation

__________________________________________ __________________
Dissertation Adviser Date

__________________________________________ __________________
Dissertation Reader Date

__________________________________________ __________________
Dissertation Coordinator Date

__________________________________________ __________________
Dean of the School of Education Date

__________________________________________ __________________
University Provost Date
 © 2011

Jennifer LaGrone

All Rights Reserved

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly indebted to Dr. Mindy Burch for guiding me through this process.

Her grace, intelligence, and understanding were essential to my success.

 ABSTRACT

by
Jennifer LaGrone, Ed.D.
Trevecca Nazarene University
May 2011

Major Area: Leadership and Professional Practice Number of Words: 75

This research examined the impact of student engagement on eighth grade language arts

students. Students in the treatment group were exposed to menu learning designed around

the Strong, Silver, and Robinson (1995) guidelines for student engagement. Students in

the control group did not show significant gains in mastery or retention over the treatment

group. However, treatment students did show significant attitude gains in student choice

of assignment and felt that the instructional objectives encouraged mastery.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................2

Background ..............................................................................................................3

Research Questions ..................................................................................................7

Description of Terms ...............................................................................................8

Significance of the Study .........................................................................................8

Process to Accomplish ...........................................................................................10

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................13

Introduction ............................................................................................................13

Engagement Definition ..........................................................................................13

Engagement Background .......................................................................................14

Gifted Programs .........................................................................................16

Mainstreaming ...........................................................................................16

Dropout (or High Dropout Risk) Students .................................................17

Engagement and Curriculum Mastery ...................................................................18

Engagement and Learning Retention .....................................................................20

Engagement and Student Attitudes ........................................................................22

Autonomy ..............................................................................................................25

Learning Environment Structure............................................................................26

Drop out and At-Risk Behaviors............................................................................29

Support for SCORE Model ....................................................................................30

 Student-Student Relationships ...............................................................................33

Teacher-Student Relationships ..............................................................................34

Other Adult-Student Relationships ........................................................................36

Conclusions ............................................................................................................36

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................38

Introduction ............................................................................................................38

Research Design.....................................................................................................39

Population ..............................................................................................................40

Data Collection .....................................................................................................41

Analytical Methods ................................................................................................45

Limitations .............................................................................................................45

IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................47

Introduction ............................................................................................................47

Findings..................................................................................................................48

Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................53

Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................54

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................57
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. SCORE.....................................................................................................................9

2. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics on Student Demographics ...........................41

3. Means and Standard Deviations for Noun and Pronoun Tests ..............................49

4. Questions from the Pre- and Post-Surveys ............................................................50

5. Inferential Statistics for the Survey Questions.......................................................51

6. Descriptive Statistics for the Survey Questions .....................................................52

 CHAPTER I

Introduction

Student engagement is essential as a tool for accelerated learning in an eighth

grade language arts classroom. Adolescents need an education to succeed, yet middle

school teachers report that students are ambivalent about their own education (Finnan &

Chasin, 2007; Renzulli, 2005). In fact, students cannot find relevance in the curriculum of

drills and high-stakes testing—in direct opposition to the majority of researchers and

students who complain that students need to relate learning to skills that connect to the

world outside of the classroom (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005). Students are

also more engaged in learning outcomes when their assignments offer choice (Finnan &

Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle, 2006). Furthermore, experts encourage educators to

employ or use critical thinking and higher-order reasoning (practices usually limited to

engaging gifted students) to benefit all students (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005,

2008; Rhodes, 2007; Shevitz, Weinfeld, Jeweler, & Barnes-Robinson, 2003; Weinfeld,

Barnes-Robinson, & Jeweler, 2002; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz,

2005).

Student engagement is a teaching strategy for accelerated learning. This project

applied the principles of engagement for accelerated learning at the classroom level for a

group of eighth grade language arts students. The specific intention was to discover if

engagement learning impacts mastery, retention, and student attitudes toward learning.

1
 In this chapter, the researcher states the problem of student disengagement and

provides adequate background information to clarify the need for student engagement in

the accelerated curriculum. Furthermore, this chapter establishes pertinent research

questions to address the problem, describes important terms to the reader, and supports

the significance of this study in an eighth grade classroom. This chapter concludes with

an explanation of the process used to accomplish the research.

Statement of the Problem

This project explored the impact of engaged learning on the curriculum of an

eighth grade language arts class in a West Tennessee rural middle school. The purpose of

this project was to study engagement in an accelerated curriculum to assess curriculum

mastery, retention, and student attitudes toward learning. The problem addressed in the

study was student disengagement in today’s classrooms (Finnan & Chasin, 2007;

Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle, 2006).

This study was an amalgamation of three current theories that address the

acceleration of educational objectives for (a) low-achieving special education students,

(b) gifted/talented students, and (c) dropout (or high dropout risk) students. (Corbett-

Burris, Heubert, & Levin, 2006; Finnan & Chasin, 2007; “Mainstreaming Accelerated

Learning,” 1989; Renzulli, 2005; Shevitz et al., 2003; Weinfeld et al., 2005). Though the

populations are clearly diverse, the researcher believed that the practice to overcome

disengagement, decelerated curricula, and low student performance in these populations

involve many of the same principles and practices.

The main purpose for this study was to see if engagement learning would affect

the learning outcomes in the curriculum of eighth grade language arts students. This

2
study sought to examine the effect of engagement interventions on mastery, retention,

and student attitudes .

Background

The history of engagement began with innovations designed for reengaging

students who had disconnected from school curricula (Renzulli, 1998, 2005, 2008;

Seigle, 2006; Shevitz et al., 2003). Researchers wished to address their ennui while

attempting to engage with the traditional curricula. By rejuvenating their desire to learn

through interest-based programs, researchers hoped to increase student engagement

(Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle).

The guiding philosophy for this project was constructivism. According to Brooks

and Brooks (1999), the predominant practice in education revolves around the idea that

students can learn on demand. This practice incorrectly presumes that students enter the

classroom with the same experiential backgrounds, and it further presumes that students

construct knowledge the same way. This fallacy causes students to disengage from the

curricula, to take a passive role in their education, and to sacrifice their innate desire to

learn (Brooks & Brooks). On the other hand,

Constructivist teachers recognize that students bring their prior experiences with

them to each school activity and that it is crucial to connect lessons to their

students' experiential repertoires. Initial relevance and interest are largely a

function of the learner's experiences, not of the teacher's planning. Therefore, it is

educationally counterproductive to ignore students' suppositions and points of

view. (Brooks & Brooks, p. 22)

3
 A standardized approach to instruction and assessment does ignore students’

background. Yet, despite the best efforts to stifle learning through state-mandated tests

and curricula, students are still in control of their learning. The learner’s control is central

to the constructivist philosophy of education and the key to educational success (Brooks

& Brooks, 1999).

Brooks and Brooks (1993) have identified five principles of the constructivist

teacher as the following:

1. identify and use student points of view,

2. develop lessons that challenge prior knowledge,

3. make learning relevant,

4. use holistic modeling to show how the minor information fits into the

larger schemata,

5. match assessment to assignments by using daily work and performance

assessments to assess understanding.

Three theoretical practices for engagement and acceleration defined this study.

Consequently, this study was an amalgamation of three current theories that addressed

the acceleration of educational goals for (a) low-achieving special education students, (b)

gifted/talented students, and (c) dropout (or high dropout risk) students (Corbett Burris et

al., 2006; Finnan & Chasin, 2007; “Mainstreaming Accelerated Learning,” 1989;

Renzulli, 2005; Shevitz et al., 2003, Weinfeld et al., 2005). Though the populations are

clearly diverse, the practice to overcome disengagement, decelerated curricula, and low

student performance involves many of the same principles (Chapter 2 delineates these

4
practices.) In the following paragraphs, the researcher will briefly explain the current

theories in each field.

The first theory involves mainstreaming the population of low-achieving special

education students into regular education classes. For years, educational practitioners

relegated low-achieving special education students to isolated classrooms with few social

interactions (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). Further damaging, practitioners generally did

not expect these students to make any great academic achievements. With low or no

expectations of academic improvement, these students did not improve. When these same

students entered regular education classes, many educators predicted that these students

would be overwhelmed and incapable of responding to the high demands of regular

education. Instead, the students excelled. High expectations, student disequilibrium, and

challenging coursework propelled these students to new academic achievements.

(Waugh, 2002).

The second theory developed from work with gifted/talented students.

Mainstream curricula often bore gifted/talented students. Without problem-solving,

critical thinking, and opportunities for independent research, Van Tassel-Baska and

Brown (2007) warned that young gifted/talented students quickly master local and state

goals and standards and find little else to engage them in the educational process.

Eventually, these students begin to disengage with the new material as they dismiss given

educational objectives and begin actively pursuing their own learning interests. To

counteract this ennui and disengagement, researchers and teachers of gifted/talented

students have begun to accelerate and compact instructional goals, while simultaneously

creating independent learning opportunities based on student interest. To these efforts,

5
gifted/talented students have responded favorably. Gifted/talented students, when

engaged in the material, excel once more (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown).

The final theory for engagement and acceleration originated in fieldwork and

outreach programs for dropout and potential dropout students. The impact of

disengagement in this population is staggering. According to a Civics Enterprises report

by Bridgeland, DiIulio, and Morison (2006), the majority (88%) of dropouts have passing

grades, but “Nearly half (47 percent) said a major reason for dropping out was that

classes were not interesting. These young people reported being bored and disengaged

from high school” (p. iii). Furthermore, two-thirds of these dropouts felt that too little

was expected of them. These students reported that they would have worked harder in

school if the academic rigor was increased (Bridgeland et al.). Addressing these concerns,

programs such as Accelerated Schools Plus offers a program to address these concerns;

students connect school to real life, reengage in the curriculum, and challenge

misconceptions in the classroom (Finnan & Chasin, 2007).

