Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The role of student engagement in outperforming schools
(USC Thesis Other)
The role of student engagement in outperforming schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 1
THE ROLE OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS
by
Eric Joseph Maxey
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2017
Copyright 2017 Eric Joseph Maxey
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 2
Acknowledgements
I wanted to take a moment to thank all of those who have made this dissertation journey
possible. Throughout this process, there have been many challenges and obstacles that needed to
be overcome and it was through the support of my family and friends that I was able to face these
challenges head on and rise to the occasion to meet those challenges.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents Dan and Brenda Maxey. Your love
and guidance has always kept me strong. Your unwavering faith in me always made me feel like
anything was possible. You have always been my biggest fans even when I probably didn ’t deserve
it.
Thank you to my son Caleb for being the best son a father could ask for. You are patient
and kind. You always support me by your actions and you make me believe in myself. I know
greatness lies ahead for you as well and I can ’t wait to see what the next chapter of your life holds.
You can do anything you put your mind to, just like you reminded me during this journey.
To my younger son Tyler, your challenges are my challenges. From you, I have learned
discipline and patience. Never stop being you Ty.
To my brother Josh Maxey, I am inspired by what you have been able to accomplish over
the last few years. Your determination and grit are infectious and are the impetus for me pursuing
my doctorate. Keep leading by example, people are watching.
Thank you Maria Arciaga; part of this degree really should go to you. You endured my late
night writing sessions and were always ready to assist me in any way possible. You were my
compass on this journey and words can never truly relay the respect, admiration, and love I have
for you.
To Phil Faumunia, thank you for your support and guidance in my academic pursuits, but
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 3
most of all thank you for being my friend.
To David Locken, thank you for being my unofficial editor. Your continued support and
friendship has always meant so much to me. Thank you for your support over the last three years.
Thank you to Barbara Thibodeau for taking me under your wing as a new administrator. It
was because of your support that I continued along my educational journey. You have been an
amazing mentor and friend. I will never forget the lessons you taught me.
To my dissertation chair Dr. Maria Ott, you were my rock throughout this entire process.
I repeatedly leaned on you for assistance and you always came through. You read and reread my
dissertation and were able to provide me with important feedback. Your guidance was always
straight forward, but you had a special way of making me feel validated even if I needed to move
the dissertation in a different direction. I am honored to have worked with you throughout this
process and I cannot imagine working with anyone else; thank you!
To my dissertation committee members Dr. Gothold and Dr. Hocevar, thank you! Even
though the process was an academically rigorous one, the both of you found ways to make it
attainable. Dr. Gothold you provided me with time management skills that helped me to keep on
pace. I will never forget your words of wisdom, “don’t fall behind. ” Dr. Hocevar, you provided
critical feedback that caused me to question and rethink my academic assertions. Thank you to
the both of you for guiding me in this pursuit.
I would also like to thank my dissertation cohort. You are a phenomenal group of
individuals that have enriched my life in a multitude of ways. Without your encouragement and
motivation, my dissertation would never have been possible. We experienced highs and lows
throughout, but were always able to support one another. Heidi, thanks for keeping us on point.
Don, thanks for the insight and all of the laughs. Catherine, you saw all the angles and you were
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 4
the glue that bound the team together. Thank you all for your support!
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 5
Table of Contents
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Background, Purpose, and Overview of Study 11
Introduction 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 20
Significance of the Study 20
Limitations 22
Delimitations 22
Assumptions 23
Definition of Key Terms and Related Concepts 23
Organization of the Dissertation 29
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 31
History and Purpose of Public Education 31
High Performing Urban Schools and Student Achievement 33
Attendance 33
Dropout Rate 34
Discipline 34
Grades 35
Social Capital 36
Characteristics of High Performing Schools 36
Student Engagement Frameworks 40
Statement of the Problem/Purpose of the Study 44
Disengagement 45
Importance of Student Engagement 45
Historical Perspectives of Student Engagement 50
Efforts to address the Problem 51
Promising Practices 53
Leadership 53
School Wide Positive Behavior Support 54
Professional Development 58
Data Driven Instruction 58
Parent Participation 59
Summary of Promising Practices 60
Critique of the Literature 60
Chapter Three: Methodology 63
Introduction 63
Research Methodology 63
Research Questions 64
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 6
Conceptual Framework 67
Population 70
Document Analysis 74
Survey 74
Observations 75
Interviews 76
Data Analysis 77
Conclusion 77
Chapter Four: Research Findings 79
Findings by Research Question 84
Question #1 84
On Task Behaviors 85
In-Seat Indicators 88
Question #2 90
Leadership 91
Magnet School 91
Support and Accountability 92
Data 93
Teacher Leaders 94
Relationships 95
Principal Relationship with Students 96
Principal Relationship with Staff 97
Principal Relationships with Parents 98
School Culture 98
Teacher-Student Relationships 100
Teacher-Parent Relationships 103
Programs 104
Question #3 108
Teaching Strategies 108
Questioning 108
High Academic Expectations 110
Growth Mindset 112
Question #4 114
Discussion of Findings 115
Conclusion 118
Chapter Five: Conclusions 119
Summary 119
The Statement of the Problem 120
Purpose of the study 120
Methodology 121
Research Questions 121
Instrumentation 122
Data Collection 122
Limitations 123
Findings 124
Systems Thinking 124
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 7
Leadership 124
Relationships 125
Programs 125
Teaching Strategies 125
Recommendations 126
Suggestions for Future Research 128
Conclusions 129
References 131
Appendix 145
Focus Group Protocol 145
Teacher Protocol 148
Principal Protocol 152
Teacher Survey 156
Student Survey 160
Principal Consent 164
Parental Permission – Focus Group 166
Youth Assent- Focus Group 170
Parent Permission – Survey 172
Youth Assent – Survey 175
Teacher Consent 177
Document Review Protocol 179
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Office discipline referrals per 100 students in an SWPBIS school 55
Table 2: Impact of SWPBIS on disruptive behaviors over time 55
Table 3: Fifth Grade Engagement 86
Table 4: On Task Behaviors 88
Table 5: Teacher Leadership 95
Table 6: Teacher-Student Relationships / Teacher Responses 100
Table 7: Teacher-Student Relationships/ Student Responses 102
Table 8: Teaching Strategies 112
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Finn ’s conceptual framework of student engagement 51
Figure 2: USC cohort conceptual framework of student engagement 69
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 10
Abstract
This study utilized a conceptual framework derived from the literature to understand the
impact of student engagement on academic achievement. The purpose of the study was to
determine how perceived student engagement factors contribute to success in a high performing
urban elementary school. This study set out to answer four specific research questions: (1) To
what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement present in a
high-performing urban school? (2) What school programs, processes and practices are perceived
to contribute to student engagement? (3) What are the unique elements within the school
structure that support student engagement? (4) To what extent do students perceive being in a
state of flow during the school day? The case study focused on a high performing school in the
greater Los Angeles area. Wonderful Elementary School was selected for the study because it
met the following criteria: (1) had an Academic Performance Index (API) score of 820 or higher
(2) was ranked one or more points higher on the similar school ranking versus the statewide
ranking (3) had a free and reduced lunch participation of 65% or higher (4) the school was at or
near the state average for the English Learner population of 22.3% (5) was identified by the
California Office to Reform Education as a high-progress school. Through the use of a
qualitative mixed methods approach, data from the document analysis, surveys, observations,
interviews, and the focus group were triangulated to ensure validity and reliability. This study
reveals that engagement is an important component in learning and that schools should take steps
to ensure that behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement strategies are being utilized with
students. The emerging themes in the research indicate that engagement and ultimately academic
achievement are influenced by the following: leadership, support and accountability, data driven
instruction, relationships, programs, and teaching strategies.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 11
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Over the last 20 years, there have been many changes to the educational landscape. In
2002, No Child Left Behind legislation permeated the educational sphere. The original intent
of the legislation was that all students would be proficient by the 2013-2014 school year.
Schools who were not on track to meet this mandate would get sanctions and would be targeted
for reform (Nagy, 2011). In 2010, through the consortium of governors, new Common Core
Standards were adopted. By having a common set of standards, educational experts believed
that the playing field would be leveled and that all schools would benefit from rigorous
standards, so that more students could be college-prepared and career-ready (Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, & Yang, 2011).
Along with the new standards came new assessment systems. New computer-based
assessments developed by Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) were designed to adapt based
on the students ’ responses and were purported to provide a more accurate picture of the students ’
development in relation to the standards (Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium, 2016;
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, 2015). More recently, in
2015, the Department of Education set a goal to accelerate student achievement so that by 2020,
America will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world (Reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2015). Clearly, the educational fabric has
changed, but has education here in America adapted enough to meet the needs of the competitive
global economy?
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of engagement in student
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 12
achievement and what perceived factors affect academic achievement at one high-performing
urban elementary school. Many schools have attempted to improve student achievement, yet
only certain urban schools have made significant gains in improving educational outcomes.
