Drew Baker- HCPS ITRT and VCU School of Eduation- Summer` 2016 Student Engagement: What are we even talking about? Drew Baker- HCPS ITRT and VCU School of Eduation- Summer` 2016

Mr. Baker/Drew Practitioner/Researcher 8 Years in Classroom Instructional Technology Resource Teacher Year 4! Doctoral Student NBCT Engagement, Technology, Professional Development

Log In Please go to Socrative.com Select STUDENT LOG IN from the top right Type “BAKERITRT” and click JOIN ROOM

Who are you as an educator? (Role, Place of Work Etc)

What IS Student Engagement?

In 2003, the National Research Council published a large scale work examining lack of student engagement in American schools, claiming that by the time of high school “student disengagement from course work and serious study is common.” (p. 4).   The language and implication in that statement are clear.  Many students are not just disengaged from time to time—disengagement is routine.  

Major Theoretical Framework Various Theorhetical Frameworks National Survey of School Engagement (NSSE) Schlechty- 5 levels of engagement Csikszentmihalyi and Shernoff- Flow Theory Fredericks et al

National Survey of Student Engagement Higher Order Learning Reflective Learning Quantitative Reasoning Academic Challenge Collaborative Learning Discussion with Diverse Others Learning with Peers Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Experience with Faculty Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment Campus Environment

Does a difference exist between “school” engagement and “student” engagement?

Major Theoretical Framework Schlechty Model

Schlechty Theoretical Framework Activity is meaningful. Interest is high. Task is challengeing. Engagement Student substitutes his own goals for goals of the work. Substituted goals are instrumental. Extrinsic Motivation. Students won’t comply if the task doesn’t meet the goal Strategic Compliance The work has no meaning. Superficial learning. The student has no goals, either given or substituted. Ritual Compliance

Schlechty Theoretical Framework Student is disengaged from classroom activities Students are withdrawn in thought and action. Student rejects goals and ways to achieve them. Does not see relevance. Retreatism Student is actively engaged in another, competing agenda. May encourage others to rebel. Student creates his own means and own goals. Rebellion

Which form of engagement is most common in your school or context? Strategic Compliance Ritual Compliance Retreatism Rebellion

Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi Early Studies Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi

Flow Psychology- Development Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre’s 1989 study: Optimal Experience in Work and Leisure First MAJOR application of the ESM Method Results: Confirmed existence of a “flow state”- satisfaction occurred when challenge met skills (especially when both are high) Adult participants carried pagers and survey booklets and recorded activities and perceived level of challenge, stimulation, enjoyment, and anxiety associated with the activity every time the pager went off.  Participants reported being most happy when they possessed strong skills in an activity that was perceived as challenging.  It also revealed people were more engaged and satisfied at work as opposed to leisure time

Adult participants carried pagers and survey booklets and recorded activities and perceived level of challenge, stimulation, enjoyment, and anxiety associated with the activity every time the pager went off.  Participants reported being most happy when they possessed strong skills in an activity that was perceived as challenging.  It also revealed people were more engaged and satisfied at work as opposed to leisure time Original Model of Flow State (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989) Revised Model of Flow (Nakamura, 2002)

Do you think students experience flow at school Do you think students experience flow at school? If so, where/when might it occur?

Flow in Education Hektner and Csikszentmihalyi’s 1996 study: A Longitudinal Exploration of Flow and Intrinsic Motivation in Adolescents 281 adolescents in 6th grade, and then again in 8th and 10th grades   Found flow experiences were rare in schools, Benefits for learners Self-Motivation Moods Self-Esteem Concentration Perceived Future Importance but that students who experienced flow more regularly reported higher or improved self-motivation, moods, self esteem, concentration, and perception that their schoolwork would help them succeed in the future

Recent Studies Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff’s 2003 Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory Most engaging classes: vocational education, computer science, art, and social studies classes. Flow experiencing students have higher moods in these classes that fostered flow Found that high school students in study experienced more flow in vocational education, computer science, art, and social studies classes. Students also reported enjoying these classes more, and had higher moods in these classes that fostered flow

Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff’s 2003 Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory Found that high school students in study experienced more flow in vocational education, computer science, art, and social studies classes. Students also reported enjoying these classes more, and had higher moods in these classes that fostered flow

Major Theoretical Framework Fredricks, Bluemenfeld, and Paris (2004) Reviewed Existing Literature Found Big Discrepancies in Conceptualizations Summarized field and suggested a more uniform framework Affective Behavioral Cognitive

Fredricks et al. Framework The Student has emotional connection to the content. He or she likes what she is learning (or at least the learning context). Affective The Student complies with required behaviors and completes tasks. Behavioral The student believes that the work is important to his or her life, and will help with his or her goals. Cognitive

Which type of engagement (using the Fredricks Model) do you see most?

Connor and Pope, 2013

SO WHAT?

Commonalities DO exist Schlechty Flow Theory Fredricks Relevance X On Task Behavior Enjoyment Student Interest Supported by Learner Autonomy Malleable

Do practice and/or policy regarding engagement seem to follow these frameworks?

What Can We Takeaway? More research should be conducted on student engagement. Define “engagement” before using it in decision making or justification. Inform practitioners about different models. Researchers should talk to practitioners. Develop observation tools around specific theoretical frameworks.

What Can We Takeaway? Design instruction that values and emphasizes autonomy relevance rapport building affective experiences of students

What will you take away from today’s presentation?

Major Theoretical Framework Cited Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal Experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56, 815-822. Conner, J., Pope, D. (2013). Not Just Robo-Students: Why Full Engagement Matters and How Schools Can Promote It. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42, 1426-1442. Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59-109. Schlechty, P. C. (2003). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. John Wiley & Sons. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158.