Looking to the success of gifted and talented engagement learning, researchers

sought to apply the same principles to dropouts and other at-risk students (Corbett Burris

et al., 2006; Finnan & Chasin, 2007; Renzulli, 2005). Their efforts met with tremendous

success (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005). This project explored the impact of

engagement learning on these students as it relates to acceleration in the language arts

curriculum. The purpose of this project was to study engagement in an accelerated

curriculum. The problem addressed in this study is student disengagement in today’s

classroom (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle, 2006).

6
 The most significant research in this topic has come from the Accelerated Schools

Plus program (Finnan & Chasin, 2007) and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)

(Renzulli, 1998, 2005). Accelerated schools work within schools and communities to

develop relevant interest-based curricula within the community to engage students

(Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 2005; Shevitz et al., 2003). Their success, though

significant, requires a heavy burden of complete community buy-in (Renzulli, 1998,

2005). With high-level of involvement from all participants, student achievement,

community satisfaction, and curriculum relevance are significant benefits to the enhanced

acceleration (Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Shevitz et al.).

Research Questions

The researcher believes that engagement is important to student success. For this

reason, this study sought to determine the impact of engagement on the curriculum of an

eighth grade language arts classroom. The following research questions guided the study.

1. In what way does student engagement impact students’ mastery of curriculum

in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

2. In what way does student engagement impact learning retention of the

curriculum of eighth grade language arts students?

3. In what way does student engagement impact student attitudes toward the

curriculum in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

For the first research question, the researcher measured the impact of engagement

on curriculum mastery in her eighth grade language arts classroom. The researcher

compared the pre- and post-assessment scores of two groups: one who used an

engagement curriculum and one who used a traditional curriculum. The hypothesis for

7
this configuration was that students who participated in the engagement curriculum

would score significantly higher than those who participated in the traditional curriculum.

The second research question determined the impact of engagement on retention

of the curriculum of eighth grade language arts students. The researcher hypothesized

that students in the engagement curriculum group would retain learning longer than

students in the traditional curriculum group. Students who have engaged in assignments

and assessments should successfully move learned information into long-term memory

(LTM). Weimer (2007) noted, “The guarantee that memories will be formed comes when

a student is emotionally invested in what he or she is learning and appropriate rehearsal

of the material takes place in order for it to reach LTM” (p. 32).

The third and final research question measured the impact of student engagement

on student attitudes toward the curriculum of an eighth grade language arts classroom.

The researcher hypothesized a significant relationship between engagement and positive

attitudes toward the classroom curriculum. Based on Strong, Silver, and Robinson’s

(1995) research, students with engaging work had a positive relationship with the

learning environment because engaging work “stimulated their curiosity, permitted them

to express their creativity, and fostered positive relationships with others. It was also

work at which they were good” (p. 8).

Description of Terms

Accelerated learning. According to Finnan and Chasin (2007), accelerated

engagement learning “puts the accent on depth and engagement rather than speed and

coverage” (para. 22). Learners who have been disengaged may take some time to connect

with the material but once the connection is made, progress can move quickly (Finnan &

8
Chasin). For the purpose of this paper, accelerated learning did not include time

restrictions for work, but did include limited class time for instruction. Acceleration,

instead, consisted of using higher-order thinking in early assignments, whereas

previously those assignments were introduced last or discarded due to time limitations.

Engagement learning. Furrer and Skinner (2003) defined engaged learning as

“active, goal-directed, flexible, constructive, persistent, focused interactions with the

social and physical environment” (p. 149). For this study, Strong et al.’s (1995) SCORE

definition of engagement was used. SCORE represents the goals of learning and the need

that drives us to fulfill those goals. See Table 1 for the goals and represented needs of

SCORE.

Table 1

SCORE Acronym for Student Engagement

The goal The need for

Success Mastery

Curiosity Understanding

Originality Self-expression

Relationships Involvement with others

Eighth-grade language arts curriculum. State-defined language arts curriculum

for eighth grade.

Interest-based assignments. Assignments that allow for individual choice based

on students’ interests.

Long-term memory. Permanent memory storage (Weimer, 2007).

Mastery. On objective tests, mastery will be defined at 80%.

9
 Menu assignments. A chapter assignment set up like a menu, whereby students

choose how they receive their practice. Students will choose from four different areas that

represent the SCORE model (Strong et al., 1995).

Significance of the Study

This research looked at the effects of student engagement on an eighth-grade

language arts curriculum. Curriculum mastery, learning retention, and student attitudes

were measured to determine whether student engagement occurred and whether that

engagement impacted student performance. All teachers who wish to engage their

students can benefit from this research to understand better effects of engagement on

student achievement. Additionally, this research adds to current knowledge on the effects

of student engagement, albeit to a specialized sample. However, the primary significance

of this research added to the classroom environment of the specialized sample herein

represented.

Process to Accomplish

The purpose of this study was to consider the impact of engagement on the

curriculum of an eighth grade language arts classroom. To address the three research

questions, the researcher developed a plan of measurements, treatments, and data

collection. The researcher used a mixed-model quasi-experimental research design to

determine outcomes quantitatively. This research is quasi-experimental because the

classes used in the sample were predetermined. The researcher used pretests to determine

any preexisting variations in class abilities and preexisting differentiations in self-

reported engagement.

10
 After Trevecca’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the research plan,

the researcher prepared a consent form to obtain student and parent approval for data

collection. In September 2009, the researcher sent home consent forms verifying student

participation in the research study, including archived data collection. The consent form

indicated that all student information was to be confidential.

From her five pre-existing classes, the researcher divided three classrooms into

the control (n=57) and two classrooms into the treatment group (n=30). Every attempt to

divide low-achieving and high achieving classes evenly between groups occurred.

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) scores from the previous year

helped to create a baseline for comparison because the groups formed prior to the

research period. Special education assignments served as the major determinant of

researcher and comparison groups.

Before the treatment began, all students (control and experimental groups) took

two surveys. One survey consisted of Likert-scale questions used to determine a baseline

of student engagement and attitude toward the curriculum. The Middle Grades Survey of

Student Engagement (MGSSE) served as the second survey, though no current feedback

has been available from the publisher.

From this point forward, the control group received traditional language arts

instruction using school-purchased textbooks, materials, and tests. Any thematic

instruction was delivered as directed by the textbook publisher.

The treatment group received similar instructional materials to the control group.

However, in addition to textbook thematic materials, the researcher built choice-oriented

11
menu units, designed by the researcher to implement the SCORE model, intended to

promote mastery, understanding, self-expression, and involvement (Strong et al., 1995).

The researcher used the assessments supplied with the textbook. For both groups,

the textbook pretest was given before the chapter’s instruction (a chapter each on nouns

and pronouns), and the textbook posttest was used at the completion of instruction for

each chapter. Additionally, the researcher readministered each chapter’s pretest three

months after each posttest to ascertain retention levels.

At the end of the treatment period (October 2009 through May 2010), the

researcher took measures to address the research questions. Additionally, students

repeated the survey measuring levels of engagement and attitude toward the curriculum.

Using the data compiled from the surveys and testing, the researcher then

statistically analyzed the trends between the groups. This analysis determined the impact

of engagement on the researcher’s eighth grade language arts classes.

12
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), the predominant practice in education

revolves around the idea that students can learn on demand. This practice incorrectly

presumes that students enter the classroom with the same experiential backgrounds, and it

further presumes that students construct knowledge the same way. This fallacy causes

students to disengage from the curricula, to take a passive role in their education, and to

sacrifice their innate desire to learn (Brooks & Brooks). On the other hand,

Constructivist teachers recognize that students bring their prior experiences with

them to each school activity and that it is crucial to connect lessons to their

students' experiential repertoires. Initial relevance and interest are largely a

function of the learner's experiences, not of the teacher's planning. Therefore, it is

educationally counterproductive to ignore students' suppositions and points of

view. (Brooks & Brooks, p. 22)

Engagement Definition

Furrer and Skinner (2003) defined engaged learning as “active, goal-directed,

flexible, constructive, persistent, focused interactions with the social and physical

environment” (p. 149). Student engagement also refers to a "student's willingness, need,

desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process”

13
(Bomio et al., 1997, p. 3), thereby promoting higher-level thinking for enduring

understanding.

Engagement Background

In the 1930s, the Eight-Year Study examined the school systems of 30 high

schools and 28 colleges with hopes of using the educational system to rebuild the nation

(Aikin, 1942). Among other things, the Eight-Year Study showed the need to increase

student engagement and instructional relevance. Showing a clear need for challenging

coursework, the study showed that students were not developing their intellectual

abilities, and students need to find relevance in the curriculum objectives to establish and

fully develop the intellectual potential for the student and society.

The history of educational engagement began with innovations designed for

reengaging students who had disconnected from school curricula (Goslin, 2003; Renzulli,

1998, 2005, 2008; Seigle, 2006; Shevitz, Weinfeld, Jeweler, & Barnes-Robinson., 2003).

Researchers wished to address students’ ennui while they were engaged with the

traditional curricula. By rejuvenating their desire to learn through interest-based

programs, researchers hoped to increase student engagement (Renzulli, 1998, 2005;

Seigle).

Authentic work and school membership is fundamental to engagement

(Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). A standardized approach to instruction and

assessment ignores students’ background by calling for a universal output from students.

This approach limits student control of learning. Nonetheless, the learner’s control is

central to the constructivist philosophy of education and the key to educational success

(Brooks & Brooks, 1999).

14
 Brooks and Brooks (1993) have identified five principles of the constructivist

teacher as the following:

1. identify and use student points of view,

2. develop lessons that challenge prior knowledge,

3. make learning relevant,

4. use holistic modeling to show how the minor information fits into the

larger schemata,

5. match assessment to assignments by using daily work and performance

assessments to assess understanding.