The question then becomes, “what factors affect student achievement? ” How can schools with
similar demographics have such disparate outcomes? Why can some elementary schools find
success, while other elementary schools struggle? In order for America to regain its status as a
global leader in education, it is important to understand what successful urban schools are
doing to achieve academic success. Do high levels of student engagement translate to
academic achievement? What are the perceived factors that contribute to high levels of
academic success? Through this study, the researcher attempted to identify factors that
contribute to academic success at one high-performing elementary school.
Background of the Problem
At one point in American history, the United Stated was a leader in the world of
education. Unfortunately, many countries now surpass the United States in terms of education.
According to recent report by the British Broadcast Corporation, the United States ranked 28
th
in
math and science (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2015). This does not bode well for a
country that is competing in a global economy in which many jobs that were traditionally held by
US workers are now being outsourced to other countries. Many American students are struggling
with core subjects such as language arts, math, and science. As a result, these students are losing
opportunities to students from other nations. Darling Hammond (2007) suggests that American
students are not getting access to scientific information, problem solving, and critical thinking
skills whereas, top achieving nations graduate nearly 100 percent of all students.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 13
The statistics on academic achievement in American high schools is alarming and
troublesome, but the reality is that academic disengagement and failure within the school
system starts in the early years. A key component to successful schooling especially for
students from low-income backgrounds is early education. Seminal research on early education
conducted in 1982, clearly show that low income students, who took advantage of early
education opportunities had significant positive effects in the following areas: (a) school
competence, (b) developed abilities, (c) children ’s attitudes and values, and (e) selected family
outcomes (Lazar et al., 2014). Students who find success through early education and
kindergarten programs tend to enjoy school. As a result, these students become lifelong
learners who embrace learning and who are more willing to take on more rigorous, academic
challenges.
Throughout the last two decades, educational agencies have implemented a number of
reform initiatives aimed at increasing student achievement for all students. In 2001, President
George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to increase
accountability through the No Child Left Behind Act (Nagy, 2011). The ESEA was initially
implemented in 1965 and was in response to educational research that showed that students
who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds need more services than their more
affluent counterparts. The NCLB act was to provide educational opportunities for all children
and had a goal of 100 proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year (Nagy, 2011). The legislation
set the parameters for NCLB which held states and school districts accountable by the federal
government.
Now more than any time in history, public schools are focused on achievement and
accountability. In the last several years, California has seen a surge in charter schools. Parents
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 14
who are unhappy with their home school now have a choice of where to send their children to
school. Essentially, public schools are competing with public charters for the same students.
This means that traditional public schools need to be progressive and offer programs, have
rigorous academic standards, and score well on standardized test so that they can stay
competitive. Schools that cannot stay competitive in the educational market place will lose
students and will eventually close (Erogul et al., 2012).
In 2010, California, along with 41 other states, addressed the need for accountability by
adopting the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016).
The Common Core State Standards define what students should be able to know, do, and
understand at a particular grade level. The Common Core is different from the traditional
standards in that Common Core Standards are aligned from state to state. They are also
different in the fact that they are more rigorous than the traditional state standards and stress
problem solving, critical thinking, and reading to understand. Testing of the Common Core
Standards is more sophisticated as well. Students are given tests via the computer and are
asked to explain their thinking as part of answering the problem. The computer tests are also
adaptive. What that means is that when a student is performing well, the computer will use an
algorithm to increase the complexity of the test question. Conversely, when students are
struggling to answer questions, the computer will decrease the complexity of the test question.
A recent effort by California to address accountability in public schools was the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF). This law was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on July
2013. The intent of the bill was to provide money to districts where the needs and challenges
were greatest (EdSource, 2015). The LCFF provides a base rate to all schools. Rates are
allocated based on grade levels: (a) K-3 $6,845, (b) 4-6 $6,947, (c) 7-8 $7,154, and (d) $8,289.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 15
Base rate adjustments are given K-3 at 10.4% to offset class size reduction and 9-12 at 2.6% for
additional programming at the high school level. Supplemental funding is also provided for
English Learners, low-income students, and foster youth at 20% of the adjusted base rate.
Concentration funding is provided to districts that have English Learners and low-income
students at above 55% of their enrollment. Concentration funding generates an additional 50%
of the adjusted base rate. The LCFF initiative was the culmination of more than a decade of
research and policy study on California’s K-12 funding system (EdSource, 2015).
In an attempt to increase student achievement in California, Senate Bill 1777 was
passed. This bill allowed additional funding to schools that enrolled no more than 20 students
per class, effective in grades kindergarten through third. Prior to this legislation, California had
the largest class sizes in the country, averaging 29 students per class (Bohrnstedt & Stecher
2002; Schrag, 2007). By lowering class size, teachers identified fewer behavioral problems and
fewer students who were “off task ” (Schrag, 2007). In addition to fewer behavioral issues,
achievement was also affected by the implementation of Class Size Reduction (CSR). Jepsen
and Rivkin (2009) claim that CSR increased student achievement in kindergarten through third
grade among all demographic groups.
California has developed and implemented a variety of programs with the hope of
improved academic achievement. However, as these new programs are introduced into the
school system, the population continues to evolve. As the diversity and population in
California continues to grow, urban environments are beginning to encroach on what were
once suburban environments. With a growing number of urban environments, researchers,
policymakers, and practitioners need to be aware of shifting educational needs. Unlike typical
suburban schools, urban schools face additional challenges. Many urban schools service a
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 16
high number of low socio-economic students, are comprised of high English learner
populations, and have additional cultural risk factors.
Many educational experts are concerned with the disparity in academic achievement
between suburban and urban students. Darling-Hammond (2007, p. 318) notes the US has
become accustomed to educational inequality of differential access to education by race, class,
language, and geography. The differences in access to educational opportunities are growing.
Low-income students, especially minorities, do not get the minimum education required to
become literate or join the workforce. The statistics are overwhelming. Less than 30% of low-
income students gain a college degree. From 1980-2000, three times as many African American
men were added to the nation ’s prison systems than our colleges (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
As California is in the midst of increased immigration growth and a shifting
demographic, it is paramount that educational practitioners understand how all students learn.
By understanding what students require to be academically successful, practitioners can
differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of the learner. Meeting the needs of the
learner is important to academic success, but it is also important to our nation as a whole. If we
are to be successful in the global economy, we need to know how to meet the needs of our
students, while at the same time exposing them to rigorous standards that encourage critical
thinking, problem solving, and sense making. The reality of the global economy is that if
American students are not prepared for the challenge that lies ahead, opportunities will go to
students of other nations. Education is the key to help American students solidify their places
in the global economy.
Despite all of the obstacles mentioned thus far, some urban schools have made
significant gains in academic achievement. For example, in California, some urban schools
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 17
have outperformed suburban schools. Because of this success, questions have arisen as to what
factors influence academic achievement. How can elementary schools with similar
demographics and socio-economic status achieve such drastically different results? How can
educators raise the level of academic achievement for urban schools? Given the shifting
landscape and the increase in urban environments in America, it is imperative that research
addresses the educational disparity between urban and suburban schools.
Traditionally, students from urban elementary school environments do not achieve the
same level of academic success as students from suburban schools. Nevertheless, some urban
elementary schools have made significant academic achievement. What are the factors that
contribute to high performance in these schools? Is there a link between academic
achievement and student engagement in an outperforming elementary school? In this study,
perceived factors that contribute to academic achievement in an outperforming elementary
school were examined and studied.
Statement of the Problem
While there have been some overall improvements for students of all races, the gap has
persisted with a majority of black and Latino students across the United States still lagging far
behind their white counter parts (Torlakson, 2013). However, there are some urban schools
serving at-risk black and Latino students that are defying the national achievement gap by
outperforming their counterparts and producing students who are college and career-ready
(Little, Go, & Bell, 2009). Additionally, research is clear that engagement is a critical factor in
positive student outcomes and that disengagement is a primary factor in poor performance,
dropout rates, and even prison for black and Latino boys (Fenning & Rose, 2007). Further, there
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 18
is not a cohesive concept or definition of student engagement, theoretical frameworks, or
measurement tools among researchers (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012). Due to this lack of
cohesion, there is no agreement on which programs, processes, and practices would be most
effective in increasing engagement and closing the achievement gap.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the role of student engagement in student
achievement in an outperforming urban school and to determine what perceived factors
contribute to high performance. What is the connection between academic achievement and
student engagement? How does social capital play a role in student engagement? How does
Bronfenbrenner ’s ecological systems theory (Oswalt, 2015) explain how factors outside of
school impact engagement and student achievement? When students experience high levels of
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement is the propensity for flow increased?
Conversely, when there are low levels of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement are
students more likely to be disengaged?
How are outperforming schools getting the desired results of increased student
achievement for all students? How do outperforming schools use engagement strategies to help
narrow the achievement gap? Can perceived strategies of engagement be replicated at other
schools? Using the theoretical frame developed for this study, the researcher identified and
evaluated processes, programs, and practices that impact student engagement. Practitioners can
avail themselves of research-based strategies that would give their school the greatest effect in
terms of engagement, which will inevitably affect student achievement.
