1. Why measure engagement?  To Learn more about what makes learning environments more or less effective in maintaining engagement.  To improve the chance of gaining support for effective alternatives.  To influence what is valued – to move mainstream educators from a focus on teaching and compliance to learning and whole-person/life outcomes.

2. Risks  That, as a measurement model, it is re-incorporated into a managerialist inspired change approach based on blame and command and control.  A great deal therefore hangs on HOW it is used.  We advocate its use as a part of site initiated interventions based around an inquiry model.

3. What influences engagement?

4. Learning environments  There is evidence to suggest that of the contextual variables which impact on engagement in learning, the learning environment is one of the most significant.  It is also the one over which we have most control.

5. Our approach  Designed to evaluate the impact of alternative learning environments – we assume that learners well-being will respond instant by instant to their environment.  Does not assume those learning environments are school based

6. The Scales  Involvement (measures the behaviour with respect to the learning)  Well-being (measures the experience of learning in terms of Happiness and satisfaction Social functioning Disposition towards learning  Thinking  Context (e.g. peer and parental support, student assumptions about school, learning and self)

7. The Instruments  non-age specific observational scales and self–report questionnaires for involvement  Age range specific observational scales and self-report questionnaires for Well- being and Thinking  Self-report questionnaires in two forms Conventional Graphical

8. Involvement  Adopts Laevers well established and tested instrument incorporating nine behavioural signals Concentration Energy Complexity/creativity Persistence Precision Reaction Time Satisfaction

9. Well-being  Incorporates Laever’s three dimensions of well-being using a measurement scale developed by Pam Winter Happiness and Satisfaction (intrapersonal) Social Functioning (Interpersonal) Learning Dispositions

10. Thinking  Three thinking dimensions meta-cognitive knowledge; meta-cognitive regulation; and Epistemic awareness

11. Signals of Happiness And Satisfaction  Confidence and self-esteem  Sense of self  Vitality  Enjoyment and sense of humor  Ability to rest and relax

12. Signals of Social Functioning  Social Initiative  Assertive  Coping/Flexibility  Positive Attitude towards warmth and closeness

13. Signals of Learning Dispositions  Openness and receptivity/pleasure in exploring  Pleasure in sensory experience  Persistence  Robustness

14. Signals of Thinking  meta-cognitive knowledge knowledge of and ability to apply a range of alternative learning strategies;  meta-cognitive regulation ability to take control over his/her approach to learning and monitor effectiveness through self- reflection; and  Epistemic awareness of own assumptions and capacity to approach a situation using alternative view- points.

15. Where are we?  Observational instrument established, well tested, reliable for involvement and well-being – thinking component still under development  Self-report instruments are in trial stage

16. Why Important revisited  Laevers talks of these as being critical process variables.  Improving them improves accademic attainment  What is clear is that they also measure the development of critical life skills and align strongly with Essential Learnings  They are therefore important means for effective learning as well as important learning outcomes.