Three theoretical practices for engagement and acceleration defined this study.

Consequently, this study was an amalgamation of three current theories that addressed

the acceleration of educational goals for (a) low-achieving special education students, (b)

gifted/talented students, and (c) dropout (or high dropout risk) students (Corbett Burris et

al., 2006; Finnan & Chasin, 2007; “Mainstreaming Accelerated Learning,” 1989;

Renzulli, 2005; Shevitz et al., 2003; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz,

2005). Though the populations are clearly diverse, the practice to overcome

disengagement, decelerated curricula, and low student performance involves many of the

same principles.

Renzulli (1998, 2005, 2008), Seigle (2006), and Shevitz et al. (2003) encourage

engagement through interest learning as a successful support to curriculum advancement

and student achievement. Students need to feel connected to the curriculum in order to

succeed. While some students arrive with intrinsic motivation, most require extrinsic

reasons to engage in and master curriculum goals (Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Shevitz et al.).

15
Gifted Programs

The theory of engagement for gifted/talented students developed out of a need to

stimulate student interest in school curriculum. Mainstream curricula often bore

gifted/talented students. Without problem-solving, critical thinking, and opportunities for

independent research, Van Tassel-Baska and Brown (2007) warn that young

gifted/talented students quickly master local and state goals and standards and find little

else to engage them in the educational process. Eventually, these students begin to

disengage with the new material as they dismiss given educational objectives and begin

actively pursuing their own learning interests. To counteract this ennui and

disengagement, researchers and teachers of gifted/talented students have begun to

accelerate and compact instructional goals, while simultaneously creating independent

learning opportunities based on student interest. To these efforts, gifted/talented students

have responded favorably. Gifted/talented students, when engaged in the material, excel

once more (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown).

Mainstreaming

The second theory involves mainstreaming the population of low-achieving

special education students into regular education classes. For years, educational

practitioners relegated low-achieving special education students to isolated classrooms

with few social interactions (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). Even more damaging,

practitioners generally did not expect these students to make any great academic

achievements. With low or no expectations of academic improvement, these students

made little improvement. When these same students entered regular education classes,

many educators predicted that these students would be overwhelmed and incapable of

16
responding to the high demands of regular education (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995).

Instead, the students excelled. High expectations, student disequilibrium, and challenging

coursework propelled these students to new academic achievements (Waugh, 2002).

Dropout (or High Dropout-Risk) Students

The final theory originated in fieldwork and outreach programs for dropout and

potential dropout students. Looking to the success of gifted and talented engagement

learning, researchers sought to apply the same principles to dropouts and other at-risk

students (Corbett Burris et al., 2006; Finnan & Chasin, 2007; Renzulli, 2005). Their

efforts met with tremendous success (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005). The

impact of disengagement in this population is staggering. According to a Civics

Enterprises report by Bridgeland et al. (2006), the majority (88%) of dropouts have

passing grades, but “Nearly half (47 percent) said a major reason for dropping out was

that classes were not interesting. These young people reported being bored and

disengaged from high school” (p. iii). Furthermore, two-thirds of these dropouts felt that

too little was expected of them. These students reported that they would have worked

harder in school if the academic rigor was increased (Bridgeland et al.). Accelerated

Schools Plus, a school improvement model dedicated to building on the strengths and

interests of individual students, offers a program to address these concerns; students

connect school to real life, reengage in the curriculum, and challenge misconceptions in

the classroom (Finnan & Chasin, 2007).

The most significant research in this topic has come from the Accelerated Schools

Plus program (Finnan & Chasin, 2007) and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)

(Renzulli, 1998, 2005). Accelerated school models like the Accelerated Schools Plus and

17
SEM work within schools and communities to develop relevant interest-based curricula

within the community to engage students (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 2005; Shevitz et

al., 2003). Their success, though significant, requires a heavy burden of complete

community buy-in (Renzulli, 1998, 2005). With high-level of involvement from all

participants, student achievement, community satisfaction, and curriculum relevance are

significant benefits to the enhanced acceleration (Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Shevitz et al.).

Engagement and Curriculum Mastery

Engagement leads to mastery of the educational objectives. Students who

participate in their learning are more likely to invest in academic outcomes (Aiken,

1942). The opposite is also true. In 2000, Pintrich published discoveries about

curriculum mastery and engagement when examining the role of multiple goals on

motivational beliefs to find task value. The findings show that low academic

performance, fewer learning strategies, and self-handicapping behavior were

characteristic when performance goals did not include mastery.

If low task value is a concern to motivation, students may benefit from helping

develop their own assignments. In fact, students prefer authentic input in their learning

(Bruce, 2001). Students found self-assessment helpful, especially co-designing a criterion

for evaluation (Bruce). Ownership in the learning process engages students and makes

them aware of the quality of their learning (Bruce).

As a caveat, Billotti (2009) found that mastery is essential to student success, but

educators must be aware of the varying levels of student engagement and the impact they

have on curriculum mastery. Following 109 male and female seventh grade students,

Billotti found significant differences in the level of engagement and achievement of

18
White and African American students. Furthermore, mastery goals were positively

associated with achievement, especially for African American males. Billotti asserted that

“education should promote a mastery approach to learning and minimize practices which

may reinforce fear of failure (performance avoidance), as this style may be most strongly

related to lower achievement levels” (p. 336).

Cognitive engagement promotes mastery. While exploring cognitive engagement,

Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) used self reports, interviews, and observations of fourth

through sixth grade students to find that procedural complexity of tasks was negatively

related to use of high-level cognitive strategies. Students must be given opportunities to

use high-order thinking skills to develop their cognitive abilities. In fact, teachers who

pressed students for understanding and communicated high expectations had students

with higher cognitive engagement (Blumenfeld & Meece). Cognitive (active and

superficial) engagement was also the measure of a Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988)

study. Survey responses from fifth and sixth grade science students supported task goal

orientation’s relationship to cognitive engagement in learning activities.

Researching behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement, Connell (1990)

linked social context (teacher involvement, structure, autonomy, and support) and

engagement. Furthermore, Connell’s work linked needs such as competence, relatedness,

and autonomy with engagement. In a later study of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

engagement, Connell and Wellborn (1991) surveyed third to fifth grade rural and

suburban students. Their results showed positive links between perceived autonomy,

competence, and relatedness.

19
 As early as 1981, Newman proposed that alienation (including disengagement)

lessened in schools with voluntary choice, clear and consistent goals, small class size,

opportunities for participation, extended and cooperative roles, and integrated work. In

fact, when looking specifically at student engagement in 16 diverse high schools,

Newmann (1992) used observations, surveys, and student interviews to determine that

student reports of engagement were associated with observations of higher-level thinking

in the classroom. Similarly, a study of 1018 third to sixth graders, Skinner, Kindermann,

and Furrer (2009) found repeated links between engagement and academic confidence.

The opposite is also true. Disaffected students showed less confidence in academic

strategy (Skinner et al.). In correspondence with these findings, Finnan and Chasin

(2007) support developing higher-order thinking skills, challenging content, and

exploratory authentic learning as a means of engaging disengaged students.

Engagement and Learning Retention

Learning retention in the form of achievement is impacted by student

engagement. According to Nystrand and Gamoran (1991), the eighth grade English

classrooms of 16 different schools showed a high degree of procedural engagement

(involvement in school specific procedures) and low substantive engagement (sustained

commitment to content of schooling). They further found that procedural engagement

was a predictor of low achievement, and substantive engagement positively correlated to

achievement.

In similar findings, competence beliefs (capacity and strategy) in a cross-sectional

research design for third to fifth grade students were related to engagement and

engagement correlated with achievement (Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990). .

20
Additionally, using classroom observations, teacher ratings of students, and student

ratings of affect, second and third graders verified engagement also positively correlated

with achievement (Stipek, 2002). As previously mentioned, emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral engagement were measured in Connell and Wellborn’s (1991) survey of third-

to-fifth grade rural and suburban students; engagement related to achievement scores and

grades. Combining measures of emotional engagement and behavioral engagement,

Connell, Spencer, and Aber (1994) performed three independent studies of African

American early adolescents. The survey revealed engagement positively correlated with

achievement tests and grades and negatively correlated to at-risk classifications.

In 1993, Finn published research on behavioral and emotional engagement from

the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88), based on a nationally

representative sample of eighth graders. The cross-sectional survey revealed a strong

relationship between academic achievement and behavioral engagement in the classroom

and school. In concordance with other studies, Finn found that at-risk students were more

likely to show lower behavioral engagement in class and school. Likewise, Glanville and

Wildhagen (2006), studying 9507 tenth through twelfth graders, sought to determine

which aspects of engagement best related with academic achievement. Their findings

showed that psychological engagement and time spent on homework have positive

correlations with student achievement.

Individual teachers affect engagement and achievement. According to

McDermott, Mordell, and Stoltzfus’ (2001) study of over 1268 17-year-olds, motivation

plays a significant role in predicting teacher-assigned grades. Confirming prior research,

these authors found that motivation does help predict grades and the disciplined energy of

21
classroom activities. Additionally, Weimer (2007) assures that brain-based learning

(BBL) is key to student engagement and instructional planning Students focus more on

instructional objectives when they find an emotional connection; BBL helps students to

create that emotional link. In Weimer’s study, teachers identified strategies that adopted

BBL techniques as effective for student learning. Verifying engagement, the middle

school students identified these same strategies as the most interesting for learning.

Teachers reporting on the behavioral engagement of fourth graders found that students

who were rated as disruptive or inattentive had lower scores on achievement tests than

nondisruptive and attentive classmates (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995). In fact,

students with the lowest achievement scores were categorized as inattentive (Finn et al.).