This bounded case study examines a high performing urban elementary school in the
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 19
Southern California region. The research aims to better understand the factors that contribute
to high performance at this particular elementary school. What is the importance of
engagement in academic achievement? The qualitative approach was applied and a variety of
data collection approaches were used which included: document analysis, surveys, interviews,
and observations. Qualitative research uses multiple perspectives and provides readers with
depth and complexity on the subject matter. A more thorough description of the qualitative
approached used for this research can be found in chapter three.
As educational leaders in the 21
st
century, it is imperative that there is a clear
understanding of the factors that contribute to high performance and academic success. The
goal is to unlock the pivotal components of teaching and learning at urban schools that are
finding success despite their challenges and then replicate those strategies across other
schools. If schools can identify and mark practices that lead to increased student
achievement, the nation stands to benefit.
This bounded case study is one of 19 thematic dissertation case studies conducted at the
University of Southern California (USC) led by Dr. Stuart E. Gothold and Dr. Maria Ott. The
USC student engagement cohort created a unique conceptual framework that includes social
capital and Bronfenbrenner ’s ecological systems theory in relation to engagement (Oswalt,
2015). The research design and instruments were developed through a collaborative process and
were based on the information gathered from the literature review. Survey questions for this
study were modeled after the student engagement work that was conducted in Oakland,
Michigan. This study reviewed engagement strategies used by teachers and how those strategies
were perceived by students. By using a consistent tool to measure engagement strategies,
researchers can look across various studies and identify patterns and trends. Survey and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 20
interview of stakeholder groups provided explicit data around student engagement at the selected
elementary school. The document analysis provided the researcher with that background and
demographics of the school along with other basic information.
To initiate the research, a document analysis was conducted. This provided background
and context for the study. The researcher was able to spend six school days at the urban
elementary school selected for this study to better understand and observe the various factors
that contribute to academic achievement. Observations, interviews, and surveys were
conducted to provide the researcher with the participant ’s perspective into what factors
contribute to outperformance at this urban elementary school located in Southern California.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four overarching research questions:
1. To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement
present in a high-performing urban school?
2. What school programs, processes and practices are perceived to contribute to student
engagement?
3. What are the unique elements within the school structure that support student
engagement?
4. To what extent do students perceive being in a state of flow during the school day?
Significance of the Study
Leaders in the field of education must ensure that all students are given an opportunity to
achieve academic success. By examining the perceived factors that contribute to students ’
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 21
academic success in an outperforming elementary school, educational leaders and practitioners
can isolate best practices to help all students gain a higher level of academic success.
There has been a significant amount of educational research that emphasizes conditions
that are outside of the students ’ control. Substantial research has been conducted on standards,
parental development, pedagogical techniques, and teacher effectiveness. While this information
is important and helpful in finding ways to increase achievement, it does not communicate the
influence that the student has over his or her own education. This research provides elementary
schools across the country with an individual school ’s data which will be utilized to understand
the relationship between academic achievement and student engagement in an outperforming
elementary school. What are the perceived factors that influence academic success?
Understanding the perceived factors that influence student success can help policy
makers, leaders, and educational practitioners provide an environment that is conducive to
learning and success. Leadership, culture, climate, and parent involvement are necessary for a
healthy school. By utilizing the correct leavers, educational leaders can create the conditions for
optimal learning for all students. This study will lay the foundation for student engagement
research in an outperforming elementary school.
This study engaged a multi-method qualitative approach to identify perceived factors that
have an effect on student learning and ultimately student achievement in an outperforming
elementary school. Data for this study were collected though document analysis, surveys,
observations, interviews, and focus groups. The qualitative research approach was utilized for
this study because of the need to gain the perspective of the student. Qualitative research allows
the researcher to explore the participants thoughts and get the “participant ’s perspective ”
(Maxwell, 2013). This is particularly important with engagement because observations and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 22
surveys only tell part of the story. Finn, Kayla and Zimmer (2012) propose self-reporting to be a
valuable measurement tool as it relates to engagement. By looking at all of the factors, the
researcher was able to triangulate the data which increased the reliability and validity of the data.
Limitations of the Study
One of the major limitations for this study was lack of state assessment data. The shift
from California Standards Testing (CST) to Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
testing left a void in the data. In order to identify an outperforming school, data from 2011-2013
were accessed. By reviewing the patterns and trends in the existing data, the researcher was able
to reasonably assume the school ’s positive academic trajectory and identify it as an
outperforming school for the purposes of this study.
Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations of the study that was conducted included the following: (1) the study
focused on a single high-performing urban elementary school. Only the teachers, students, and
staff at the selected school were researched for the study. (2) There are many different ways to
determine what constitutes high performance. For this study, the USC research team used
criteria elicited from the literature review to define a high-performing school. Using this
predetermined criteria, one high-performing urban elementary school was selected.
This study focused on perceived student engagement factors that contribute to increased
academic achievement at an urban elementary school. Individuals in this study are elementary
school students, teachers, and stakeholders at a selected site. The results of this study cannot be
generalized to other schools. This study also acknowledged that student engagement is
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 23
influenced by family, peers, school, and the community at large however, these factors are
beyond the scope of this research study.
This research represents a point in time in which the researcher was able to capture data
for analysis. While every precaution was taken to remain unbiased, the researcher is the tool
through which the data is analyzed. Therefore, the analysis may contain unintended researcher
bias.
Assumptions
It was assumed that all responses to surveys and interview questions were accurate,
truthful, and genuine. During observations, it was assumed that the interactions were
consistent with average, everyday behavior. Data that were mined for the selection of the
school were free of errors and provided an accurate picture of the school. It is assumed that
perceived student engagement strategies at the selected school support increased student
academic achievement.
Definition of Key Terms and Related Concepts
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined:
A through G requirements: California high school requirements students must compete to be
considered for entrance in the University of California system. They consist of 15 year long high
school courses and must be completed with a grade of C or better — at least 11 of them prior to
senior year. A through G courses cover four years of English, Algebra 2; two years of science,
social studies, foreign language; one year of visual/performing arts, and one year of a college
preparatory elective (University of California, 2016).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 24
Academic Performance Index (API ): The Academic Performance Index is the cornerstone of
California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The purpose of the API is to
measure the academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. A school's score on the API is an indicator of a
school's performance level. The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A
school's growth is measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal (California
Department of Education, 2016).
Achievement Gap: According to the University of Southern California ’s thematic dissertation
group, the achievement gap is the persistent disparity in academic performance particularly
between affluent, White and/or Asian students and minority, low socioeconomic status, and
second language learners.
Adequate Yearly Performance (AYP): The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001 requires that California determine whether or not each public school and local
educational agency (LEA; an LEA is a school district or county office of education) is making
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP criteria encompasses four areas: participation rate,
percent proficient (also referred to as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs), API as an
additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate. Each of these four areas has specific
requirements. Participation rate and percent proficient criteria must be met in both English
Language Arts (ELA) and in mathematics (AYP Report Information Guide, 2015).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 25
California English Language Development Test (CELDT): allows schools to identify students
who need to improve their skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English. Schools
also give the test each year to students who are still learning English (California English
Language Development Test, 2001).
California Office to Reform Education (CORE): is a nonprofit organization that seeks to
improve student achievement by fostering highly-productive, meaningful collaboration and
learning between its 9 member school districts: Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Troy,
Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sanger and Santa Ana Unified. Together, these districts
serve more than one million students and their families (CORE District, 2013).
California Standards Test (CST): The California Standards Tests in English-Language Arts,
mathematics, science, and history-social science are administered only to students in California
public schools. Except for a writing component that is administered as part of the grades 4 and 7
English-Language Arts tests, all questions are multiple choice. These tests were developed
specifically to assess students' performances on California's Academic Content Standards. The
State Board of Education adopted these standards that specify what all California children are
expected to know and be able to do in each grade or course (STAR CST Blueprint, 2016).
Close Reading: Rereading for the purpose of recognizing details and nuances of text that may
go unnoticed during a cursory first read so that new understandings and insights may reveal
themselves (Burkins & Yaris, 2013).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 26
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): educational standards describe what students should
know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. In California, the State Board of Education
decides on the standards for all students, from kindergarten through high school. Since 2010, a
number of states across the nation have adopted the same standards for English and math. These
standards are called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Having the same standards helps
all students get a good education, even if they change schools or move to a different state.
Teachers, parents, and education experts designed the standards to prepare students for success
in college and the workplace (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act is federal law affecting K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the most
recent reauthorization of the ESEA. Originally enacted in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty,
ESEA was created to support the education of the country's poorest children, and that remains its
overarching purpose. Congress must reauthorize it every six years. Each reauthorization of
ESEA has made some changes, but NCLB was the most dramatic revision of the act since its
creation. Its provisions represent a significant change in the federal government's influence in
public schools and districts throughout the United States, particularly in terms of assessment and
teacher quality (ESEA Reauthorization, 2016).
