Page 129 - Secondary school students’ university readiness and their transition to university Els van Rooij

Chapter 5
dropout, an increasing number of researchers are emphasizing the importance of high engagement for successful high school completion. As a consequence of this turnaround, engagement research increasingly focused on all students, instead of primarily on the ones that are at risk to drop out. e attractiveness of studying engagement as a useful factor in school improvement lies in the fact that it is an alterable variable, in contrast to (relatively) xed variables such as socioeconomic status and intelligence (Landis & Reschly, 2013). As Zyngier (2008) pointed out, “While this disengagement might be seen as a problem of the individual student in terms of dropping out or problematic behaviour at school, it can also more appropriately be seen in terms of the school failing to enable the student to achieve their potential” (p. 1767). Originally, student engagement was divided into two elements, following the Participation-Identi cation (PI) Model introduced by Finn (1989). Participation referred to behavioural engagement and identi cation involved a ective engagement. A decade later, with more researchers entering the eld of engagement research, a compartmentalisation into three aspects became more popular. e construct was divided into a behavioural, a cognitive, and an a ective (sometimes referred to as psychological or emotional) aspect. According to Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004), behavioural engagement consists of indicators such as positive conduct and rule following including attendance, involvement in learning including time on task and asking questions, and wider participation in extracurricular activities. Brie y, behavioural engagement can thus be described as the time and e ort students devote to academic work. Cognitive engagement goes deeper than behavioural engagement and can be de ned by “the student’s psychological investment in and e ort directed toward learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or cra s that academic work is intended to promote” (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992, p. 12). Cognitive engagement thus refers to internal behaviours, such as the quality of processing learning content. Comparing behavioural and cognitive engagement, the former is focused on ‘basic’ behavioural e ort, whereas the latter focuses on mental e ort. Examples of variables that are o en seen as aspects of cognitive engagement are self-regulation and the use of learning strategies (Fredricks et al., 2004). A ective engagement is constructed from perceived relationships with teachers, perceived support from peers, and perceived support from family. Many researchers describe this component as sense of belonging (Landis & Reschly, 2013). Although not part of the three original aspects of engagement, another engagement dimension that can be thought of as relevant for students in the highest levels of education
128