Looking at student engagement and academic success, Smith, Rook, and Smith

(2007) examined the effects of journaling question styles. By using journal questions that

encouraged metacognitive and affective requirements, journaling showed a positive effect

on grades. Students who received these questions were able to make personal

connections, causing a positive effect on achievement (Smith et. al).

Engagement and Student Attitudes

Student attitudes are impacted by their level of engagement. In a 1984

publication, Natriello reports on interviews of high school students at various levels of

engagement to pinpoint indicators of behavioral and emotional disengagement. The study

showed that students who reported incompatibilities in the evaluation system were more

likely to report disengagement.

School identity and personal identity also factor into engagement. Finn (1989)

looked at behavioral and emotional engagement for model identification. Using a mental

22
model, the research revealed a link between school participation, school success, and

positive school identity. The findings suggest that school participation led to school

success, which, in turn, led to positive school identification. Positive school identification

then led to further school participation. Similarly, student participation and identification

were the focus of Voelkl’s (1997) study that found the academic achievement and

participation of eighth graders were significant predictors of school identification. White

and African-American students showed no difference in factors leading to school

identification.

Social support and community also affect student engagement. In a multi-method

academic engagement study, researchers used classroom observations and student and

teacher surveys to examine engagement (Battistich Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997).

Their findings positively correlated student sense of community with academic

engagement. Additionally, prior school success related to engagement in a Marks (2000)

study of fifth, eighth, and tenth graders in restructuring schools. In these restructured

schools, authentic instruction and social support for learning further predicted

engagement.

Motivation can be predicted by competent facework, work that supports or repairs

social identity in the classroom (Kerssen-Griep, Hess, & Trees, 2003). The results of a

study by Gabriele (2008) signify that meaning and engagement have a positive effect on

educational involvement. Furthermore, engagement helps students find relationships

between the wish to be happy and classroom expectations (Gabriele). Striking this

balance, students invest in their own social identity and the classroom objectives.

23
 Inversely, Locke-Davidson (1996) measured disengagement in high school

students in an ethnically diverse urban school. Using ethnographic methods, the study

showed a strong link between conceptualization of identity and school engagement.

Additionally, the study suggested that distant relations with adults, bureaucratic practices,

barriers to information, and tracking led to alienation.

Peers can also affect engagement. Kindermann (1993) found that fourth and fifth

grade students were more likely to affiliate with peers of similar behavioral engagement.

Likewise, children who were affiliated with high-engagement peer groups increased

behavioral engagement throughout the school year. In a further longitudinal study on

behavioral engagement, Kindermann, McCollam, and Gibson (1996) surveyed 9th-to-

12th grade students in an ethnically diverse urban setting. Their findings supported that

adolescent students tended to affiliate with students at similar levels of behavioral

engagement.

The impact of these relationships is not always positive. In a national survey of

high school students, Steinberg, Brown, and Dornbush (1996) concluded that the values

of student peer groups influenced engagement and achievement. Furthermore, they found

that peer groups tend to lower school success.

Parental involvement also helps predict student attitudes toward engagement.

Students with parental support report being more engaged in school. In fact, combining

measures of emotional engagement and behavioral engagement, Connell et al. (1994)

performed three independent studies of African American early adolescents while

examining the role of parental support on engagement. The survey revealed engagement

24
positively correlated with attendance, achievement tests, and grades and negatively

correlated to at-risk classifications.

Autonomy

Student learning is “optimized when instruction is authentic, challenging,

demands skills, and allows for student autonomy” (Yair, 2000, p.191). Lack of autonomy

can contribute to disengagement (Yair). In a survey of predominately White third to fifth

grade students in suburban and rural settings, measures of behavioral engagement and

emotional engagement showed that competence and autonomy were correlated to

behavioral and emotional engagement (Patrick, Skinner, & Connell, 1993). In fact,

competence and autonomy foretold patterns of behavioral and emotional engagement

(Patrick et. al). In 1995, Connell, Halpern-Felsher, Clifford, Crichlow, and Usinger

published a longitudinal survey of African American middle and high school students in

urban settings that combined measures of behavioral and emotional engagement. Their

findings showed professed autonomy support, competence, and relatedness were

associated with engagement.

Autonomy must be developed across grade levels. A longitudinal study of third to

seventh graders found engagement predicted by various characteristics of perceived

control (Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998). Children's engagement remains

stable from third-to-sixth-grade, dropping off at the beginning of middle school as

students lose teacher support in the transition from elementary to middle school. Over a

five-year span, individual differences in the development of control predicted the

development of engagement.

25
 One way to develop autonomy is goal setting. Looking at student motivation,

Muir (2000) studied seventh and eighth grade underachieving students. Interviews

(student and teacher) and observations show goal setting is an important component of

motivation (Muir). Students must find meaning in learning to find motivation.

It breeds curiosity and inquiry, and engages learners. Not being able to find

meaning in learning, on the other hand, deadens the curriculum, disengages

students, and shuts down learning, undermining the goal to prepare students for

their futures and the outside world (Muir, pp. 133-134).

Teachers help develop the autonomy that contributes to engagement. In a 2000

publication, Guthrie and Wigfield examined engagement in reading. They found that

engagement was impacted by teacher involvement, evaluation, learning goals, real-world

interactions, autonomy support, interesting texts, strategy instruction, collaboration,

praise, and rewards and evaluation. Likewise, the research of Skinner and Bellmont

(1993) showed that the behavior of 14 teachers influenced student engagement of their

144 third, fourth, and fifth grade students. Student questionnaires administered in the

spring and fall measured the teacher behavior, while the teacher questionnaires measured

student behavior and emotion in the classroom. Students who perceived the teacher to

exhibit involvement, structure, and autonomy support were more likely to report

engagement. Reciprocally, teachers and students reported more involvement, structure,

and autonomy support from teachers to students who self-identified as engaged.

Learning Environment Structure

Students need hands-on activities, student choice, interest-based learning,

relevance, differentiated learning, and high expectations (Muir, 2000). These factors help

26
to enhance motivation and engagement in a learning environment where mistakes are

seen as learning opportunities. Farmer-Dougan and McKinney’s (2009) research of 178

students at Illinois State University confirmed the importance of learning environment

structure by finding a positive correlation between higher engagement and discussion-

based classrooms, noting that academically active students prefer classes with more

input. Class format is essential to engagement.

School structure matters. The Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA) offered a unique opportunity to study engagement internationally (Willms, 2003).

The PISA data findings support multiple paths to engaging students. School resources,

school practice, and individual classroom practice all impact student engagement. In fact,

“schools have higher levels of student engagement when there is a strong disciplinary

climate, good student-teacher relations and high expectations for student success” (p. 55).

While school size did not appear to have a significant role in engagement, a positive

school culture does have a strong relationship to student engagement.

Personalized learning environments can also positively affect student

engagement. In a study to find a link between teacher support and student engagement,

six urban elementary and three middle schools administered surveys to teachers, students,

and parents (Klem & Connell, 2004). Students were most likely to report school

engagement in settings with caring, well-structured learning environments with clear,

high, and fair expectations.

A school climate that is unsafe or unfair negatively impacts student engagement

(Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). As evidenced by the students surveyed using the High School

Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), high schools need to construct active and

27
engaging teaching and learning communities for students. Individual schools have begun

to use HSSSE data to make improvements to the school climate.

The NELS data have been an important resource for looking at engagement as

related to school structure. Looking at overall school engagement, Finn and Voelkl

(1993) used the eighth grade NELS data to measure behavioral and emotional

engagement. Their findings support that students in smaller schools are more likely to be

behaviorally and emotionally engaged. These results were not dependent on the

disciplinary structure of the school. Likewise, Lee and Smith’s (1993) use of NELS data

concluded that students at schools engaged in restructuring as a communal model showed

higher academic engagement, but they also showed higher at-risk behaviors Gains in

engagement were higher in schools that were restructuring toward a communal model

and lower in schools without reforms.

High school courses can be designed to enhance learning and engagement.

Nonetheless, most urban high schools fail to engage students behaviorally, cognitively, or

emotionally (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). Peters (1994)

took a large “at-risk” population school and showed gains in student achievement and

self-esteem when it reformed to make an improved learning environment. The school of

958 students in grades of 5th to 8th was provided a supportive atmosphere, an

environment where students take responsibility for their learning, an awareness and

understanding of ethnic cultures, encouragement of many learning and teaching styles,

promotion for overall wellness, opportunities to pursue dreams, opportunities to make

appropriate choices, and provide a safe environment for all (Peters).

28
 Technology also engages students (Spires Lee, Turner, Johnson, 2008). In today’s

world, technology is ubiquitous everywhere but in schools. In an effort to keep

themselves relevant, students are training themselves outside of schools (Spires et al.).

Students want technology in the schools to help them engage in learning (Spires et al.).

Drop Out and At-Risk Behaviors

As previously mentioned, the drop out and at-risk students have been greatly

impacted by student engagement. Bridgeland et al. (2006) surveyed 467 school dropouts,

of which 70% said they felt they could have graduated. A common complaint was

disengagement in the school curriculum. Furthermore, Peters’ (1994) research found that

schools with significant at-risk populations benefited from reforms for an improved

learning environment.

In fact, disengagement begins in the early school years, as shown by Alexander,

Entwisle, and Horsey (1997) in a longitudinal study of behavioral measures. By

following a random sampling of first grade students, the researchers discovered a

relationship between behavioral disengagement in the early years and dropping out of

high school. Behavioral engagement, on the other hand, reduces the probability of

dropping out of school (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2006). In 1989, Wehlage, Rutter, Smith,

Lesko, and Fernandez published an ethnographic study of schools that serve at-risk for

dropout populations. The study found that meaningful tasks with real-world applications,

shared knowledge, and student-adult contact increased engagement. These findings

helped develop a theory of engagement and dropping out that supports that both

educational engagement and school membership are necessary to reduce the likelihood of

dropping out (Wehlage et al.).

