Abstract
Schools and districts encounter many challenges when attempting to support systems-level use of engagement data. These challenges range from integrating disparate sources of data to collecting (and ensuring the meaningfulness of) data on the less observable cognitive and affective subtypes of engagement, to increasing the frequency with which data can be updated and disseminated, and to implementing appropriate interventions based upon assessed engagement. Acknowledging the need for further study on school systems’ empirically guided efforts to effectively use engagement data, this chapter details one, large, urban-fringe district’s effort to use these types of data. The delineation is intended as a tangible example with sufficient detail to support commentary, suggestions for improvements, and calls for relevant further research. The example should also provide guidance sufficient for other school systems to consider and select types of information and methods of dissemination useful within their efforts to promote student engagement and outcomes related to it. Suggestions for further research and visions of future use of engagement data are also provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Theme” is the term used in descriptions of results to consumers of these reports in our district.
- 2.
The category-driven methods used to convey student-level information to school staff within these datasets are an improvement upon the single values provided in the advisor-advisee reports, but the concern with measurement error is one which requires consideration in future research and report production efforts.
- 3.
District-owned software specific to GCPS’ method of generating graphs are highlighted, but freeware such as R (see http://www.r-project.org/) and Open Office (see http://www.openoffice.org/) may be suitable alternatives.
- 4.
Memory limitations of the computer used will dictate the maximum able to be generated at once.
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.
Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., & Martin, C. (2011). Research to practice: Measurement and reporting of student engagement data in applied settings. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Betts, J., Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., Christenson, S. L., & Huebner, S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84–93.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
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, 59–109.
Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
GCPS. (2010). 2010–11 Fast facts. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http://www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/gcps-mainweb01.nsf/7b206fefc3472ddf85257523004bcb46/7b6e15e7f04b0bae852577670052026d?OpenDocument&1∼QuickLinks
Gleason, P., & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? Issues in using risk factors to identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 25–41.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71.
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172–177.
Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372–386.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371–408.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006a). Promoting successful school completion. In G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 103–113). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006b). Research leading to a predictive model of dropout and completion among students with mild disabilities and the role of student engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 276–292.
Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Schooling issues digest: Student motivation and engagement. Retrieved November 9, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/schooleducation/publications resources/schooling issues digest/schooling issues digest motivation engagement.htm
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to his colleagues within the offices of Research and Evaluation, Advisement and Counseling, the Information Management Division, as well as within the advisement programs at the schools for the many contributions that furthered the efforts described within this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Appleton, J.J. (2012). Systems Consultation: Developing the Assessment-to-Intervention Link with the Student Engagement Instrument. In: Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Wylie, C. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-2017-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-2018-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)