Core Characteristics of Student Engagement

  • Jeanne AllenEmail author
  • Glenda McGregor
  • Donna Pendergast
  • Michelle Ronksley-Pavia


The preceding chapter described how the three dimensions of school structures and school community, student wellbeing and teaching, teachers and leaders are fundamental to the ways in which schools engage young adolescents in learning. As such, they constitute the superordinate layer (Layer 1) of the Young Adolescent Engagement in Learning (YAEL) Model. Couched within these three dimensions is a suite of interconnected sub-dimensions, which represent the core characteristics of the continuum of support that has been shown to most effectively address the needs of all young adolescent learners. The purpose of this chapter is to describe and exemplify these sub-dimensions, which comprise Layer 2 of the Model, and demonstrate their importance to school innovation and improvement agendas for student engagement and retention.


  1. Australian Catholic University & Erebus International. (2008). Scoping study into approaches to student wellbeing: Literature review. Report to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Canberra, ACT: DEEWR.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY). (2014). The Nest action agenda: Improving the wellbeing of Australia’s children and youth while growing our GDP by over 7% (2nd ed.). Canberra, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Baeck, U.-D. K., & Paulsgaard, G. (2012). Rural futures? Finding one’s place within changing labour markets. Stamsund, Norway: Orkana Akademisk.Google Scholar
  4. Bielby, G., Judkins, M., O’Donnell, L., & McCrone, T. (2012). Review of the curriculum and qualification needs of young people who are at risk of disengagement. Slough, Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. L., & Schafft, K. A. (2011). Rural people and communities in the 21st century: Resilience and transformation. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cranston, N., Watson, J., Allen, J. M., Wright, S., Hay, I., Beswick, K., … Kameniar, B. (2016). Overcoming the challenges of keeping young people in education: A wicked problem with implications for leadership, policy and practice. Leading and Managing, 22(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlander, D. (2007). High schools for equity: Policy supports for student learning in communities of color. Stanford, CA: The School Redesign Network at Stanford and Justice Matters.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Health and Ageing. (2013). Social and emotional wellbeing: A teacher’s guide. Response Ability. Retrieved from
  9. Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Duffy, G., & Elwood, J. (2013). The perspectives of ‘disengaged’ students in the 14–19 phase on motivations and barriers to learning within the contexts of institutions and classrooms. London Review of Education, 11(2), 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brien, L., … Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: The report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Hadar, L. L., & Hotam, Y. (2012). Pedagogy in practice: School pedagogy from students’ perspectives. Research Papers in Education.
  13. Hodgkin, R. (1998). Partnership with pupils. Children UK, 17 (Summer).Google Scholar
  14. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG). (2009). Re-engaging our kids: A framework for education provision to children and young people at risk of disengaging or disengaged from school. Melbourne, VIC: Author.Google Scholar
  15. Lamb, S., Jackson, J., Walstab, A., & Huo, S. (2015). Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: Who succeeds and who misses out? Melbourne, VIC: Mitchell Institute (Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University, for Mitchell Institute).Google Scholar
  16. Lamb, S., & Rice, S. (2008). Effective early intervention strategies for students at risk of early leaving. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  17. Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Staying on at school: Improving student retention in Australia. Brisbane, QLD: Department of Education and the Arts.Google Scholar
  18. Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2010). Re-engaging young people in education: Success factors in alternative schools. Brisbane, QLD: Youth Affairs Network Queensland.Google Scholar
  19. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne, VIC: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Ogg, T., & Kaill, E. (2010). A new secret garden? Alternative provision, exclusion and children’s rights. London, UK: Civitas.Google Scholar
  21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  22. Pendergast, D., & Bahr, N. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. Pendergast, D., & Klopper, C. (2017). Agile leadership and responsive innovation in initial teacher education: An Australian case study. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 8(3), 3160–3168.Google Scholar
  24. Robinson, K. (2013). TED talk: How to escape education’s death valley [Video file]. Retrieved from
  25. Rudduck, J. (2001). Students and school improvement: ‘Transcending the cramped conditions of the time’. Improving Schools, 4(2), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 587–610). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smyth, J., & Fasoli, L. (2007). Climbing over the rocks in the road to student engagement and learning in a challenging high school in Australia. Educational Research, 49(3), 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Social Policy Research Centre. (2010). Conceptualisation of social and emotional wellbeing for children and young people, and policy implications: A research report prepared for the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Sydney, NSW: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Wallin, D. C. (2007). Policy window or hazy dream? Policy and practice innovations for creating effective learning environments in rural schools. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 63.
  30. Watson, J., Allen, J. M., Beswick, K., Cranston, N., Hay, I., Wright, S., & Kidd, L. (2013). Issues related to students’ decisions to remain in school beyond year 10. Youth Studies Australia, 32(2), 21–29.Google Scholar
  31. Watson, J., Wright, S., Allen, J. M., Hay, I., Beswick, K., & Cranston, N. (2017). Increasing students’ social capital through community involvement in rural and regional education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 27(3), 142–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanne Allen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Glenda McGregor
    • 2
  • Donna Pendergast
    • 3
  • Michelle Ronksley-Pavia
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityMt Gravatt, BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityMt Gravatt, BrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityMt Gravatt, BrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations