Joshua dropped out of high school at sixteen. Students who drop out are less likely to find jobs, less likely to earn a living wage, more likely to live in poverty, and more likely to suffer from a variety of adverse health outcomes (Rumberger, 2011). They’re also more likely to commit crimes (Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2007).
Joshua experienced many of the life events the statistics say a dropout has. He had a daughter when he was still getting his life together. I have thought about his daughter, whom he named after me and who is my goddaughter, and how life has also stacked the deck against her. According to professors Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen (2012), and Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (2008), children born to parents who didn’t complete high school are more likely to drop out, too. Despite those statistics, I do have good news, which I’ll share at the end of the book (page 93).
While reflecting on his education, Joshua doesn’t mince words:
My teachers would let the good students do nothing. I was polite and thoughtful; they never pushed me for work or to think. As long as I was quiet, I was doing my job. After a time, I could just stay home and get the same thing done (J. Smith, personal communication, August 16, 2018).
How does a student wind up on this path? Later in the book, I’ll introduce you to one of the student engagement mindsets that Joshua represents—the retreater (page 37). This is why you and I are here: to make sure students like my best friend don’t get left behind.
Elements
Engagement is essential to your students’ success. Teachers are empowered when they understand the following engagement models and can leverage those elements to influence greater engagement in their classrooms and schools.
I include two plentiful, interconnected engagement elements.
1. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral model:
♦ Cognitive
♦ Affective
♦ Behavioral
2. Self-determination theory:
♦ Autonomy
♦ Competence
♦ Relatedness
Those interconnections center on thinking, emotions, and independence, all of which lead to students’ choices about whether to engage in school.
Student Engagement Trifecta: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral
Engagement appears in three dimensions: (1) affective (feelings), (2) behavioral, and (3) cognitive (adapted from Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Parsons et al., 2014). Figure 1.1 (page 14) is a graphic representation of this concept, showing how the dimensions relate.
Source: Adapted from Appleton et al., 2008; Parsons et al., 2014.
Figure 1.1: Student engagement model.
The first two elements of the student engagement model—cognitive and affective—are symbiotic. They either strengthen or dissolve in unison. The behavioral dimension relies on those two.
Cognitive
Cognition initiates engagement. This is the student’s structure, interaction level, and thinking. Imagine a classroom without a teacher. This classroom would lack any cognitive engagement with learning. Now imagine a classroom with a teacher who only lectures. Those students would have varied cognitive engagement levels. Some students would listen and think, while others would not. Finally, imagine a classroom where the teacher structures the learning in multiple levels of listening, including collaboration with teacher and peers. It also would include independent thinking, critical thinking, talking, game playing, and other instructional frameworks. That teacher would maximize the possibility of cognitive engagement.
Cognitive engagement is also the student’s willingness to try to understand the content (Rimm-Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, Curby, & Abry, 2015). Going back to the lecture example, some students would make an effort to listen and learn, while others would zone out. Additionally, the classroom that had mixed methods would have increased student willingness and higher learning levels (Grant, Lapp, Fisher, Johnson, & Frey, 2012; Young, 2017). The star in figure 1.1 makes it clear that, because educators control the learning methods and structures, cognition is the most important element. In most traditional classrooms, we determine what content we expose a student to and how we present it. Teachers don’t directly control how students feel about the school, but the cognitive experiences they offer culminate in students’ feelings about school. Students work harder, enjoy learning, and share ideas more freely in classes when the teacher shows warmth, caring, and individual responsiveness (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2015).
Affective
The affective dimension is how a student feels about school and how connected he or she feels to the school and classroom. Students need positive relationships to the school at large, as well as to their teachers (as explained earlier), the content (see Self-Determination Theory: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness, page 16), and each other (Brown & Larson, 2009), and these relationships are intertwined. Belonging is such an important need that loneliness can compromise cognition (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009). A positive relationship to academics doesn’t ordinarily follow social struggles. Education professor Deborah Schussler (2009) states, “Students who do not feel that they belong on the football field or in the student council also feel that they do not belong in the classroom” (p. 117).
Behavioral
Student behavior, positive and negative, is a manifestation of the cognitive and affective dimensions. When students experience sustained issues in cognitive or affective engagement, they are far more likely to develop issues in behavior (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Estell, Farmer, & Cairns, 2007, as cited in Farmer et al., 2011). A student may have routinely disengaged in another class led by other teachers, but if you can structure the classroom to hook their interest with fun methods—all the while building a positive relationship—that student will engage. Have you ever wondered why the same teachers, year in and year out, produce high levels of learning? In my experience, these teachers operate the way I just described.
Focusing on student behavior to improve student engagement is akin to treating the pain for an earache—you’re treating a symptom, not the cause. It’s the easiest way to gauge engagement because it is observable. You increase feelings of connection when you launch and consolidate learning—with its systems thinking focus on relationships, communication, responsiveness, and sustainability. Those feelings can help students connect even further with the lessons you provide. The cognitive and affective dimensions work together to help students self-regulate, which improves behavior. This creates an upward spiral of positive classroom experiences where success reinforces success. Behavior is evidence of what the cognitive and affective components produce between them.
A concept outlined in Ryan and Deci’s (2009) self-determination theory can help underscore this phenomenon, where good instruction increases affect toward school and changes student behavior.
Self-Determination Theory: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness
We have needs: to feel involved in something that matters to us, to feel capable, and to belong. For example, when I was a teacher, I felt compelled to have next week’s lesson plans done the Friday before I left school; I wanted to feel involved in something that matters to me. When you write a paper for your doctoral-level class, you put in the effort and do not expect negative