Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Student and teacher engagement


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 50 Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet: Student Engagement in the Secondary School Classroom Authors Michael J. Corso, Ph.D., is the Chief Academic Officer for the Quaglia Institute for Student Aspirations in Portland, Maine. Matthew J. Bundick, Ph.D, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education at Duquesne University in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Russell J. Quaglia, Ed.D., is the President and Founder of the Quaglia Insti- tute for Student Aspirations in Portland, Maine. Dawn E. Haywood is the Chief Executive and Founder of the Student En- gagement Trust in London, England. Abstract The degree to which students think, feel, and act engaged in school plays a vital role in their chances for academic and life success, yet levels of student engagement remain low. In this article, we focus specifically on how engage- ment works in the classroom, namely as a function of the interactions between students, teachers, and the class content. We propose a model in which stu- dent engagement in the classroom can be understood as emanating from the relationships between students and teachers; teacher levels of content and pedagogical expertise; and the degree to which students see the class content as relevant to their current interests, future goals, and identities. A wealth of research supports the notion that student engagement leads to a variety of desirable academic and life outcomes (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). The more students are engaged in their schoolwork, the more likely they are to perform well academically, obtaining higher grades in their classes and higher scores on standardized
  • 2. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 51 tests. Student engagement has been directly linked to reduced high school dropout rates. Students who are more engaged in school are more likely to attend, and eventually graduate from, college. Some scholars have further suggested that promoting engagement can help shrink achievement gaps (Lee & Shute, 2009). Unfortunately, research into student engagement and motivation reveals that up to 60% of high school students are “chronically disengaged” (Klem & Connell, 2004). In a large-scale national survey of American middle and high school students, the Quaglia Institute for Aspirations (2013) found that more than half of high school students are bored at school, and less than half enjoy being there. According to the ������������������������������������National Research Council and Insti- tute of Medicine (2004), “Dropping out of high school is for many students the last step in a long process through which students become disengaged from school” (p. 24). Dropping out is highly likely to have serious negative long-term consequences, such as difficulty finding employment and reduced quality of life. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in October 2009 approximately three million 16- to 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high school, nor had they earned a high school diploma or alternative cre- dential (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011). Moreover, levels of disengagement typically increase as students progress through school; the longer students are in school, the less engaged they are (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998). Greater engagement in school has also been linked to various indicators of individual well-being. Students who are engaged behaviorally, cogni- tively, and/or emotionally in school are more likely to feel better about them- selves, be satisfied with their lives, and enjoy higher work quality later in life (Gallup, 2013). Moreover, they are less likely to engage in delinquency, substance abuse, and risky sexual behavior (Antaramian, Huebner, Hills, & Valois, 2010; O’Farrell & Morrison, 2003). Taken together, there is much evidence for the individual benefits of student engagement, and these benefits extend to teachers as well. When a classroom is filled with students who are paying attention, focused, partici- pating, mentally stimulated, and having fun, the teacher is much more likely to enjoy being there and to feel more invested, and is less likely to experi- ence burnout (Covell, McNeil, & Howe, 2009). Additionally, when engage- ment is high and disciplinary issues are minimal, more of the teacher’s time and effort can be spent on promoting learning, and less on managing distrac- tions. Student engagement has benefits not only for the individual students and teachers, but the entire learning environment. What We Mean by Student Engagement The term engagement in reference to schooling has been defined in many different, and sometimes inconsistent, ways. Certain studies have focused Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 3. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 52 strictly on the outward signs of engagement, such as being alert and com- pleting assignments, while others have primarily addressed inner aspects of engagement, such as being curious and passionate. We believe the term student engagement is best understood in a way that recognizes students’ internal thoughts and beliefs about being engaged, as well as their external experiences with the various aspects of school life (e.g., academic classes, cocurricular activities, socializing). The emerging consensus among scholars in the field is that engagement comprises three distinct but interrelated “modes”: engaged in thought, en- gaged in feeling, and engaged in action (see Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). 1. Engaged in thought involves a psychological investment in learning and mastery of academic material, as well as the desire for challenge. Planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s thinking, along with self- control, are indications that one is engaged in thought. 2. Engaged in feeling refers to students’ emotions regarding their relationships with others in the school environment (e.g., teachers, peers) and the general sense of belonging in school that comes from such relationships. Engaged in feeling also refers to students’ sense of connectedness to, interest in, and passion for academic content. This is often accompanied by a strong sense of confidence regarding academic abilities. 