The Measurement of Student Engagement : A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments

One of the challenges with research on student engagement is the large variation in the measurement of this construct, which has made it challenging to compare fi ndings across studies. This chapter contributes to our understanding of the measurement of student in engagement in three ways. First, we describe strengths and limitations of different methods for assessing student engagement (i.e., self-report measures, experience sampling techniques, teacher ratings, interviews, and observations). Second, we compare and contrast 11 self-report survey measures of student engagement that have been used in prior research. Across these 11 measures, we describe what is measured (scale name and items), use of measure, samples, and the extent of reliability and validity information available on each measure. Finally, we outline limitations with current approaches to measurement and promising future directions. Researchers, educators, and policymakers are increasingly focused on student engagement as the key to addressing problems of low achievement, high levels of student boredom, alienation, and high dropout rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004 ) . Students become more disengaged as they progress from elementary to middle school, with some estimates that 25–40% of youth are showing signs of disengagement (i.e., uninvolved, apathetic, not trying very hard, and not paying attention) (Steinberg, Brown, & Dornbush, 1996 ; Yazzie-Mintz, 2007 ) . The consequences of disengagement for middle and high school youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are especially severe; these youth are less likely to graduate from high school and face limited employment prospects, increasing their risk for poverty, poorer health, and involvement in the criminal justice system (National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 2004 ) . Although there is growing interest in student engagement, there has been considerable variation in how this construct has been conceptualized over time (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008 ; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Jimerson, Campos, & Grief, 2003 ) . Scholars have used a broad range J. A. Fredricks , Ph.D. (*) Human Development , Connecticut College , New London , CT , USA e-mail: jfred@conncoll.edu W. McColskey , Ph.D. SERVE Center , University of North Carolina , Greensboro , NC , USA e-mail: wmccolsk@serve.org The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments Jennifer A. Fredricks and Wendy McColskey 764 J.A. Fredricks and W. McColskey of terms including student engagement, school engagement, student engagement in school, academic engagement, engagement in class, and engagement in schoolwork. In addition, there has been variation in the number of subcomponents of engagement including different conceptualizations. Some scholars have proposed a two-dimensional model of engagement which includes behavior (e.g., participation, effort, and positive conduct) and emotion (e.g., interest, belonging, value, and positive emotions) (Finn, 1989 ; Marks, 2000 ; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009b ) . More recently, others have outlined a three-component model of engagement that includes behavior, emotion, and a cognitive dimension (i.e., self-regulation, investment in learning, and strategy use) (e.g.,  2009 ; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Jimerson et al., 2003 ; Wigfi eld et al., 2008 ) . Finally, Christenson and her colleagues (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006 ; Reschly & Christenson, 2006 ) conceptualized engagement as having four dimensions: academic, behavioral, cognitive, and psychological (subsequently referred to as affective) engagement. In this model, aspects of behavior are separated into two different components: academics, which includes time on task, credits earned, and homework completion, and behavior, which includes attendance, class participation, and extracurricular participation. One commonality across the myriad of conceptualizations is that engagement is multidimensional. However, further theoretical and empirical work is needed to determine the extent to which these different dimensions are unique constructs and whether a three or four component model more accurately describes the construct of student engagement. Even when scholars have similar conceptualizations of engagement, there has been considerable variability in the content of items used in instruments. This has made it challenging to compare fi ndings from different studies. This chapter expands on our understanding of the measurement of student engagement in three ways. First, the strengths and limitations of different methods for assessing student engagement are described. Second, 11 self-report survey measures of student engagement that have been used in prior research are compared and contrasted on several dimensions (i.e., what is measured, purposes and uses, samples, and psychometric properties). Finally, we discuss limitations with current approaches to measurement. What is Student Engagement We defi ne student engagement as a meta-construct that includes behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004 ) . Although there are large individual bodies of literature on behavioral (i.e., time on task), emotional (i.e., interest and value), and cognitive engagement (i.e., self-regulation and learning strategies), what makes engagement unique is its potential as a multidimensional or “meta”-construct that includes these three dimensions. Behavioral engagement draws on the idea of participation and includes involvement in academic, social, or extracurricular activities and is considered crucial for achieving positive academic outcomes and preventing dropping out (Connell & Wellborn, 1991 ; Finn, 1989 ) . Other scholars defi ne behavioral engagement in terms of positive conduct, such as following the rules, adhering to classroom norms, and the absence of disruptive behavior such as skipping school or getting into trouble (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995 ; Finn & Rock, 1997 ) . Emotional engagement focuses on the extent of positive (and negative) reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, or school. Others conceptualize emotional engagement as identifi cation with the school, which includes belonging, or a feeling of being important to the school, and valuing, or an appreciation of success in school-related outcomes (Finn, 1989 ; Voelkl, 1997 ) . Positive emotional engagement is presumed to create student ties to the institution and infl uence their willingness to do the work (Connell & Wellborn, 1991 ; Finn, 1989 ) . Finally, cognitive engagement is defi ned as student’s level of investment in learning. It includes being thoughtful, strategic, and willing to exert the necessary effort for comprehension of complex ideas or mastery of diffi cult skills (Corno & Mandinach, 1983 ; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988 ) . 765 37 The Measurement of Student Engagement... An important question is how engagement differs from motivation. Although the terms are used interchangeably by some, they are different and the distinctions between them are important. Motivation refers to the underlying reasons for a given behavior and can be conceptualized in terms of the direction, intensity, quality, and persistence of one’s energies (Maehr & Meyer, 1997 ) . A proliferation of motivational constructs (e.g., intrinsic motivation, goal theory, and expectancy-value models) have been developed to answer two broad questions “Can I do this task” and “Do I want to do this task and why?” ( Eccles, Wigfi eld, & Schiefele, 1998 ) . One commonality across these different motivational constructs is an emphasis on individual differences and underlying psychological processes. In contrast, engagement tends to be thought of in terms of action, or the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive manifestations of motivation (Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009a ) . An additional difference is that engagement refl ects an individual’s interaction with context (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Russell, Ainsley, & Frydenberg, 2005 ) . In other words, an individual is engaged in something (i.e., task, activity, and relationship), and their engagement cannot be separated from their environment. This means that engagement is malleable and is responsive to variations in the context that schools can target in interventions (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992 ). The self-system model of motivational development (Connell, 1990 ; Connell & Wellborn, 1991 ; Deci & Ryan, 1985 ) provides one theoretical model for studying motivation and engagement. This model is based on the assumption that individuals have three fundamental motivational needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. If schools provide children with opportunities to meet these three needs, students will be more engaged. Students’ need for relatedness is more likely to occur in classrooms where teachers and peers create a caring and supportive environment; their need for autonomy is met when they feel like they have a choice and when they are motivated by internal rather than external factors; and their need for competence is met when they experience the classroom as optimal in structure and feel like they can achieve desired ends (Fredricks et al., 2004 ) . In contrast, if students experience schools as uncaring, coercive, and unfair, they will become disengaged or disaffected (Skinner et al., 2009a, 2009b ) . This model assumes that motivation is a necessary but not suffi cient precursor to engagement (Appleton et al., 2008 ; Connell & Wellborn, 1991 ) .  Studying Engagement