29
 Again, the NELS data give us insight into student engagement. Using the NELS

random national sample of 8th graders and the follow-up data points from the participants

10th and 12th grade years, Finn and Rock (1997) determined a significant difference

between resilient and non-resilient students on engagement behavior (defined here as

coming to class, effort, and completing assignments).

Gender and race also impact engagement, thus impacting dropout and at-risk

classifications. The data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (2008) show

that the White dropout rate is lower than Hispanic and Black dropout rate. However, the

Black and Hispanic dropout rate have been declining since 1972 (US Department of

Education, 2008). Connell et al.’s (1995) findings showed professed autonomy support,

competence, and relatedness were associated with engagement. Furthermore, engagement

was related with lower-risk behaviors. Following path analysis by gender, Connell et al.

found that for males, engagement was connected with staying in school.

Support for SCORE Model

Student learning requires authenticity, autonomy, mastery, and academic

challenge (Yair, 2000). In the absence of these characteristics, students become bored and

disengaged. Bluntly, students are disengaged because their instructional needs are not

being met (Yair). For this study, Strong, Silver, and Robinson’s (1995) SCORE acts as

the primary definition of engagement. SCORE represents the goals of learning and the

need that drives us to fulfill those goals. See Table 1 in Chapter 1 for the goals and

represented needs of SCORE. High expectations (Success), interest-based learning

(Curiosity), student choice (Originality), and teacher relationships and differentiated

learning (Relationships) all support motivation (Energy) and engagement (Muir, 2000).

30
 SCORE is a model of student engagement. Using elements of the score model,

Dodd (1995) empowered students and improved student engagement by having her class

assist in conflict resolution (curiosity and relationships) and offering assignment choices

(originality). Autonomy (Originality), competence (mastery), and relatedness

(relationships) were all associated with engagement (Connell et al., 1995). Peters’ (1994)

research further affirms the SCORE model. Multiple teaching and learning styles support

success, curiosity, and originality. Cultural awareness and student interactions enforce

relationships and involvement with others (Peters).

For Harmer and Cates’ (2007) qualitative study, the researchers examined the

relationship between engagement and authentic problem solving by involving 55 sixth

grade science students in a project to design, justify, and present ideas for containing the

West Nile virus in their community. Students engaged in the problem believing they had

access to privileged information that would help them contain the disease. Researchers

reported that students displayed active engagement using seven interview categories to

measure engagement: (a) personal relevance, (b) importance of the problem, (c) value of

the solution, (d) value of deriving the solution, (e) interest or positive attitude, (f) student

investment of emotions, and (g) student investment of time and energy.

In Australia, Helme, and Clarke (2001) examined cognitive engagement in 24

middle school students in mathematics classrooms. Using multi-methods of interviews,

video recording, observation, and teacher analysis, the researchers concluded that task

characteristics (including novelty and connection to personal experience) affected

cognitive engagement. This research supports the SCORE model’s goal of relationships

and originality.

31
 The SCORE model is also supported in a study of third to fifth grade students in

Hispanic and African American low income communities. These students were the

subjects of a multi-method study of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement

(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2002). Using surveys and interviews, the

longitudinal study showed that peer support (relationships), work norms, and task

challenges (success) were associated with behavioral, emotional, and cognitive

engagement.

Relationships continue to be key to engagement. The Wings Mentor Program in

Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools empowers engaged learning by pairing

gifted and learning disabled students with mentors (Shevitz et al., 2003). Meeting with

students an hour a week through the school day for eight weeks, these mentors allow

students to have choice, see relevance in their work, and develop academic mastery by

allowing students to choose an area of passion to further study.

Whelage et al.’s (1989) research also promotes relationships as a principle part of

learning. By endorsing shared knowledge and increased student-adult interactions,

students become more engaged (Wehlage et al.). Walker and Green’s (2009) study

looked at the relationship between student motivation and cognitive engagement. Their

study supported previous research correlating sense of belonging to cognitive efforts to

learn material. These findings support SCORE’s assertion that relationships are vital to

engagement.

Students prefer active roles, student input requirements, and discussion (Farmer-

Dougan & McKinney, 2009). Though it does not significantly link with GPA, students

connect engagement to great satisfaction. A student survey showed lower engagement

32
was associated with high task identity, likely because it lacks risk-taking (Farmer-Dougan

& McKinney). This finding corresponds with Lee and Anderson’s (1993) research on

cognitive and behavioral engagement. The researchers observed 12 sixth grade science

students to determine four patterns of task engagement: intrinsically motivated to learn,

motivated to learn science, task avoidance, and active task resistance. Classroom

observations, interest surveys, and semi-structured interviews helped to code the four

patterns. The SCORE method of engagement can counteract task resistance and

avoidance by supporting students to take an active role and encouraging students to take

risks through original and masterful assignments.

Student-Student Relationships

Students’ relatedness to parent, peers, and teachers helped predict behavioral and

emotional engagement according to a Furrer and Skinner (2003) study of 3rd to 6th

graders. In fact, research confirms that collaboration supports engagement (Fredricks et

al., 2002; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Helme & Clarke, 2001). For example, Helme and

Clarke documented more cognitive engagement during student-student interactions than

in teacher-student interactions whereby students link engagement with working with

other students (Farmer-Dougan & McKinney, 2009).

Collaboration is a key component of the Wings Mentor Program in Maryland that

pairs gifted and learning disabled students with mentors (Shevitz et al., 2003). These

mentors have found success by responding to the needs of individual students. Similarly,

following three first graders, Ornelles (2007) found a link between self-confidence and

intrinsic motivation. Positive student-student interactions helped students become more

33
involved in the learning process. Students who exhibited low engagement benefited from

interactions with highly engaged, socially strategic peers.

Peer relationships can also have a detrimental impact on student engagement in

the African American population. Focusing on the impact of engagement of affluent

African Americans at varying school ages, Ogbu’s (2003) study found that African

American students felt pressure to avoid "acting White". This pressure negatively

affected the academic engagement of these students. Additionally, the perception of

unequal opportunity also created mixed results, causing disengagement in some students

and spurring others to work harder.

Teacher-Student Relationships

Teachers and students both report that teacher support is important to student

engagement in school (Fredricks et al., 2002; Klem & Connell, 2004). Teacher

relationships are a last line of defense when considering the Bridgeland et al. (2006)

study that showed for many dropouts, family showed little interest in the student’s

education until they did dropout.

Goals (such as learning, pleasing the teacher, obtaining future consequences) and

perceived ability were correlated with task engagement when 10th and 12th grade math

students were surveyed on academic engagement (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran,

& Nichols, 1996). Additionally, perceived emotional security with teachers was

associated with behavioral and emotional engagement for 7th and 8th grade students in a

suburban middle school (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). These findings confirm a Skinner

and Bellmont (1993) study that followed the relationship between students and teachers

as predictive indicators of engagement.

34
 Teachers play an important role in student engagement. Using teacher ratings of

behavioral engagement in a study of low-income kindergarten and first grade students,

Valeski and Stipek (2001) found that children's ratings of competence were linked to

teachers rating of engagement. However, attitudes and feelings about the teacher were not

related to engagement.

Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer (2009) showed positive correlations between

engaged students and support relationships with teachers and parents. Conversely,

disaffected students were observed to show more negative teacher interactions (Skinner,

et al.). Studying engagement as self-regulated learning vs. disruptive behavior among

seventh and eighth grade students in two ethnically diverse middle schools, Ryan and

Patrick (2001) found that the perceptions of teacher support were associated with less

disruptive behavior over time. Moreover, perceptions of teacher support and

encouragement of mutual respect were linked to higher self-regulated learning.

Woolley and Bowen (2007) examined the relationship between early adolescents

with a supportive adult and school engagement. In fact, students who do report having a

supportive adult also report having higher levels of behavioral and psychological

engagement in school (Woolley & Bowen). Teacher-student relationships impact

engagement. Moreover, relatedness to teachers is a stronger predictor of engagement for

boys (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). However, engagement through relatedness and supportive

adults is not supported by student dependency. An engagement study of kindergarten

students found dependency in teacher-child relations was linked with less positive school

engagement (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

35
 Other Adult-Student Relationships

Students and teachers are not the only ones who support student engagement;

parents and other adults can also impact student engagement levels. Essentially, student-

adult contact increases engagement (Wehlage et al., 1989), and engaged students report

better support relationships with parents and teachers (Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer,

2009). Likewise, engagement is also predicted by students’ relatedness to parents (Furrer

& Skinner, 2003). Collaboration supports engagement. Outside the school room, real-

world interactions with other adults also enhance engagement for students (Guthrie &

Wigfield, 2000).

Conchas (2001) studied special academic support programs, including reports of

adult support, to find their impact on the engagement of 26 Latino 10th and 12th graders

in an urban setting. Through observations, interviews, and focus groups, Conchas

determined that support systems increased school engagement, but found variability in

school engagement among Latino youths.

Conclusions

Eighth-grade teachers and students should both benefit from a positive

relationship between engagement learning and curriculum objectives (Finnan & Chasin,

2007; Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle, 2006). Furthermore, community stakeholders,

including parents, should also benefit from engaged learners who actively seek to apply

their educational triumphs to community problems (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998;

Shevitz et al., 2003).

Students who succeed using engagement learning receive an advantage in

knowing their engagement and interest play a vital role to their success (Finnan &

36
Chasin, 2007; Seigle, 2006; Shevitz et al., 2003). This knowledge can be used to direct

future learning and supplement insufficient engagement in future studies

(“Mainstreaming Accelerated Learning,” 1989). Significant engagement learning,

especially in high interest categories, can help direct talent toward educational goals that

generate satisfying careers (Finnan & Chasin; Seigle; Shevitz et al.).