English Language Learners (ELL): English language learner is defined as an English learner
or as a reclassified-fluent-English-proficient (RFEP) student who has not scored at the proficient
level or above on the CST in ELA for three years after being reclassified (Facts about English
Learners in California, 2016).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 27
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law
passed in December 2015 that governs the country's K –12 public education policy.
The law
replaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified standardized testing
accountability provisions. ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which established the American federal government's influence in funding public
education assessment, accountability, and teacher quality (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015).
Institution-controlled Factors: the factors or variables internal to the institution as primary
determinants of retention, including faculty concern for student development and teaching,
academic and intellectual development, and institutional commitment (Tinto, 1987).
National School Lunch Program: The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally
assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care
institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school
day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act signed by President
Harry Truman in 1946 (National School Lunch Program, 2016).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs provide much of the federal
funding for K –12 schools. NCLB ’s provisions represent a significant change in the federal
government's influence in public schools and districts throughout the United States, particularly
in terms of assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It increases the federal focus on the
achievement of disadvantaged pupils including English language learners and students who live
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 28
in poverty, provides funding for “innovative programs ” such as charter schools, and supports the
right of parents to transfer their children to a different school if their school is low-performing or
unsafe (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): In November 1988, California voters passed
Prop. 98 also known as The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act. This
ballot initiative provides California's public schools with a stable source of funding. In return, all
public schools in California are required annually to prepare SARCs and disseminate them to the
public. SARCs are intended to provide the public with important information about each public
school and to communicate a school's progress in achieving its goals (School Accountability
Report Card, 2017).
Similar Schools Ranking: The similar schools rank compares a school to 100 other schools of
the same type and similar demographic characteristics (Glossary terms API, 2012).
Small Learning Communities: also referred to as a School-Within-A-School, small learning
communities is a form of school structure that is increasingly common in American secondary
schools to subdivide large school populations into smaller, autonomous groups of students and
teachers (Messacar & Oreopoulos, 2013).
Smarter Balanced Assessment System (SBAC): The Smarter Balanced Assessment System
utilizes computer-adaptive tests and performance tasks that allow students to show what they
know and are able to do. This system is based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 29
English language arts/literacy (ELA) and mathematics (Smarter Balanced Assessment System,
2016).
Social Capital: The degree and quality of middle class forms of social support inherent in a
young person's interpersonal network. Social capital is cumulative, possesses the capacity to
produce profits or benefits in the social world, is convertible into tangible resources or other
forms of capital, and possesses the capacity to reproduce itself in identical or expanded form
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Student-controlled factors: behavioral, emotional or affective, and cognitive engagement
factors (Christenson et al., 2008).
Student engagement: is a multidimensional meta-construct made up of distinct, but integrated
dimensions: cognitive, behavioral, and emotional (Shernoff, 2013).
Organization of the Dissertation
The first chapter is meant as an overview of the study and is designed to introduce the
reader to the research project. Chapter 2 is a synthesis of the current literature on the topic that
is being researched. Understanding current research allows the researcher to take the subject in
another direction and add to the body of research. Chapter 3 will explicitly focus on the
methodology of the study. It will explain how the school was selected, as well as, the process
for observing, interviewing, and surveying stakeholder groups. Chapter 4 will examine the
findings of the research study as they relate to the research questions. Upon the completion of
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 30
the research project, conclusions and recommendations will be offered to increase student
academic achievement in Chapter 5.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 31
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
History of Public Education in the United States
In order to fully understand the achievement gap and the inequity of the American School
system, it is important to acknowledge the history of American schooling. The original intent of
American schooling was not to educate all students. In fact, early on in American history,
education was relegated to the wealthy and the upper stratum of society. It wasn ’t until the 19
th
century that a major change in education began to take place. Vinovskis (1992) claims public
elementary schools or common schools came about as a response to industrialization.
Manufacturers and merchants needed workers who would be able to handle the tasks associated
with working in a factory. The U.S. government also wanted to ensure that future generations
would have respect for the law and authority in the new capitalist economy (Vinovskis, 1992).
In the mid twentieth century, the civil rights movement began to gain momentum, and the
notion of separate but equal was challenged in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954). At this
time in American history, the nation began to take note of the stark inequalities associated with
poor and minority children. In 1982, the Secretary of Education, T.H. Bell published a report
titled A Nation at Risk. In the report, the National Commission on Excellence in Education noted
that America ’s dominance is being challenged as other countries began to exert dominance in
fields like technology, science, and industry (Kersten & Israel, 2005). With the A Nation at Risk
report fresh in the public ’s mind, politicians began to find ways to address the education problem
in America, hence, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
The ushering in of No Child Left Behind began an era of accountability with an aim at
closing the achievement gap between whites and students of color (Hochschild & Scovronick,
2003). In the educational landscape of today, educators are grappling with the Common Core
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 32
implementation. The Common Core was created through the consortium of governors, and the
aim was to systemize standards and to have common assessments. The rationale was that all
students needed to be exposed to a rigorous curriculum and should leave high school college
prepared and career ready.
In an attempt to get students college prepared and career ready, the current trend is
moving away from single test accountability to a more robust accountability system that includes
multiple measures to assess student capabilities (Fullan, Darling-Hammond; Erogul et al., 2012).
The use of multiple accountabilities will give practitioners a more complete understanding of the
student and school progress. The movement, as described by the Blueprint for Great Schools
2.0, is to move accountability away from the “test and judge ” method to a “support and improve ”
approach (Erogul et al., 2012). The “support and improve ” approach stresses continuous
improvement through the use of a collaborative team approach. Through the team approach,
there is shared accountability between students, teachers, principals, superintendents, parents,
businesses, community based organizations and county services (Erogul et al., 2012; Fullan,
Rincón-Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015).
Having collective responsibility within the teaching community creates internal
accountability that focuses on building professional capital which includes three distinct
components: individual human capital, social capital, and decisional capital (Fullan, Rincón-
Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015). Internal accountability is the act of taking responsibility for
one ’s actions. The focus is not on an external test score, but rather deeper and more meaningful
learning for students (Fullan, Rincón-Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015). By accessing the lever of
internal accountability, educators will find greater student achievement than external
accountabilities alone which have been shown to be ineffective.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 33
For practitioners of education, the shifting tides of educational policy can be daunting.
Many polices have been enacted in hopes of narrowing the achievement gap or bolstering school
performance. However, many of these same initiatives have unintended consequences which
end up creating more harm than good. According to Mead, Rotherham, and Brown (2014),
policy change inevitably produces unintended consequences something akin to a policy hangover
as ideas move from conception to implementation. What this means for educational practitioners
is the work must be focused on research based practices that have been proven or that have a
solid foundation in theoretical research. Sound pedagogical, research based theories grounded in
appropriate methodology should help to close the achievement gap and to restore America as a
leader in technology, science and industry. This literature review focused on how engagement in
high performing urban schools that serve at-risk youth can be utilized to unlock promising
strategies that will influence instructional practice for the most vulnerable students in our
educational system. Engagement for the purposes of this paper will be defined as the multi-
dimensional emotion, behavior, and cognition of a student (Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
High-Performing Urban Schools and Student Achievement
Attendance
A review of high performing urban schools reveals specific markers of student
achievement. One reoccurring theme identified in the research was student attendance rates.
Attendance rates have been identified as one the strongest predictors of student achievement
(Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Shernoff, 2013). Urban students who attend school regularly have
higher rates of success and as a result, want to come to school. This positive correlational cycle
perpetuates itself. Students who have high rates of attendance have increased time of being
engaged in a classroom which leads to better academic achievement. Unfortunately, the same
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 34
holds true with poor attendance. Students in urban schools who have low attendance will have
less engaged time and as a result, will have poor academic achievement (Shernoff, 2013).
Students with poor academic achievement are not motivated to attend school, will have lower
self-esteem, increased rates of absenteeism, and many of these students will eventually drop out.
It is important to note that attendance has a direct correlation to academic engaged time which
contributes to student achievement and also provides students with a sense of connectedness to
the school (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).
Dropout Rate
Another predictor of academic performance which is closely related to attendance is the
school dropout rate. Positive experiences in school increase engagement, and negative
experiences disconnect students from school, which leads to poor attendance and eventually
dropping out (Shernoff, 2013). Schools that are successful with decreasing dropout rates find
ways to engage students that make them feel as though they are a valuable part of the school
community. In their research, Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) identified that schools with positive
cultures had increased student achievement and better morale. For schools to be successful,
principals must actively foster a culture and climate of excellence. As a part of this process, the
principal must create an environment in which students feel a sense of belonging and have a
connection to the school community (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Louis & Whalstrom, 2011).
Discipline
As suspected, successful urban schools have fewer problems with discipline and have
found ways to engage students that lower the suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the office
for misbehavior. First, successful urban schools provide a positive student environment that
addresses the needs of all students (Kondakci & Sivri, 2013). Classrooms in which students are
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 35
appropriately engaged have less negative behaviors because they are engaged with learning
tasks. Second, successful urban schools maintain student motivation (Kondakci & Sivri, 2013).