3. Engaged in action refers to the various activities and involvements in school that are directed toward learning and academic tasks. Signs of active engagement include attending and contributing to class, following school rules, completing assignments, studying, and concentrating on academic tasks. Why Examine Student Engagement at the Classroom Level? To date, most studies of engagement have addressed how students think, feel, and act at school in general. Many indicators of engagement, such as the number of school-related activities in which a student participates, or the degree to which a student feels like part of the school community, are by definition school-wide. The various factors that determine a given student’s degree of engagement can, however, depend on the particular school-relat- ed activities in which he or she is engaged. For example, some students are very active in creative arts classes, but are bored by math; for others, it may be just the opposite. If educators want to fully understand the variety of students’ experiences of engagement in school, the most fruitful approach is to focus on the class- room. Most schools separate the school day into particular academic classes and subject areas; this means student engagement can also be separated into different classroom-level experiences. Many aspects of student engagement Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood
  • 4. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 53 are specific to a particular context. Interest and investment in learning one subject over another is one example, or a student may have a sense of con- nectedness to a certain teacher, but not to teachers in general. Teachers need a framework that addresses how the various components of a typical classroom (within a student, between students and teachers, be- tween students and academic content, and among students) promote engage- ment. Such an understanding is useful to teachers independent of the subjects they teach. Whatever else may engage a student in school, such as socializ- ing or playing sports, classroom experiences make up the bulk of the day and are where most of “the rubber” of students’ desire and need for being engaged meets “the road” of what schools have to offer that may be engaging. Elements of the Classroom that Impact Engagement The degree to which a student is engaged in the classroom is the result of a variety of factors. In any given classroom there are one or more learners, a teacher, and the content being learned. These three elements of the classroom environment have been referred to as the “instructional core” (City, Elmore, Fi- arman, &Teitel, 2009). Thus, the classroom factors that have the most bearing on a student’s engagement fall into three categories: the student within him or herself, the student’s interactions with others (the teacher and other students), and the student’s interaction with the academic content. First, within the student there are personality traits (e.g., an orientation toward learning, a sense of confidence, the ability to be self-disciplined, per- sistence, a willingness to be challenged, sociability, conscientiousness, etc.) irrespective of specific subject areas that may be related to engagement in the classroom. At the same time, the characteristics that students bring with them into the classroom, independent of subject area, teacher, and other students in the class, will reveal themselves in reaction to the subject area, teacher, and other students in the class. Students may be inclined to think, feel, and act in typical ways in different settings according to their personalities, but the degree to which they actually think, feel, and act in a given setting will vary based on what and who they encounter in that particular setting. For ex- ample, by personality a student may be self-confident, but may find his or her confidence wane when asked to work in groups mixed by gender. For this reason, to fully understand what underlies engagement, we will need to focus our attention on the interactions of the student and environment. Second, the student’s interactions with others involve the social elements of the classroom. A student’s classroom engagement is likely to be influenced by a relationship with the teacher, including whether the student feels sup- ported, respected, and inspired by the teacher. Engagement is also affected by relationships with the other students in the classroom i.e., whether the student feels supported, respected, and accepted by his or her peers; as well or aca- demically capable relative to the other students. The entire set of relationships Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 5. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 54 with peers and the teacher contributes more generally to a positive classroom learning environment, one that is (a) marked by respect between teacher and students and among students; (b) mutually supportive and team-oriented; has minimal distractions, especially regarding disciplinary issues. The third factor influencing engagement is academic content, the sub- ject area and the specific topics being covered in a class. Especially when students are further into their schooling, they will attribute different value to each of their classes. Factors that influence a student’s sense of the impor- tance of one class relative to another include a student’s sense of compe- tence in a subject area (e.g., “I am a good writer”) and the present or future relevance of the material (e.g., “I write for the school paper and plan on having a career as a journalist”). Seeing oneself as competent in a particular subject is likely to lead to greater confidence, interest, and engagement in that subject; this, in turn, is likely to lead to higher levels of achievement in that subject, which further promotes a sense of competence. Thus, a virtuous circle of competence à confidence à interest à engagement à achievement à competence is established. Relevance of class content is of three types: (a) the content as connected to one’s current interests, (b) the content as