Teachers will benefit from engaged students on multiple levels (Renzulli, 1998,

2005). Student achievement and engagement will bolster teacher attitudes and job

satisfaction (Renzulli, 1998).

Communities benefit from student engagement. Community members should be

more satisfied with schools, teachers, and students as the mastered curriculum generates

useful citizens that not only reflect well on the community, but serve it as well (Finnan &

Chasin, 2007; Renzulli, 1998; Shevitz et al., 2003).

37
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Established as a need for learning, student engagement allows students to

connect curricular objectives to their needs beyond the classroom. Furthermore, the

strength-based approach of engagement learning permits students to build upon the

talents and interests that will drive them in their adult ambitions. Despite this, questions

remain on how best to create an environment that engages these students, and what

instruments will adequately measure the construct of engagement.

With reliable and valid measures and a well-defined construct of student

engagement, the researcher used a qualitative research approach to quantify whether

significant engagement exists and to what degree that engagement influenced student

learning. Quantitative measures examined improvements on classroom test scores and

standardized test scores.

The purpose of this study was to consider the impact of engagement on the

curriculum of an eighth grade language arts classroom. Three specific questions guided

the research:

1. In what way does student engagement impact instructional mastery of curriculum

materials in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

38
 2. In what way does student engagement impact learning retention of the curriculum

in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

3. In what way does student engagement impact student attitudes toward the

curriculum in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

Research Design

To address the three research questions, the researcher developed a plan of

measurements, treatments, and data collection. The researcher used a mixed-model quasi-

experimental research to determine outcomes qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative

research typifies inductive reasoning; while quantitative research, more closely resembles

deductive reasoning. The research is quasi-experimental because the classes used in the

population were predetermined. The researcher used pretests to determine any preexisting

variations in class abilities and self-reported engagement.

Quantitative Measurements

The researcher gathered numerical data from tests, Likert scale surveys, and a

school engagement survey to look for statistical significance between the variables. These

data measured the impact of student engagement on the sample 8th grade language arts

classes’ achievement.

Population

This research was conducted in a rural middle school (grades 6-8) in northwestern

Tennessee with an average daily membership (ADM) of 527 students (Tennessee

Department of Education, 2008). Of those students, the demographic consists of 15%

African American, 4% Hispanic, and 71% White. The school system represents a poor

39
area; 58.7% of the school population is defined as economically disadvantaged

(Tennessee Department of Education).

The sample for research was 8th grade students enrolled in the researcher’s

language arts classes. The language arts course assignments are randomly made through

the guidance office and student management programs for Tennessee. However,

depending on the structure of the school day, the researcher can generally expect 80-145

students, including all special education students. The year of data collection, the

researcher had 136 students with 87 students participating in the study. Of those, 52 were

female; 35 were male. Race was recorded with 19 African Americans students, 10

Hispanic students, 57 White students, and one Asian American student. Special education

status was also a factor with 76 students as non-special education and 11 students in

special education (including five gifted students). Chi square tests were run to compare

the two condition groups by age, sex, and race. No significant difference was found

between the groups. See Table 2 for the full results.

40
Table 2

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics on Student Demographic

Variables by Condition

Control Treatment

Variable n % n % X2

Sex a 0.71

Female 38 66.7 14 46.7

Male 19 33.3 16 53.3

Spec. Ed. Statusb 0.78

Regular Ed. 49 86.0 27 19.0

Lower Sp. Ed. 4 7.0 2 6.7

Gifted 4 7.0 1 3.3

Racec 0.66
Black 14 24.6 5 16.7

Hispanic 7 12.3 3 10.0

White 35 61.4 22 73.3

Asian 1 1.8 0 0.0

a b c
df = 1. df = 2. df = 3.

Data Collection

After Trevecca’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the research plan,

the researcher prepared a consent form to obtain student and parent approval for data

41
collection. At the beginning of the school year, the researcher sent home consent forms

verifying student participation in the research study, including archived data collection.

The consent form indicated that all student information was to be confidential, no social

security numbers were to be collected, and all data were to be destroyed at completion of

the study. The researcher did not include a specific research topic in the consent form to

avoid tainting the self-report information and further testing with researcher expectations.

The researcher had no control over classroom assignment throughout the study,

as class rosters were assigned before the school year began. From pre-existing classes,

the researcher divided classrooms into control and experimental groups. Every attempt to

divide low-achieving and high achieving classes evenly between groups occurred.

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) scores from the previous year

helped to create a baseline for comparison because the groups formed prior to the

research period. A pretest of grammar aptitude further indicated comparable groups and

establish a comparison point with future mastery and retention learning.

Before the treatment began, students (both control and experimental) took an

engagement survey. The survey consisted of Likert-scale questions used to determine a

baseline of student engagement and attitude toward the curriculum. In addition, students

also participated in the Middle School Survey of Student Engagement (MSSSE), but the

results of the MSSSE testing were not complete at the time of this publication.

During the 2009-2010 school years, the researcher, a fourth year language arts

teacher, used her assigned classes as the study sample. This researcher chose this time

span due to doctoral study time limitations. Nonetheless, within a calendar school year,

the eighth grade has the opportunity to cover parts of speech adequately.

42
 Initially, class and individual TCAP group scores and special education

classifications helped establish a baseline for comparable growth in academic

achievement. Furthermore, students took a survey to determine beginning levels of

engagement in language arts curricular materials. Classes were placed in control and

treatment groups based on closest comparisons.

Control Group

The control group continued to receive the regular instruction, standard lecture,

and textbook materials. The researcher never mentioned the experimental treatment or

assigned outside assignments the treatment group received that might have caused

curricular comparisons. The control group did participate in the pre- and post-survey of

engagement and completed the noun and pronoun pretests, posttests, and the final

posttests. In addition, students also participated in the Middle School Survey of Student

Engagement, but the results of the MSSSE testing were not complete at the time of this

publication.

From the beginning of the treatment, the control group received traditional

language arts instruction using school-purchased textbooks, materials, and tests. Any

thematic instruction was supplied and presented as directed by the publisher.

Treatment Group

The experimental group received similar instructional materials to the control

group. However, instead of using provided textbook thematic materials, the researcher

built individual SCORE (see Table 1 in Chapter 1) assignments and units that pertained

to student engagement. All instruction was comparable to the control group instruction,

yet the treatment group was offered assignment choice that directly related to SCORE

43
methods of engaging individual students. These materials were determined from

information the researcher compiled from the publishers textbooks, then further modified

assignments allowed students to select the assignment that best met their engagement

needs.

The researcher categorized the SCORE assignments into a menu assignment,

whereby students chose preferred assignments. Students chose one set activity that

aroused curiosity and encouraged peer involvement, labeled as an appetizer. As side

items, two assignments were chosen to promote understanding. The side items were

completed and checked by the individual students. Students were encouraged to correct

items and complete both side items before moving to the entrée items. Furthermore,

originality was introduced by allowing students to design their own assignment for their

side items. Entrée items promoted mastery by requiring higher-order thinking. As a

culminating assignment, students used understanding, mastery, peer involvement, and

originality to complete a dessert menu requirement. These assignments represented the

SCORE definition of engagement.

In comparing the control and treatment groups, the researcher looked to compare

the treatment sample to the standard curriculum sample to determine the relationship

between the control and treatment groups on pre- and post-surveys of engagement,

pretests on pronouns and nouns, posttests on pronouns and nouns, and a set of follow-up

tests for nouns and pronouns two months later.

44
 Analytical Methods

Beginning engagement surveys determined a baseline for research. Collected

descriptive data included race, sex, age, and special education status by which the groups

were compared using Chi square tests.

Once grouping was determined, students took a pretest to evaluate prior

knowledge. The control group proceeded with typical classroom procedures, using school

supplied materials and lecture. The treatment group received materials similar to control

group; however, the treatment group exercises and activities were based on interests

indicated by the interest survey.

After treatment, control and experimental groups took a posttest to determine

mastery. A second posttest showed the groups retention of the material over two month

later. The groups were then compared using causal-comparative statistics to determine

the rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.

A mixed-model ANOVA was run to compare the noun pretest, noun posttest, and

follow-up noun test for the two condition groups. A second mixed-model ANOVA was run to

compare the pronoun pretest, pronoun posttest, and follow-up pronoun test for the two condition

groups. In both cases, paired-samples t tests were used to follow up the results. Each of the 10

survey questions were given as pretest and posttest. The researcher ran a mixed-model ANOVA

on each question comparing group responses on the presurvey and postsurvey.

Limitations

No research is without its limitations. A non-experimental research environment

expounds limitations. For this reason, research results should be cautiously interpreted.

Throughout the research process, the following limitations were noted.

45
 Changes outside the research parameter may take place. The researcher may have

no control over these changes. For this reason, history of the group could be a significant

limitation. Students coming from different backgrounds may have been more accepting

of the traditional or the treatment methods of instruction or more adequately prepared in

the instructional area.

Throughout the school year, many research participants continue to mature; this is

especially so of middle graders. Maturation is a common limitation in educational

research. The researcher tried to account for this limitation by completing the students’

data collection in the second semester of school, rather than across the school year and by

using a control group.

Pretesting students can change student outcomes on subsequent posttests in

control and treatment groups. If students become aware of engagement measures, their

awareness may skew the results of all tests. The researcher tried to minimize the effect of

this limitation through nondisclosure and by avoiding group comparisons or mention.

Abstract constructs such as engagement face difficult verification challenges to

research. Constructs are difficult to define, and researchers often have differing

definitions, thereby limiting instrumentation effectiveness. The instrumentation was

further limited by the newness and incomplete launch of the MSSSE.

