The document discusses student engagement as crucial for improving learning outcomes, highlighting Richard Elmore's three strategies to enhance student learning: raising content levels, increasing teacher knowledge, and boosting active student engagement. It distinguishes three types of engagement—behavioral, emotional, and cognitive—and presents research findings on student attention and interest levels in various classroom activities. Key factors influencing student engagement include the perception of control and relevance in their learning experiences.

1. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Mary Ann Reilly
2012

2. SITUATING OUR WORK
 Richard Elmore (2008) says there are only three
ways to improve student learning at scale:
1. Raise the level of content that students are
taught.
2. Increase the teachers’ skill & knowledge that
they bring to teaching of that content.
3. Increase the level of students’ active learning
(engagement) of the content.

3. OUR FOCUS
 Richard Elmore (2008) says there are only three
ways to improve student learning at scale:
1. Raise the level of content that students are
taught.
2. Increase the teachers’ skill & knowledge that
they bring to teaching of that content.
3. Increase the level of students’ active learning
(engagement) of the content.

4. ELMORE…
 What predicts performance is not what teachers
do, but what the students are actually doing.
 Students must know what they are expected to
do, but also how they are expected to do it, and
what knowledge and skills they need to learn
how to do it well.
 It is also vital to have students know why they
should want to do the work. Itshould have value
and meaning to the student.

5. WHAT IS STUDENT ENGAGEMENT?
RESEARCH FROM 1983 - 2012
Behavioral
Emotional Cognitive

6. BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT
 Student Engagement initially defined by observable
behaviors such as:
 participation,
 time on task,
 involvement in academic, social, or extracurricular
activities (Brophy 1983; Natriello 1984).
 Crucial for achieving positive academic outcomes
and preventing dropping out (Connell and Wellborn
1990; Finn 1989).

7. EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT
 Emotional or affective aspects: feelings of
belonging, enjoyment, and attachment (Connell
1990; Finn 1989).
 Focuses on the extent of positive (and negative)
reactions to
teachers, classmates, academics, and school.
 Creates student ties to the institution and
influence students’ willingness to work (Connell
and Wellborn 1990; Finn 1989).

8. COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT
 Student’s investment in learning:
 being thoughtful and purposeful in the approach to
school tasks,
 being willing to exert the effort necessary to
comprehend complex ideas or master difficult
skills,
 Using deep rather than superficial strategies
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004)
 Self-regulating (Miller et al. 1996).

9. FINDINGS FROM STEINBERG, BROWN
&DORNBUSCH (1996)
 50% of high school students reported that their
classes were boring.
 33% reported ‘surviving school’ by ‘goofing off’ with
friends.
 From Steinberg, L.D., Brown, B.B., &Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom:
Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. NY: Simon & Schuster.

10. HOW HS STUDENTS SPEND TIME AT SCHOOL *
Activity Percentage of Time
Doing Individual Work 23%
Listening to Lectures 21%
Taking Exams 13%
Taking Notes 10%
In Discussion 9%
Watching TV or Video 7%
Doing Homework or Studying 7%
Doing Group of Lab Work 6%
Other Activities (Watching demos, 4%
Giving presentations)
Talking with Teacher Individually Less than 1%
From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement
in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18,
(2), 158-176.

11. Interest
Concentration Enjoyment
Activity
Simultaneously experiencing concentration, interest, and
enjoyment in an activity leads to Flow.

12. APATHY: LOW CHALLENGE AND LOW SKILLS

13. BOREDOM: LOW CHALLENGE AND HIGH SKILLS

14. ANXIETY: LOW SKILLS AND HIGH CHALLENGE

15. FLOW: HIGH CHALLENGE AND HIGH SKILLS

16. PRESENCE OF FLOW ON LEARNING
Condition Percentage of Time Students
Attended to Instruction
Flow 73%
Apathy 42%
Anxiety 70%
Relaxation/Boredom 58%
 From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.

17. EFFECT OF CONTROL & RELEVANCE
Students reported being significantly more engaged
when:
•Experiencing high versus low control over
situations
•When instruction is perceived as having high
versus low relevance.
 From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.

18. PAYING ATTENTION
Activity Percentage of Time
Students Say they Pay
Attention
Taking an Exam 83%
Doing Individual Work 78%
Participating in Group Work 75%
Listening to Teacher Lecture 65%
Watching TV/Video 57%
From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.

19. HIGH
ENGAGEMENT
Individual &
Group Work
Lecture, TV, Test
Low
Engagement
From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.

20. HS STUDENT REPORT HIGHEST LEVEL OF
ENGAGEMENT
Courses
Art
Computers
Vocational Education
From Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.

21. Skill
Challenge Relevance
Overall
Engagement

22. WORKS CITED
 Brophy, J .(1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200–215.
 Connell, J.P. (1990). Context ,self, and action: A Motivational analysis of self-system processes across
life-span. In D. Cicchetto (ed.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
 Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Friedel, J., and Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore
and L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish?: conceptualizing and measuring indicators of
positive development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
 Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., and Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in
academic work: the role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.
 National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: fostering high school
students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and
Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Science
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
 Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement for secondary
schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14–24.
 Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., &Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement in high
school classrooms from the perspective of Flow Theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, (2), 158-176.
 Steinberg, L.D., Brown, B.B., &Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has
failed and what parents need to do. NY: Simon & Schuster.