contributing to one’s future goals, (c) the content as considered central to one’s identity. Demographic and other external factors are associated with student engagement and may have some impact on classroom engagement. For example, girls have been found, for the most part, to be somewhat more engaged than boys in school in general (Albert et al., 2005), but less so in mathematics classes (Eccles, 1994). In another study, general engagement in school was lower for males, ethnic groups other than White or Asian, and for students from families with lower socioeconomic status (SES) (Yazzie-Mintz, 2010). Other external factors, such as parental support, and variables such as class size, are also connected to student engagement. Although these external elements play an important part in understand- ing student engagement, focusing on the three classroom factors is more use- ful for two reasons. First, external factors typically do not play as prominent a role in determining student engagement at the classroom level as within- classroom factors, (e.g., Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Second, classroom fac- tors are accessible to educators and malleable in ways that other conditions may not be. A classroom teacher has a great deal of control over his or her relationship with the students, the course content itself, and how the content is presented, yet very little or no control over the students' family relation- ships, their gender or race, or their SES. A New Model of Student Engagement The classroom factors we have been discussing are part and parcel of the three primary elements of the typical classroom: the students, the teacher, Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood
  • 6. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 55 and the content. The student is there (ideally) to gather, discover, process, understand, and integrate, ultimately, to learn, the knowledge conveyed in the course. The teacher shares, presents, guides, instructs, and/or facilitates this knowledge to that end. Importantly, he or she needs to not only have expertise in the content, but also have the pedagogical skills to provide that content in a format understandable to the students. The content represents the information that is to be shared by the teacher and learned by the stu- dent. The individual student, the student’s interactions with the teacher (and his or her peers), and the curricular content together with how it is delivered by the teacher, are all key components in creating engagement. With these elements in mind, we propose a framework for understand- ing how they combine to enhance (or inhibit) student engagement in the classroom, which (following from City et al.’s (2009) “instructional core” model) we call the Student Engagement Core (SEC) model (Bundick, Corso, Quaglia, & Haywood, in press) (see Figure 1). At the heart of the SEC model are the interactions among the three primary elements—teacher, student, and content—which can be graphically represented by the intersections on a Venn diagram. There are four basic intersections: student–teacher, student– content, teacher–content, and (at the center) student–teacher–content. We refer to these as classroom interactions. Figure 1. The Student Engagement Core model representing the core classroom in- teractions between student, teacher, and content that promote student engagement. Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 7. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 56 Classroom Interactions Student–Teacher (Relationship). The degree to which the student–teacher re- lationship supports a student’s engagement rests upon the student’s sense that the teacher is available, concerned, impartial, and respectful. There is much research (e.g., Wentzel, 1998) and plenty of anecdotal and expe- riential evidence to confirm the benefits of positive student–teacher rela- tionships toward all three types of student engagement: thinking, feeling, and acting. Students are likely to perceive their teachers as caring when they engage in simple pedagogical practices such as offering help, being mindful of perceptions of fairness, and taking extra time when explaining complex subject matter (Wentzel, 1998). Additionally, when a teacher asks his or her students “authentic questions” intended to get to know them on a personal level, such as what happened in the previous day’s co-curricular activities or what the students do in their spare time, the students are more likely to feel connected to and, ultimately, engaged by that teacher (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). As a by-product of asking these authentic questions, teachers gather information that enables them to make the material more relevant to stu- dents’ everyday lives. Indeed, an example in a physics class of a skate- boarder launching off a ramp at a certain trajectory is likely to garner young people’s attention more readily than a nondescript ball rolling down the ramp. Numerous other practical examples for developing these and other means of engaging students can be found in Christenson et al. (2008). Student–Content (Relevance). The interaction between the student and the content of the classroom involves each student’s implicit or explicit esti- mation of the relevance of the content to him or her. In general, the more students perceive the content of a class to be relevant to them person- ally, the more likely they are to be engaged by it. We noted earlier that there are three ways the content of a class may be relevant to students: relevance to one’s current interests, relevance to one’s future goals, and relevance to one’s identity or sense of self. 1. Relevance to one’s current interests involves how class content con- nects to other classes, to events in the news and popular culture, and to a student’s activities and interests. Relating the content of a class to experiences and ideas familiar to students can enlarge the sense of “significance-to-me.” This, in turn, is likely to lead to increased incentive to engage with that content. Connections like this may pique a student’s curiosity or grab attention in a useful, but perhaps fleeting, manner. As such, they may not be as engaging as “personal interests” which are more stable over time and more Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood
  • 8. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 57 commonly connected to one’s future goals; however, they can still contribute to a positive experience of classroom engagement. 2. Relevance to one’s future goals involves a connection between classroom effort and the anticipated payoff of that investment in the future. This type of relevance typically reflects personal rather than passing interests. Research shows this type of personal, stable rel- evance is related to indicators of all three types of engagement (see Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). When students incorporate the future into their perspective of time, they are better able to connect longer- term goals to current efforts, and thus to engagement. This type of relevance suggests that even when particular content is not of cur- rent interest to a student, it can be engaging because it is considered important for other reasons (e.g., to get into college). Additionally, although some forms of relevance may not be stable at first, they can develop into more long-term personal interests, especially if they form a connection with one’s developing identity. 3. Relevance to one’s identity involves how students believe the class content reflects an aspect of their self-concept, specifically a sense of their ability to succeed academically. Academic self-concept varies with different subject areas; thus, students may perceive dif- ferent levels to which class content reflects who they are and what they are good at. The more competent students feel in a particular subject, the more likely they are to engage in it and, in turn, be suc- cessful in that class. In particular, when relevance to one’s identity and relevance to one’s future goals combine, engagement is likely to be at its highest. Teacher–Content (Expertise). The interaction between a teacher and the class content involves the teacher’s expertise in the subject area and in an effective set of pedagogical skills. In this way, expertise refers broadly to the teacher’s ability to assist students in learning about the class mate- rial, not just to lecture about it. Numerous studies (e.g., Klem & Connell, 2004) show that higher engagement in thought, feeling, and action in the classroom are supported by a teacher’s ability to • deliver quality instruction; • create a caring, structured learning environment; • have high expectations of students; • involve students in meaningful tasks with real-world implications; and • allow students to share knowledge with each other. Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 9. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 58 Pedagogical expertise involves having high expectations of students, in- volving students in meaningful tasks with real-world implications, and allowing students to share knowledge with each other. Indeed, when the classroom provides opportunities for students to interact and collaborate with their peers in positive and healthy ways, the adolescent need for socializing can become leverage for engagement rather than a distraction to the lesson that is being offered. Moreover, when teachers demonstrate expertise in both their content area and their craft, students are more likely to respect them. A classroom marked by mutual respect is more likely to be engaging to students. Student–Teacher–Content. Ultimately, the SEC model proposes that, in classrooms where students enjoy positive relationships with the teacher, perceive class material to be relevant, and consider the teacher an expert in the content as well as effective in helping them learn it, student en- gagement is highly likely. In such circumstances, students come to class eager, prepared and ready to learn, and willing to put in the work neces- sary to be successful in that class. Limitations of the SEC Model The classroom interactions outlined above represent the major forces that act on students’ engagement in the classroom, however, they are not the only ones. For example, the perception of support from peers is thought to improve student engagement (e.g., Wentzel, 1998), and we have not specifically addressed students’ interactions with one another. In addition, some students may suffer from mental or physical disorders or challenges (e.g., ADHD, a chronic lack of sleep, persistent health problems, drug or alcohol abuse) that severely limit their ability to engage in class. Much of this may fall outside of the scope or skills of a teacher to affect. In addition, students may be more focused on their cocurricular plans, or suffering from the proverbial “senioritis.” Any of these complications may have an impor- tant effect on a given student’s engagement in a given class on a given day, but they are beyond the scope of this model. In addition, it should be noted that the directionality of effects suggested by the SEC model, from the classroom interactions to engagement, might also flow in the opposite direction. For example, although it seems logical to conclude that a positive relationship with a teacher may improve stu- dent engagement, it may also be the case that engaged students draw the positive attention of teachers. Though there is research to suggest that cause and effect work in the direction suggested by the model (see, e.g., Wang & Holcombe, 2010), a bidirectionality of effects is not only possible but, to a certain degree, likely. Following from this limitation, it is important that future empirical re- search is conducted to better understand the directionality of effects, and Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood
  • 10. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 59 more generally to validate the model overall. Though the concepts under- lying and the hypothesized direction of effects within the SEC model are rooted in solid research, however, the overall functioning of the model re- quires rigorously designed studies to test them. Given the complexity and multidimensionality of the constructs involved, such a research endeavour would ������������������������������������������������������������������benefit from mixed-methods approaches that incorporate the collec- tion of data from multiple sources (e.g., student-teacher relationships and teacher expertise might be assessed from classroom observations in combi- nation with teacher and student surveys). Until such studies are conducted, the efficacy of the SEC model might be viewed as tentative, albeit theoreti- cally sound. Given those caveats, the SEC model is designed primarily to help ed- ucation practitioners, and in particular teachers, see how aspects of their teaching and classroom environments, over which they have some control, impact their students’ engagement. While teachers can design their classes in such a way as to encourage (or discourage) student interaction, dictat- ing or determining that such interaction will be positive and conducive to student engagement is difficult. Finally, sporadic disengagement, that might be attributed to natural distractions that are a normal part of the busy and stressful lives of a developing young person, should not discourage or divert the efforts of a teacher whose interest is in establishing consistent patterns of effective and engaging teaching, as well as developing positive relationships with students. Conclusion Schools no longer have a corner on the from-whom-and-where-you-can- learn-things market that once supported the engagement of most students through innate curiosity and the desire to be successful (see Pink, 2012). Moreover, students live in a world of near-constant stimulation. With in- creasing mobile access to social networking, gaming, TV, music, and mov- ies, the entire culture seems to be competing for students’ attention and inviting their engagement. And unlike teachers and schools, those who make a sizable profit from children’s rapt attention can devote seemingly limitless resources to obtain it. Though we present our ideas and model at the conceptual level, the SEC model has important implications for practice. When teachers strive to build better relationships with their students, enhance the relevance of the course content, and focus on developing their content and pedagogical expertise, their students are more likely to be engaged in class. When teachers devote time and energy to improve a student’s engagement, the student benefits. At the same time, teachers are likely to get at least some “return on investment” to the extent that they may themselves feel more engaged, efficacious, and satisfied with their jobs. Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 11. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 60 The SEC model provides a reasonable, researched, and reliable frame- work to help teachers spend their resources efficiently and effectively in areas that are likely to have the biggest impact on student engagement: relation- ships, relevance, and pedagogical expertise. When these areas are invested in, students benefit and there is a pay off for the teacher as well. Engaged students reenergize and revitalize teachers, reacquainting them with the rea- sons most became educators in the first place, connecting with and nurturing students, and teaching content in a way that is relevant to their lives. References Albert, B., Lippman, L., Franzetta, K., Ikramullah, E., Keith, J., Shwalb, R., et al. (2005). Freeze frame: A snapshot of America’s teens. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Antaramian, S. P., Huebner, E. S., Hills, K. J., & Valois, R. F. (2010). A dual-factor model of mental health: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(4), 462–472. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, R., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learn- ing. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398. Bundick, M.J., Corso, M.J., Quaglia, R.J., & Haywood, D.E. (in press). Promoting student engagement in the classroom: The student engagement core model. Teachers College Record. Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-006). U.S. Depart- ment of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spangers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V (pp. 1099–1120). Washington, DC: National As- sociation of School Psychologists. City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L., (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Covell, K., McNeil, J. K., & Howe, R. B. (2009). Reducing teacher burnout by increasing student engagement: A children’s rights approach. Journal of School Psychology Inter- national, 30, 282–290. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Ap- plying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Hand- book of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York, NY: Wiley. 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. Gallup (2013). 21st Century Skills and the workplace. Retrieved from com/strategicconsulting/162821/21st-century-skills-workplace.aspx Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood
  • 12. American Secondary Education 41(3) Fall 2013 61 Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to stu- dent engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273. Lee, J., & Shute, V. (2009). The influence of noncognitive domains on academic achieve- ment in K-12 (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-09-34). Princeton, NJ: ETS. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. O’Farrell, S. L., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). A factor analysis exploring school bonding and related constructs among upper elementary students. California School Psychologist, 8, 53–72. Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others. New York, NY: Riverhead. Quaglia Institute for Student Aspirations. (2013). My voice national student report (Grades-6-12) 2012. Retrieved from Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Re- search Journal, 47, 633–662. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209. Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Develop- mental Review, 30, 1–35. Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2010). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evalu- ation & Education Policy. Retrieved from: HSSSE_2010_Report.pdf Corso, Bundick, Quaglia, Haywood Where Student, Teacher, and Content Meet
  • 13. Copyright of American Secondary Education is the property of American Secondary Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.