Motivation is maintained by having high interest activities that are valued by students. One
strategy revealed in the literature was allowing students to work in self-selected groups (Russell,
2011). Students who actively participate in self-selected groups are more intrinsically motivated
to complete the assigned task. The third and final strategy for reducing suspensions, expulsions
and office referrals is to maintain open communication with students (Kondakci & Sivri, 2013).
In order for students to be successful, it is important to understand their needs and desires.
Christenson and Reschley (2012) propose that student perspective is essential for change in
student learning and behavior.
Grades
Grades are also a significant marker of student achievement. According to Chasee,
Hilliard, Geldhof, Warren, and Lerner (2014), a student ’s grade point average (GPA) is
positively correlated to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Students who are
engaged feel connected to school and learning and therefore obtain higher GPA’s. Although
GPA’s are associated with emotional and cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement has
been identified as the strongest predictor of achievement in terms of GPA and needs to be the
focus of policies and initiatives (Chasee, Hilliard, Geldhof, Warren, & Lerner, 2014).
Behavioral measures are observable measures that can be used to measure how engaged a
student is in a particular task. Shernoff (2013) identifies behavioral engagement as how
engrossed students are in a task as evidenced by their participation, consistency, and effort.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 36
Social Capital
According to the research, success in school may be correlated with high levels of social
capital, and cultural pressures rather than engagement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010).
Students from higher socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds are constantly exposed to values
that peers, family, and the community hold as the standard for success. As a result, students
from higher SES are associated with high levels of extrinsic motivation (Appleton et al., 2008).
Ultimately, the goal of most higher SES students is acceptance into a college program. Said
another way, motivation is derived from cultural and social pressures to achieve and is not
associated with engagement or intrinsic motivation (Appleton et al., 2008). Whereas, the role of
engagement for lower SES students is a vital factor for reaching college and career readiness
standards. Essentially, the lower the SES, the greater the need for engagement strategies.
Characteristics of High Performing Schools
Pervasive in the literature is the idea that there are specific characteristics associated with
high-performing schools. In this portion of the literature review, key characteristics will be
parsed out, and themes will be recognized. A characteristic most often cited in the research of
high-performing schools is high quality teachers. High quality teachers have the following
characteristics: (1) having high expectations for all students, (2) contributing to students ’ positive
academic, behavioral, and social outcomes, (3) using diverse resources to plan instruction and
progress monitor students formatively, and (4) valuing diversity and being civic-minded (Little,
Go, and Bell, 2009). However, it is not enough to just have high quality teachers; teachers also
need to be able to collaborate. Effective teachers share pedagogical strategies, and there is
consistency among grade levels (Kearny, Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012). Teachers who are
effective do not work in silos, but use a groupthink mentality and work collaboratively.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 37
Teachers use the cycle of continuous improvement to set goals, monitor instruction, make
adjustments, and provide coherence (Kearny, Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012; Kondakci & Sivri
2013).
Data-driven decision-making, which is synonymous with the cycle of continuous
improvement, consistently surfaced in the literature. Through the data-driven decision-making
process, teachers review formative data to help guide student instruction. In other words,
teachers are able to identify student need and then plan instruction accordingly. The literature
refers to the data-driven decision-making process using different names, such as: the cycle of
continuous improvement, common planning time, and professional learning communities, but
essentially they are the same mechanism for looking at student data and giving teachers time to
collaborate (Habegger, 2008). In addition to using student formative assessment data to guide
instruction, the data-driven decision-making process assures that the teaching and learning are
aligned to the standards for instruction (Bergeson & Shannon, 2007; Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, &
Matthews, 2005; Habegger, 2008; Kondakci & Sivri, 2013). By having the data driven decision
making process in place, it allows for teachers to feel empowered and have ownership, while
students get the differentiated instruction they need.
Effective teachers in high-performing urban schools have high expectations for learning.
Kondakci and Sivri (2013) identified teachers that expect and value high achievement as
achievement oriented. Effective teachers in high-performing schools also had positive
instructional environments. These positive environments were identified by having clear
classroom rules, addressing needs and behaviors, maintaining open communication with
students, and making the most of their instructional time (Kondakci & Sivri, 2013). Most
effective urban teachers also share an important behavior trait. Identified in the research is that
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 38
effective teachers have a big heart and caring personalities (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, &
Matthews, 2005; Kearny, Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012). As a result, students work hard for
these types of teachers and provide their best efforts. This phenomena directly correlates to
engagement. Shernoff (2013) claims that it is the quality of the interaction or involvement that
most matters for engagement. Positive interactions contribute to increased self-expression,
greater involvement, and an emerging aspect of personal identity.
In order for schools to be successful, they must have strong leaders. Strong leaders have
a clear and shared focus (Bergeson & Shannon, 2007; Habegger, 2008; Kondakci & Sivri 2013).
Staff members know and understand their role in the vision and work to make the vision a
reality. Leaders not only share their vision, but inspire staff and consistently celebrate successes.
An effective leader communicates his or her vision daily and strives for continuous improvement
through teacher empowerment (Kearny, Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012). Strong leaders use
different leadership strategies to move the school forward depending on the school ’s unique
needs. Effective leaders use both transformational leadership and distributed leadership
(Kondakci & Sivri 2013). Transformational leadership defined by Northouse (2007) “is
concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals and includes assessing
followers ’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings.
Transformational leadership involves an exceptional form of influence ” (p. 175). Whereas
distributed leadership as explained by Grubb and Badway (2005), is leadership that is shared
among the staff and not left only to top administrators. Leaders in high-performing schools
know when and how to utilize the most effective leadership strategy. Strong instructional
leaders provide for school wide instructional strategies. School wide instructional strategies
include high expectations, holding instructional time sacred, providing positive reinforcement,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 39
and monitoring student progress (Kondakci & Sivri, 2013; Habegger, 2008; Finn & Zimmer,
2012).
Strong leaders also have the ability to create a culture and climate that fosters a
supportive learning environment. School site leaders create supportive learning environments
through building caring relationships with parents, faculty members and students (Bergeson &
Shannon, 2007; Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2005; Habegger, 2008; Kearny,
Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012; Kondakci & Sivri, 2013). When teachers, parents, and students
have a positive relationship, there is a sense of empowerment and trust which allows all
stakeholder groups to be contributing members to the school organization. Effective principals
take the time to greet students, engage in activities, and visit with teachers, which creates a
welcoming environment and a positive culture and climate (Bergeson & Shannon, 2007; Cooper,
Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2005; Habegger, 2008; Kondakci & Sivri, 2013).
In high-performing schools, not only is there positive culture, but the actual school
campus is safe and secure. This makes sense given Maslow ’s hierarchy of needs, which states
that students must have basic needs met before effective learning can take place. After
physiological needs like food and water, Maslow identified basic security as a necessary step on
the way to effective learning (Block, 2011). It is no wonder then that high-performing schools
have safe and secure school environments that encourage learning. One major characteristic of
high-performing schools is that the school provides safety nets. In schools that were identified as
high-performing, teachers and students reported that the school had a family-like environment,
and there was trust among all parties (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and Matthews, 2005; Kearny,
Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011). When students feel valued and safe,
the propensity for learning is increased. Students and teachers count on one another and hold
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 40
each other to high expectations (Kearny, Harrington, and Aguilar, 2012). In high-performing
schools, the administration provided both teachers and students with necessary support. Support
came in the form of monitoring classes, identifying student and teacher needs, and having
intervention plans (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and Matthews, 2005).
Student Engagement Frameworks
Student engagement has been defined by researchers in different ways. In fact, there is
no consensus on the conceptualization of student engagement (Burch, Heller, Burch, Freed &
Steed, 2015). Shernoff (2013) defines student engagement as behaviors, emotions, and
cognition. Whereas, Kuh defines engagement as the time and energy a student devotes to a
particular task (Burch, Heller, Burch, Freed & Steed, 2015). Traditional concepts of engagement
were based on what adults thought students should be doing in school: effort on task, attention
paid to the lesson, and the quality of work. However, today ’s views of student engagement are
much more complex than the early notions of what student engagement entailed, and most
student engagement frameworks contain multiple elements.
In the model proposed by Christenson and Reschly (2012), student engagement is
multifaceted and layered. According to Christenson and Reschly (2012), context matters.
Student engagement is influenced by family, peers, school, and the community (Christenson and
Reschly, 2012). Students ’ interactions with these contextual features influence their
engagement. This framework closely reflects the work of Bronfenbrenner ’s (1979) social
ecological theory. This theory of human development underscores the interactions of an
individual with the environment and is characterized by five different systems. The five systems
identified by Bronfenbrenner are the Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macrosystem, and
Chronosystem (Block, 2011).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 41
In Bronfenbrenner ’s model, there is a reciprocal relationship between the systems, and
none exist in isolation. The microsystem is defined by a child ’s interactions with parents,
siblings, and peers. Expanding out from the microsystem is the mesosystem. The mesosystem
interacts with the microsystem in different circumstances and is inclusive of the home-school
relationship (Block, 2011). Dotterer and Lowe (2011) assert that social relationships across
systems such as home and school are important for an individual ’s development. These
interactions influence the student ’s characteristics, including engagement which ultimately
impacts the student ’s achievement at school (Dotter & Lowe, 2011).