Mortality is another limitation of the study. Participants were moved, removed,

and/or added to the original classes. For validity purposes, students who underwent such

a move were not included in the final data assessments of the dissertation project.

46
 CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Academic ambivalence undermines student education (Finnan & Chasin, 2007;

Renzulli, 2005). Research shows that student engagement is encouraged by assignment

choice (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005; Seigle, 2006), higher-order reasoning,

and critical thinking (Finnan & Chasin; Renzulli, 1998, 2005, 2008; Rhodes, 2007;

Shevitz et al., 2003; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, & Jeweler, 2002; Weinfeld, Barnes-

Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2005).

The purpose of this project was to apply the principles of engagement learning at

the classroom level for a group of eighth grade language arts students. The specific

intention was to discover if engagement learning impacts mastery, retention, and student

attitudes toward learning. Three specific questions guided the research:

1. In what way does student engagement impact instructional mastery of the

curriculum in an eighth grade language arts classroom?

2. In what way does student engagement impact learning retention of the curriculum

of an eighth grade language arts classroom?

3. In what way does student engagement impact student attitudes toward the

curriculum of an eighth grade language arts classroom?

47
 Findings

Research Questions 1 and 2

Research questions 1 and 2 have been combined for the data analysis because

mastery and retention were measured using the same series of tests. The pretest for each

section created a baseline, while the posttest showed the level of mastery, the follow-up

test (which was identical to the pretest) then showed the level of retention.

When a mixed-model ANOVA was run to compare the noun tests, there was a

significant difference found for the main effect of noun scores, F (2, 104) = 36.78, but no

significant difference between the two conditions, F (1, 52) = 0.01, and no significant

interaction between the two variables, F (2, 104) =1.32. When follow-up paired-samples t

tests were run, significant differences were found between all three noun tests: noun

pretest and noun posttest, t (54) = -10.463, p < .001; noun pretest and noun follow-up

test, t (76) = -6.969, p < .001; and the noun posttest and follow-up noun test, t (57) =

4.061, p < .001. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for these comparisons.

The means for the follow-up noun tests appeared as though there may be a

significant difference between the groups. An independent samples t test between the

noun follow-up tests showed no significant difference between the two condition groups,

t (80) = -1.209.

Similarly, a mixed-model ANOVA was run to compare the pronoun pretest, posttest, and

follow-up test. There was a significant difference found for the main effect of pronoun

scores, F (1, 77) = 69.23, p < .001; but no significant difference between the two

48
Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for Noun and Pronoun Tests

Condition

Control Treatment

M SD M SD

Noun Pretest 41.39 15.89 41.67 16.18

Noun Posttest 79.72 21.97 73.33 18.15

Noun Follow-Up Test 58.61 24.86 65.56 22.02

Pronoun Pretest 61.32 18.30 63.46 12.31

Pronoun Posttest 88.49 9.44 87.69 11.07

Pronoun Follow-Up Test 71.89 13.88 74.62 18.81

conditions, F (2, 154) = 0.37, and no significant interaction between the two variables, F

(2, 154) = 0.01. As with the noun tests, follow-up paired-samples t tests showed

significant differences between all three pronoun tests: pronoun pretest and pronoun

posttest, t (81) = -13.455, p < .001; pronoun pretest and pronoun follow-up test, t (78) = -

4.597, p < .001; and the pronoun posttest and follow-up pronoun test, t (80) = 8.787, p <

.001. See Table 3 for the means and standard deviations.

Research Question 3

A mixed-model ANOVA was run on each of the survey questions to compare the

students’ pre-survey responses to their post-survey responses. See Table 4 for a list of

49
individual survey questions, Table 5 for inferential statistics, and Table 6 for means and

standard deviations for these comparisons.

Table 4

Questions from the Pre- and Post-Surveys

Item Question

1 My class work is engaging.

2 I participate in my learning.
My class assignments encourage mastery of the instructional
3
materials.
I feel as if I have mastered the material before the final
4
assessment.
5 I understand how my class work relates to my future success.

6 My class work helps me to present myself outside of the school.

7 I am allowed choice in my class work assignments.

8 I have the opportunity to express myself during class.

9 My teacher allows me to work with other students in class.

10 I learn from my fellow students.

To follow up the significant interaction for survey question 7, two one-way

ANOVAs were run to compare the two groups on the pre-survey and post-survey

separately. The groups were significantly different on the pre-survey, F (1, 84) = 4.16, p

< .05, and the post-survey, F (1, 81) = 13.69, p < .001.

50
Table 5

Inferential Statistics from Mixed-Model ANOVAs

for the Survey Questions

Question Condition Interaction

Question F F F

1a 0.39 0.71 1.00

2a 2.84 3.79 3.79

3b 0.26 0.36 0.26

4a 7.35* 0.24 0.24

5a 1.16 0.32 1.16

6a 10.99* 0.26 0.00

7a 36.56** 10.52* 24.74**

8a 0.48 1.26 0.67

9a 2.34 0.30 2.34

10a 0.62 1.46 0.12

a
df = 1, 80.
b
df = 1, 79.

*p < .01.

**p < .001.

51
Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Survey Questions

Condition

Treatment Control

Pre Post Pre Post

Question M SD M SD M SD M SD

1 2.03 0.56 1.87 0.82 2.08 0.84 2.12 1.08

2 1.63 0.67 1.37 0.56 1.52 0.54 1.54 0.60

3 1.87 0.73 1.87 0.68 1.84 0.83 1.73 0.80

4 1.90 0.61 1.57 0.68 1.92 0.90 1.69 0.78

5 1.67 0.92 1.67 1.16 1.65 0.95 1.90 1.02

6 1.93 0.83 2.37 1.19 2.04 0.95 2.48 1.32

7 1.43 0.77 1.60 0.86 1.19 0.40 2.90 1.46

8 1.93 0.91 1.80 0.81 1.63 0.95 1.71 1.02

9 1.50 0.73 1.50 0.86 1.38 0.63 1.77 0.00

10 1.90 0.61 1.97 1.07 2.08 1.01 2.25 1.30

1 = Strongly Agree.
2 = Somewhat Agree.
3 = Don’t Know/Not Applicable.
4 = Somewhat Disagree.
5 = Strongly Disagree.

52
 Summary of the Findings

Research Question 1

While both groups of students did better on the noun posttest than the noun

pretest, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups. As

designed, this study did not show that the SCORE model helped increase mastery of the

curriculum. Similarly, students performed better on the pronoun posttest than pretest,

without significant differences between the two condition groups. Again, SCORE did not

help increase instructional mastery of the pronoun objectives.

Research Question 2

On pronoun and noun tests, both condition groups performed worse on the

follow-up test than the posttest, but still scored significantly higher than they had on the

pretest. The treatment group did score higher on the follow-up tests than the control

group, but not to a statistically significant level.

Research Question 3

Survey questions helped to determine the level of student engagement in the

instruction. Significance was found on questions 4, 6, and 7, but only question 7 showed

significance for the interaction between question and group. Before treatment, the control

group reported significantly more choice in assignment than did the treatment group.

However, the treatment group indicated post-survey they had significantly more choice in

their assignments than did the control group. Question 2 showed a marginally significant

interaction (p = .055) when students were asked if they participate in their learning. The

means show that students who were in the treatment group felt they participated more in

53
their learning from pre- to post-survey, while the control group scored similarly from

presurvey to postsurvey.

Implications and Recommendations

SCORE (Strong et al., 1995) is the culminated work of 10 years of research on

what students and teachers need to engage in the classroom environment. Students in a

rural middle school put these questions to test during the spring semester of the 2010

school year. In all, SCORE did not harm nor help student mastery, student retention, or

student attitudes on engagement. Significant differences were found in student choice and

student mastery, however, the noun and pronoun tests did not show significant gains for

the treatment group that were different from the control group. However, the researcher

observed that many students in the treatment group did enjoy assignments more when

using the SCORE method.

Students did not show significant differences in posttest or follow-up test scores.

In fact, posttest scores were quite similar. Nonetheless, the treatment group did score

higher on both follow-up tests, but not significantly higher. It is likely that the same

means, with a seven-point difference, would be significantly different with a larger

sample size. It is also possible that a significant difference may exist in the follow up test

was given to the both groups again at a longer interval.

The researcher recommends repeated research to follow up all findings, as no

other research exists to verify these results. Mastery of instructional goals is certainly

important to any educator, but as mastery was not compromised for the either group (both

groups showed comparable mastery), further research is encouraged. Further research

54
may show increased gains, especially if instruction is more differentiated or with a larger

sample size.

Students in the treatment group did not retain significantly more information than

the control group, although the means showed a difference in the change for the two

groups from posttest to follow-up test. It is the researcher’s recommendation that

retention levels should be tested at different intervals of time in further experiments.

Further posttesting may show a trend of increased retention for treatment groups.

Unfortunately, students in both the treatment and the control group lost mastery

between the posttest and follow-up tests in pronouns and in noun instruction. Further

research might focus on what can be done to stop these losses.

Observationally, the researcher did see some improvements in attitudes of the

treatment group toward the language arts classroom. Positive significant differences were

found in the students’ expectation of mastery and student choice of assignment.

Furthermore, positive marginal significance was found when students were asked if

assignments encouraged mastery.

Further recommendations on ascertaining attitudes toward a language arts

classroom would include the Middle School Survey of Student Engagement. This survey,

based on the HSSSE (High School Survey of Student Engagement) and the NSSSE

(National Survey of Student Engagement), measures engagement levels in middle

schoolers, but it was not fully functional in the school year of research.

55
 REFERENCES

Aikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study with conclusions and

recommendations. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from

http://www.8yearstudy.org/index.html

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade forward:

Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87-102.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school

communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 137-151.