Indicators of student engagement include: affective, cognitive, behavioral and academic
domains (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). The affective domain is associated with student
perception. Christenson and Reschly (2012) define the affective indicator as feelings of
belonging and identification with the school that is labeled as “connectedness. ” Cognitive
indicators of student engagement also address student perception, but do so through the lens of
cognition. Cognitive indicators include: self-regulation, relevance of school, and goal setting
(Christenson & Reschly, 2012). Strong affective and cognitive perceptions have a direct and
significant impact on behavioral and academic indicators.
Students who have positive perceptions in the affective indicator will most likely have
positive behavioral indicators as well. Positive behavioral indicators include high attendance
rates, students who participate in classroom and extracurricular activities, and low rates of
behavioral incidents, such as office referrals or detentions (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). The
same holds true for cognitive perceptions. Students with positive cognitive perceptions will most
likely have positive academic indicators. Positive academic indicators include: time on task,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 42
graduation credits, high homework completion rates, and good grades (Christenson & Reschly,
2012).
Context and indicators of student engagement have a reciprocal relationship. For
example, students who have access to learning resources in the home, who have high attendance
rates, and who participate in class are more likely to have positive affective, cognitive,
behavioral, and academic success which in turn make them more likely to utilize resources, go to
school, and participate in class. The inverse is true as well. Students who lack resources, have
poor attendance, and do not participate are more likely to have negative affective, behavioral,
cognitive, and academic success which further alienates them from school.
In summation, students who have a positive context are positioned to have greater
positive student perceptions in both the affective and cognitive domains. These perceptions
translate into observable behavioral and academic indicators. These behavioral indicators are
associated with “proximal ” learning outcomes. Christenson and Reschly (2012) define learning
outcomes as academic, social, and emotional. Academic outcomes include grades, grade point
average, performance on standardized test, and basic skills (Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
Social learning outcomes are defined by social awareness, relationships, and responsible
decision-making (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). The last learning outcome defined in the
model is the emotional learning outcome. Emotional learning refers to students ’ affect and
emotions in school (Shernoff, 2013). Emotional outcomes are self-awareness, emotion
regulation, and conflict resolution skills (Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
Another prominent model of engagement identified in the research is Csikszentmihalyi ’s
Flow Theory. Flow Theory was first proposed by Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of
Optimal Experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow Theory is defined as participation in an
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 43
activity where the moment of engagement is characterized by a loss of time and great interest
and even joy (Shernoff et al., 2003). Flow Theory is unique in that the research focuses on the
emotional state of the learner while engaged in the task and seeks to understand the conditions
present to produce this state of flow. While in flow, a student is completely immersed and
focused on the task at hand. Students in flow will exhibit great enjoyment, intense concentration,
and genuine interest in the activity (Taylor & Parsons, 2011). Students in flow can stay engaged
in activities for a long period of time and ignore food, time, and other basic necessities. Students
while in flow experience not only pleasure, but report that they feel competent and successful in
the task in which they were engaged which has enormous implications for education (Shernoff et
al., 2003).
A significant characteristic of Flow theory is that students feel a deep sense of
accomplishment while involved in challenging and thoughtful tasks that force them to stretch
their physical or mental abilities just beyond their limits (Shernoff et al., 2003; Marzano &
Pickering, 2011). This state of being can be found in the work on Lev Vygotsky, the Russian
psychologist, who introduced the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
(Vygotsky, 1987). The ZPD is commonly defined as a student ’s instructional level, plus one. In
other words, the ZPD is characterized by what a student cannot do independently, but could do
with scaffolds in place (Vygotsky, 1987).
Another important characteristic of Flow is defined by goal attainment. While in flow,
the subject remains aware of the goal and the feedback generated by the interaction with the
goal, but the subject ’s concentration is on the task itself not thinking about success or failure,
reward or punishment, or personal goals or agendas, but rather meeting the challenge of the task
at hand (Marzano & Pickering, 2011). Through effort and preparation students are able to make
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 44
connections to achievement with increased self-efficacy (Marzano & Pickering, 2011).
Increased self-efficacy has a positive effect on student engagement and ultimately student
academic performance. According to Marzano and Pickering (2011) in a meta-analysis of 38
studies, it was found that self-efficacy has an effect size of 0.82 relative to student performance.
The factors suggested to help students achieve this state were providing them with
mastery experiences in which key information is scaffolded, and the process is modeled by
experienced and capable others (Furlong et al., 2003). This concept of mastery learning as it
relates to flow, self-efficacy, and engagement will be central to how the methodology was
developed in answering the research questions for this dissertation. Moreover, understanding
how self-efficacy, engagement and flow interact with each other will give insight into what
instructional practices show the most promise to increase academic achievement.
Statement of the Problem / Purpose of the Study
Many schools have attempted to improve student achievement, yet only certain urban
schools have made significant gains in improving educational outcomes. Research for this study
will examine programs, processes, and practices at work in outperforming urban schools. This
study will use a conceptual framework to identify how engagement strategies are used to involve
students in their learning. For the purposes of this study, student engagement is defined as the
multi-dimensional emotion, behavior, and cognition of a student (Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
Engagement risk factors associated with the achievement gap such as socioeconomic status,
school climate, graduation rates, dropout rates, attendance rates, suspensions, expulsions, grades,
and scores on standardized test will be identified and examined.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 45
Disengagement
Disengagement of students is correlated to low levels of student performance and is
counter to engagement. There is no one particular mechanism that is responsible for
disengagement, however, there have been several themes identified throughout the literature that
correspond to disengagement. One mechanism correlated to student disengagement is lack of
preschool opportunities. Research by Ladd and Dinella (2009) investigated 383 children who
were followed from ages 5.5 to 13.5. The research findings revealed that students who were
denied early school engagement opportunities displayed less scholastic growth. Another
mechanism associated with disengagement is negative school perception. Finn and Zimmer
(2012) claim negative school perception include: no sense of belonging, negative student
identity, classroom behavior issues and dysfunctional relationships with adults and peers. The
last mechanism prominent in the research is poor teacher quality. According to the case study
conducted by Russell (2011), transactional engagement that occurs between teacher and student
matters. Teacher beliefs, attitudes, and enthusiasm have a major effect on student learning
(Russell, 2011).
Importance of Student Engagement
The study of student engagement is a relatively new phenomenon. In fact, there is still a
wide degree of variation among scholars on exactly what engagement is and how it is defined
and studied (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Christenson & Reschley 2012; Marzano & Pickering, 2011).
What is known about student engagement is that it is considered by many scholars and
researchers to be one of the best predictors of learning (Burch, Heller, Burch, Freed, & Steed,
2015). Students who are engaged have higher rates of attendance, participate in class more
regularly, and are self-regulated learners who engage in meta-cognitive strategies which translate
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 46
into increased academic achievement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
Conversely, students who are not engaged exhibit behaviors that are counterproductive to
education. Disengaged students do not actively participate in class, have poor attendance, and
act out inappropriately in class (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Disengagement behaviors start in the
elementary grades and middle school. Students who are disengaged do not feel connected to
school and have a greater likelihood of dropping out of school (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).
Disengagement does not happen all at once, but is a reciprocal cycle in which students
are constantly being reinforced by negative correlations. For example, students with high rates
of absenteeism, on average, underperform as compared to their engaged peers. As a result,
students become discouraged with their academic performance and further disengage themselves
from school. For some students, disengagement is a choice. However, for other students, there
are obstacles that inhibit them from being fully engaged. Finn and Zimmer (2012) identified a
set of risk factors that are barriers to student disengagement. These risk factors include: students
who are identified as low socioeconomic status, minority students, English Learners, students
who come from single family homes or lack parental support, and students who experience early
pregnancy (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). These risk factors, or events, lead to identified negative
outcomes. At-risk students receive lower grades, perform poorly on tests, misbehave, and many
students eventually drop out of the school system all together (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).
According to engagement theorists Finn and Zimmer (2012), there are multiple
conceptual frameworks in which student engagement operates. Each individual conceptual
framework views student engagement though a separate, but related lens. At the school level,
the focus of student engagement revolves around actions that schools can employ to increase
engagement in their students.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 47
One model of engagement focused on schools consists of six principles that encourage
and promote engagement in students. The principles as outlined by the work of Finn and
Zimmer (2012) are the following: voluntary choice, student participation, goal setting, small
school size with cooperative staffs, and an authentic curriculum that helps students to develop
and foster a sense of community. Research indicates these same student engagement strategies
have also been independently identified in high-performing schools (Cunningham, 2006; Cooper,
Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2005; Kearney, Herrington, & Aguilar, 2012; Kondakci & Sivri
2013; Habegger 2008; Lewis & Wahlstrom 2011; Bergerson, & Shannon 2007). These six
student engagement principles are self-systems models of engagement that promote competency,
autonomy, and interrelatedness in and among students (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).