Bilotti, S. (2009). Achievement goals, engagement, and achievement of African American

and White middle school students. Fordham University.

Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school

adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61-79.

Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’

involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal,

88(3), 235-250.

Bomio, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Klander, K. Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997).

The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Educational Leadership

53(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418925).

56
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic:

Perspectives of high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises in association with Peter

D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,

Washington D.C. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from

http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/thesilentepidemic3-06.pdf

Brooks, M. & Brooks, J. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist

classrooms . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational

Leadership, 57(3), 18-24. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from Research Library

Core database. (Document ID: 46212752).

Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student self-assessment: Encouraging active engagement in

learning. Ed.D. dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute, United States --

California. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text

(Publication No. AAT 3012318).

Conchas, G. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in

Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 475-504.

Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system

processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), The self in transition: Infancy

to childhood (pp. 61-97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Connell, J. P., Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995).

Hanging in there: Behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting

whether African American adolescents stay in school. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 10(1), 41-63.

57
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in

African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child

Development, 65(2), 493-506.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A

motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe

(Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Corbett Burris, C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics

achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research

Journal, 43(1), 105-136. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from Wilson Education

Abstracts database. (Document ID: 1147440301).

Dodd, A. W. (1995). Engaging students: What I learned along the way. Educational

Leadership, 53(1), 65-67. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Education Module.

(Document ID: 6967084).

Farmer-Dougan, V. and McKinney, K. (2009) Examining Student Engagement at Illinois

State University: An Exploratory Investigation. Center for Teaching and Learning

with Technology. Retrieved October, 31, 2009, from

http://www.ctlt.ilstu.edu/resources/teachTopics/tips/examEngage.php.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from School. Review of Educational Research, 59(2),

117. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from Education Module. (Document ID:

1781455).

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

58
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-

withdrawn behavior and achievement among forth graders. Elementary School

Journal, 95(5), 421-454.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school

failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234.

Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School characteristics related to school engagement.

Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 249-268.

Finnan, C., & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving students:

The transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 625-629. Retrieved

September 14, 2008, from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID:

1273339891).

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. B., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2002). Increasing

engagement in urban settings: An analysis of the influence of the social and

academic context on student engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement. The

Indicators of Positive Development Conference, Washington DC.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential

of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1). 59-

109. Retrieved from Research Library Core.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-

59
 162. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from

http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2003_FurrerSkinner_JEP.pdf

Gabriele, R. (2008). Orientations to happiness: Do they make a difference in a student’s

educational life? American Secondary Education, 36(2). Retrieved November 27,

2009, from Proquest Educational Journals.

Glanville, J., & Wildhagen, T. (2006). School engagement and educational outcomes:

Toward a better understanding of the dynamic and multidimensional nature of

this relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada.

Goslin, D. A. (2003). Engaging minds: motivation and learning in America's schools.

Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.

Kamil & P. Mosental (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, 403-422).

Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on

curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general

classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11. Retrieved December 10, 2009,

from Education Module database. (Document ID: 1428355731).

Harmer, A. J. & Cates, W. M. (2007). Designing for learner engagement in middle school

science: Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in

the Schools, 24(1), 105-124. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from Ebsco Database.

60
Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics

classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133-153.

Kerssen-Griep, J., Hess, J. A., & Trees, A. R. (2003). Sustaining the desire to learn:

Dimensions of perceived instructional facework related to student involvement

and motivation to learn. Western Journal of Communication, 67(4), Retrieved

from Research Library Core.

Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as context for individual development:

The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29(6),

970-977.

Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T., & Gibson, E. (1996). Peer networks and students’

classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen & K.

Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment

(279-312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (September, 2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher

Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health,

7(74), 262-273.

Lee, O., & Anderson, C.W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle

school science classrooms, American Educational Research Journal, 30(3) 585-

610.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and

engagement of middle school students. Sociology of Education, 66(3),

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early

gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270.

61
Locke-Davidson, A. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools: Student narratives

on race, gender, and academic engagement. Albany: State University of New

York Press.

Mainstreaming accelerated learning. (1989). Training, 26(5), 81. Retrieved September

14, 2008, from Military Module database. (Document ID 826652).

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the

elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research

Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

McDermott, P. A., Mordell, M. & Stoltzfus, J. C. (2001). The organization of student

performance in American schools: Discipline, motivation, verbal learning, and

nonverbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 65-76 10

McWilliam, R.A. & Bailey, D.B. (1995). Effects of Classroom Social Structure and

Disability on Engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15(2), 123-

147.

Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and

cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology,

80(4), 514-523.

Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996).

Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences,

pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

21(4), 388-422.

62
Muir, M. (2000).What underachieving middle school students believe motivates them to

learn. Dissertation Retrieved from http://www.mcmel.org/DisWeb

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools:

Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing

High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children,

Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved December 7, 2008,

from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/trevecca/Doc?id=10049194&ppg=2

Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement

from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education,

17(4), 14-24.

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

(pp. 62-91). New York: Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significant sources of

student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement, and achievement

in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and

literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290.

Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic

disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ornelles, C. (2007). Providing classroom-based intervention to at-risk students to support

their academic engagement and interactions with peers. Preventing School

63
 Failure, 51(4). Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Education Module.

(Document ID: 1318073311).

Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children's

behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the

academic domain. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 781-791.

Peters, W. H. (1994). The empowering process of accelerated schools: An essential link

in school reform. English Journal, 83(7), 62-65.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in

learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555.

Renzulli, J. S. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 104-111.

Retrieved September 21, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document

ID: 34917245).

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Applying gifted education pedagogy to total talent development for

all students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 80-89. Retrieved September 27, 2008,

from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID: 834010841).

Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Teach to the top. Instructor, 117(5), 34. Retrieved September 27,

2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document ID: 1447288681).

Rhodes, T. (2007). Accelerated learning for what? Peer Review, 9(1), 9-12. Retrieved

September 14, 2008, from Education Module database. (Document ID:

1256604851).

Ryan, R. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in

adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

64
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations and relationships to

teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-

esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249.

Seigle, D. (2006). The last word: An interview with Gene Chasin, CEO of Accelerated

Schools Plus. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 146-154. Retrieved

September 14, 2008, from ProQuest Educational Journals database. (Document

ID: 1324484301)

Shevitz, B., Weinfeld, R., Jeweler, S., & Barnes-Robinson, L. (2003). Mentoring

empowers gifted/learning disabled students to soar! Roeper Review, 26(1), 37-40.

Retrieved September 14, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document

ID: 463167301).

Skinner, E. A., & Bellmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects

of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. Retrieved from November 2, 2009, from

Ebsco Database.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on

engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's

behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.

Educational and psychological measurement, 69(3), 493-525. Retrieved October

31, 2009, from www.sagepub.com.

Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in

school and whether I've got it: The role of perceived control and children's

65
 engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),

22-32. Retrieved from November 2, 2009 from Ebsco Database.

Skinner, E. A. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. L. & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences

and the development of perceived control (Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 63). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in

Child Development.

Smith K. S., Rook, J. E., & Smith, T. W. (2007). Increasing Student Engagement Using

Effective and Metacognitive Writing Strategies in content areas. Preventing

School Failure, 51(3), 43-48. Education Module.

Spires, H. A., Lee, J. K., Turner, K. A., & Johnson, J. (2008). Having Our Say: Middle

Grade Student Perspectives on School, Technologies, and Academic

Engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 497-515.

Retrieved October 26, 2008, from Wilson Education Abstracts database.

(Document ID: 1500953431).

Steinberg, L., Brown, B. B., & Dornbush, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why

school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Stipek, D. (2002). Good instruction is motivating. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.),

Development of achievement motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Strong, R., Silver, H. F., & Robinson, A. (1995, September). What do students want (and

what really motivates them)? Educational Leadership, 53(1), 8. Retrieved

December 10, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document

ID: 6967102).

66
Tennessee Department of Education (2008). Tennessee Department of Education 2008

Report Card. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from

http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/apex/f?p=200:1:299260151532805::NO

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES).

(2008). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031).

Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. (2001). Young children's feelings about school. Child

Development, 72(4), 1198-2013.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the

efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. The Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51(4), 342-358. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from Children's

Module database. (Document ID: 1390043101).

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105(3),

204-319.

Walker, C. O. & Green, B. A. (2009). The relations between student motivational beliefs and

cognitive engagement in high school. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 463-471.

Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://0-

find.galegroup.com.library.trevecca.edu/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=tel_

a_tnu

Waugh, C. K. (2002). Raising self-expectations: The key to motivating students with

disabilities. Academic Exchange Quarterly 68(5). Retrieved April 26,

2009, from Academic OneFile via Gale:

http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.trevecca.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE

67
Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N. L., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989).

Reducing the risk: Schools as communities to support. Philadelphia: Farmers

Press.

Weimer, C. (2007). Engaged learning through the use of brain-based teaching: A case

study of eight middle school classrooms. Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois

University, United States. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from Dissertations &

Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3272172).

Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., & Jeweler, S. (2002). Academic programs for gifted

and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24(4), 226-233. Retrieved

September 14, 2008, from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID;

205806531).

Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. R. (2005). What we have

learned: Experiences in providing adaptations and accommodations for gifted and

talented students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 38(1), 48-52. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from Wilson Education

Abstracts database. (Document ID: 897836581).

Willms, J.D. (2003) Student Engagement at School: A sense of belonging and

participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development.

Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2007). In the Context of Risk: Supportive Adults and

the School Engagement of Middle School Students. Family Relations, 56(1), 92-

104. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from Research Library Core database.

(Document ID: 1203120531).

68
Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students'

learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 191-210.

Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Education Module. (Document

ID: 53452260).

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007).Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high

school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN. Retrieved November 29,

2009, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/HSSSE_2006_Report.pdf.

69