Another model of student engagement that has been identified in the research is the
Participation Model of Engagement (Finn & Zimmer 2012; Christenson & Reschley, 2012). In
the Participation Model of Engagement, the conceptual lens is pointed inward, and student
characteristics are identified. According to this model, characteristics of engagement include:
interpersonal views, basic learning behaviors, initiative taking behavior, and affective
components (Finn & Zimmer 2012). These characteristics, if leveraged appropriately, help
students to feel connected. According to Christenson & Reschley (2012), the development of a
student ’s sense of self is called identification, and the indicators are feelings of belonging and
valuing. Students who feel as though they belong and are part of the community will pay
attention in class, respond to teacher questions, and complete assignments (Finn & Zimmer
2012). Furthermore, students who feel positively connected to the school do more than is
expected of them and are not afraid to seek out additional help (Finn & Zimmer, 2010).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 48
Recently, a number of new engagement theories have been postulated. Although these
theories use different terminology, the theories distill down to three different behavior
components and one affective component. The behavior components are academic engagement,
social engagement, and cognitive engagement (Finn & Zimmer 2012; Christenson & Reschley,
2012). Academic engagement is identified as the behaviors that are directly related to the
learning task, such as time on task, attentiveness and homework completion (Finn & Zimmer
2012; Christenson & Reschley, 2012). Academic engagement is measured by observable
behavior which might look like the completion of homework, eyes on the speaker, and taking
notes. Social engagement is associated with following the classroom rules, coming to school on
time and being in regular attendance (Finn & Zimmer 2012; Christenson & Reschley, 2012).
Also important for social engagement is appropriate interactions with teachers and peers. Finn
and Zimmer (2012) suggest that the greater the degree of interaction, the greater the learning
experience. Given that learning is a social experience, it stands to reason that the more socially
engaged a student is, the greater the learning outcomes will be.
Cognitive engagement is defined as a thought process or the expenditure of energy to
comprehend ideas (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Cognitive engagement has close ties to academic
engagement but is more of an internal mechanism related to understanding and thought (Finn &
Zimmer, 2012). Cognition is defined in different ways by different scholars, but the reoccurring
theme that arises in all definitions is the idea of meta-cognition. Finn and Zimmer (2012) and
Christenson and Reschley (2012) identify cognition as self-regulation which is observed by
asking questions, clarifying concepts and studying.
Identified consistently throughout the literature on student engagement is the concept of
affect. Shernoff (2013) identifies affect as emotional engagement which is marked by interest,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 49
boredom, happiness, sadness and anxiety. Finn and Zimmer (2012) take the concept of affect
further and integrate the idea of connectedness to the school community. Connectedness is
defined as feelings of being a significant member of the school community, belonging, and
having bonded with peers and adults that are significant in their lives (Finn & Zimmer, 2012;
Shernoff, 2013; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Students with a positive school affect develop
a healthy school identity, which results in a meaningful school experience. Students with a
positive school affect attend school at high rates, persist longer with tasks, interact appropriately
with peers and teachers, are highly motivated, and have a strong drive to succeed (Finn &
Zimmer, 2012; Shernoff, 2013; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). As a result, students with a
positive affect perform better in schools. Christianson and Reschly (2012) assert that
engagement is not only the driving force in learning, but it is also the predictor of success.
Engagement behaviors are easily understood by practitioners and are essential to student
learning. Teachers and educational professionals have long been able to identify important
characteristics for learning. However, it was not until the early 1980 ’s that some of the research
on student engagement started to specify factors that were responsible for increased student
achievement. Indicators of student achievement include: affective, cognitive, behavioral, and
academic domains (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). These domains translate to attendance,
behavior, time on task, homework, school connectedness, relevance, and self-regulation all of
which have been previously identified by teachers as being important to student achievement.
When students are positively engaged in these domains, the student will come to school on time,
behave appropriately, have high rates of cognitive engaged time, feel connected, identify
education as relevant, remain engaged for longer periods of time and will persist; all of which are
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 50
important outcomes for schooling (Cunningham, 2006; Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Sutherland,
Levine, & Barth, 2005).
These engagement behaviors are responsive to practices by teachers and schools,
allowing for the possibility of improving achievement and attainment for students experiencing
difficulties along the way. The goal for students are two-fold: create an environment in which
students can focus their attention and invest effort in their work and to establish a culture in
which the psychological investment towards learning is not only desired, but expected (Finn &
Zimmer, 2012). Teachers and schools should implement strategies that create a sense of
belonging for students.
Historical Perspectives on Student Engagement
One of the first student engagement frameworks was developed in the early 1980’s as a
way to understand and reduce student boredom. In the late 1980’s, Wehlage, as a result of his
“theory of dropout prevention, ” asserted social-cultural conditions affect student behaviors and
school connectedness which in turn affects academic achievement (Christenson & Reschly,
2012). In 1989, Finn developed a conceptual framework and identified two key dimensions of
student engagement (see figure 1). The indicators that Finn identified were participation and
identification (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). In Finn ’s model, participation was defined as
responding to requirements, class-related initiatives, extracurricular activities and decision
making (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). Identification was associated with belonging and
valuing (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). Engagement in participation and identification are
measured on a single continuum with engagement on one side and disengagement on the other.
Both of these models were precursors to later theoretical frameworks that attempted to address
student engagement.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 51
Figure 1: Finn ’s conceptual framework of student engagement
Christenson & Reschly, 2012
In more recent years, student engagement frameworks have emerged that attempt to look
at student engagement through different theoretical perspectives. In 2006, Appleton,
Christenson, Kim and Reschly identified four indicators of student engagement. The indicators
were academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Christenson &
Reschly, 2012). In 2008, Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann explored student
engagement through four different indicators. What made the work of Skinner and his
colleagues unique is that they looked not only at engagement, but disaffection as well (Finn &
Zimmer, 2012; Christenson & Reschly, 2012). Disaffection is when students lack self-
motivation and act irresponsibly (Reeve, 2012). Disaffection is on a separate continuum from
engagement (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). In 2007, Martin also utilized the idea of two
separate continua. Martin identified four higher order factors and 11 indicators. The higher
order factors identified by Martin were adaptive cognition, adaptive behavior, maladaptive
behavior, and impeding/maladaptive cognition (Christenson & Reschly, 2012).
Efforts to Address the Problem
In recent years, there has been a push by state and local leaders to address problems
associated with engagement. Assembly Bill No.420 was approved by the Governor of
California, Jerry Brown on September 27, 2014 (California Legislative Information, 2015). The
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 52
legislation is an attempt to reduce suspensions and expulsions by removing the “willful defiance ”
language in the education code. This limits suspendable behaviors and forces the school to come
up with alternatives to suspension. In California alone, there were more than 600,000
suspensions for willful defiance (AB 420 fact sheet, 2015). Suspending and expelling students
reduces engagement, causes students to become less connected with the school and does not hold
the student accountable (AB 420 fact sheet, 2015).
In terms of attendance, many school districts have adopted proactive ways to get students
to school. In the Troy Unified School District, a performance meter for attendance was
established (Troy Unified School District Performance Meter, 2011). Prizes were provided to
students and teachers who met the established goal of 97% attendance or better. Prizes included
gift cards to restaurants, and the grand prize was a cruise for two. School based responses to
student engagement include the School Wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support
(SWPBIS) initiative. Individual schools set up systems for honoring students who had high
attendance rates. Many schools honor students at monthly awards ceremonies, and students with
perfect attendance are given incentives.
Another attempt to encourage student engagement is to make the school a warm,
welcoming and safe environment. Many schools have implemented the SWPBIS model.
This model explicitly teaches rules and attempts to identify and reward students who follow
the rules. Students who do not follow the rules are given consequences, and replacement
behaviors are taught.
In lieu of suspension and expulsions, many districts have now adopted the restorative
justice philosophy. In Troy Unified School District, the School Climate Bill of Rights was
adopted in May 2013 and is committed to implementing Restorative Justice practices in all
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 53
schools by 2020 (Troy Unified School District Restorative Justice Statement, 2013). The
goals of these types of programs are to build strong relationships and strengthen positive
school culture. The Restorative Justice program seeks to reduce suspensions and expulsion
rates while rebuilding damaged relationships.
Additional remedies to address the problem of student engagement include changes to
the standards. The Common Core Standards were adopted in 2010 and were designed to
engage students through critical thinking and problem-based learning (California Common
Core State Standards, 2013). The emphasis with the Common Core standards shifted the
focus away from rote learning to more dynamic learning that encourages exploration and
testing design. According to the California Common Core State Standards English Language
Arts Framework (2013), students will be thoughtfully engaged with high-quality texts that
build knowledge, enlarge experience and broaden world views. In math, there was a similar
shift. The focus is now on conceptual mathematical development over the memorization of
facts. Through the mathematical practices set forth in the California Common Core State
Standards math framework (2013), students will engage with mathematics in meaningful and
appropriate ways.
Promising Practices
Leadership
According to the research, in order for students to feel engaged, they have to know they
are cared for by adults who are emotionally supportive and interested (Ferguson, Philips,
Rowley, & Friedlander, 2015). One way to show students they are valued and cared for is to
develop a positive school culture. A positive school culture begins with the principal having a
vision that is clear, articulated, and valued by the stakeholders (Suber, 2011). School site leaders
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 54
need to consistently share their message. At a high-performing elementary school in South
Central Texas, known as 90/90/90 school because the school had 90% non- Anglo students, 90%
poverty, and 90% of students performing at the 90th percentile in Math and English Language
Arts, the principal communicated the school ’s vision to teachers and students daily (Kearney,
Herrington, & Aguilar, 2012). Principals in successful schools inspired teachers and gave daily
support and encouragement (Cunningham, 2006; Kearney, Herrington, & Aguilar, 2012).
Leadership does not only mean principal leaders, but it means involving others in
leadership opportunities as well. According to Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and Matthews (2005),
strong leaders seek out and provide leadership opportunities for teachers, as well as students.
Building administrators are identified by teachers and parents as instructional leaders who know
how to meet the needs of students. Principals monitor instruction, support programs, and attend
grade level meetings in which teachers are scoring student work (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, &
Matthews, 2005; Cunningham, 2006). Consistently found in the leadership research was
administrator high expectations. At the 90/90/90 school in South Central Texas, the principal
constantly shared his high expectations for students, teachers, and parents (Kearney, Herrington,
& Aguilar, 2012).
School Wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support
Clearly delineated in the research are the positive effects of SWPBIS on student
engagement. Schools that implement the SWPBIS model with fidelity show an increase in
student concentration and prosocial behaviors and a decrease in disruptive behaviors (Bradshaw,
Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012; Klem & McIntosh, 2011). In a 3
year randomized trial of SWPBIS, schools that were studied by Bradshaw, Mitchell, and Leaf
(2010) showed 42% reduction in office discipline referrals as compared to control schools. Table
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 55
1 shows the number of office discipline referrals (ODR) per 100 students in an SWPBIS school
as compared to the national average (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). SWPBIS also shows a
direct effect on suspensions. In both elementary schools and middle school, there was a
significant reduction in the number of suspensions as compared to the control schools in which
suspension rates were unchanged (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, &
Leaf, 2012; Klem & McIntosh, 2011). Table 2 depicts the impact of SWPBIS on disruptive
behaviors over time as compared to the control group (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012).
The research also shows a strong correlation with SWPBIS reducing the need for counseling
services. According to Bradshaw, Mitchell, and Leaf, (2010) SWPBIS showed a statistically
significant drop in the need for counseling services because student needs were being addressed
through the three tiers of SWPBIS.
Table 1: Office discipline referrals per 100 students in an SWPBIS school
Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012
Table 2: Impact of SWPBIS on disruptive behaviors over time
Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 56
Research also indicates that SWPBIS is positively associated with increased academic
performance. Bradshaw, Waasdorp, and Leaf (2012), Bradshaw, Mitchell, and Leaf (2010), and
Kelm and McIntosh (2011) claim that the SWPBIS model creates an optimal learning
environment that increases academic performance. Researchers saw an increase in 3
rd
grade
reading scores for schools that were implementing the SWPBIS model (Bradshaw, Mitchell, &
Leaf, 2010). One possible explanation for the increased achievement in student scores is the fact
that less time is spent on discipline and more time is spent engaged with instruction. Another
hypothesis as to why schools that are implementing SWPBIS are finding success in academics is
because of an increase in safety at the school. According to Maslow ’s hierarchy of needs,
students have to have their basic needs met before ideal learning can occur. Klem and McIntosh
(2011) posit that SWPBS increases academic performance, improves the social adjustment of
students, and improves the organizational health of schools through reducing the number of
office referrals, student assaults and suspensions. In either case, whether it be safety or increased
instructional time, reducing the behavior problems in the classroom is assumed to translate into
positive academic performance.
It is widely accepted and commonly understood that teachers play an important role in
student achievement. Klem and McIntoch (2011) quantify this notion even further and claim
that teachers affect academic achievement, motivation, attachment to the school, behavior, and
social skills. In a study of 28 schools in Western Canada, teachers who used the SWPBIS
reported significantly higher levels of teacher self-efficacy as measured by their response to the
Teachers Self-Efficacy Scale than teachers who did not use the SWPBIS approach (Klen &
McIntoch, 2011). The research asserts that teachers with high self-efficacy have positive
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 57
influence on their students ’ achievement. Teachers with high self-efficacy feel more comfortable
engaging students in the classroom, persist when teaching students with difficulties, and use
strategies to adapt to students ’ needs more quickly (Klen & McIntoch, 2011). Teachers ’ self-
efficacy is also likely influenced by students ’ performance and achievement. There is a
reciprocal relationship between the teachers’ self-efficacy and the students ’ academic
performance (Klen & McIntoch, 2011). When students are successful, teachers have a positive
perception of the work they are doing. When teachers get positive feedback via student
academic success, they feel effective in their work and thus self-efficacy is increased. As a result
of teachers ’ strong self-efficacy, student achievement may also begin to rise.
There are several factors that the research suggests may help explain why SWPBIS is
associated with increases in teacher self-efficacy. First, SWPBIS may promote a more positive
school environment that may increase teacher self-efficacy. SWPBIS promotes a positive school
environment that can facilitate teaching and learning (Klen & McIntoch, 2011). When the
school has a positive environment, teachers are more likely to feel protected. Teachers may feel
confident with SWPBIS because it was developed collaboratively, and teachers are using the
same systems to reinforce student behavior (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Bradshaw,
Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012; Klem & McIntosh, 2011). SWPBIS may also improve the
organizational health of the schools. A healthy organizational culture leads to positive
interactions and a greater commitment to students (Klen & McIntoch, 2011). Strong school
cultures developed thorough SWPBIS may positively influence teacher self-efficacy. Teachers
working in strong school cultures are reflective about their work and have a shared sense of
purpose (Klen & McIntoch, 2011).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 58
SWPBIS is a non-academic model designed to reduce behavior problems through
organizational, behavioral, and social learning (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). The model
consists of a three-tiered approach designed to meet the needs of all students. For the purposes of
this literature review, individual themes were parsed out and discussed. However, it is important
to note that behavior, academics, and teacher self-efficacy do not work in isolation. In fact, the
contrary is true: reduced behavior problems lead to better academics which in turn appears to
increase the teacher ’s self-efficacy. Overwhelmingly, the research supports the use of SWPBIS
as a systematic way to address behavior and increase student engagement.
Professional Development
The use of a coaching model to improve student achievement was identified in the
research. Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and Matthews (2005) claim that using a coaching model
helps to build the capacity of the teachers which in turn has a direct effect on student learning.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) were also prevalent in the research on high achieving
schools. Reid (2014) states that it is essential to put systems into place so that teachers can meet,
plan and collaborate on a regular basis. In terms of professional development, most pervasive in
the research is the idea of continuous improvement. According to Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and
Matthews (2005), effective professional development is one in which there is ongoing and
continuous learning.
Data Driven Instruction
In many schools, student data is used summatively. In other words, teachers use student
data to give grades. However, in high-performing schools, teachers use the data formatively.
Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, and Matthews (2005) posit that high-performing schools use data to
make decisions about how, when, and what will be taught. Through data, teachers can determine
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 59
needs of the students and plan appropriately. In high-performing/outperforming schools, all
teachers use data to guide instruction, even Special Education teachers. Cooper, Ponder, Merritt,
and Matthews (2005) identified special education teachers working with general education
teachers to revise the curriculum and make instructional improvements. Parents in high-
performing schools also engage in conversation around the data. During meetings with the
teacher, parents, and guardians, there is dialogue about the data and parents are knowledgeable
about needs of their child (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2005).
Parent Participation
In high-performing/outperforming schools, parent participation is crucial. Cunningham
(2006) suggests that the school involves the parents by providing computer courses and English
classes. Another way to involve parents is by encouraging them to volunteer. Parents and
community members should be welcomed in school and can provide services as a guest reader,
tutor, or teacher ’s assistant (Cunningham, 2006). The principal should create an environment in
which parents are encouraged to be part of the school community. MacNeil, Prater, and Bush
(2009) propose that the principal shapes the school culture through building a sense of
community and trust.
Including parents is critical for student success. Parent engagement is a significant factor
in improving student performance (Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012). This is especially true for
low socio-economic students and students of color. Parent engagement for these students is a
protective factor with respect to educational risk (Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012). Parents who
are involved with the school are responsive to the school context and are better positioned to help
their child to be successful in school.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 60
Summary of Promising Practices
The literature review identifies key student engagement concepts that are essential to high
performing/outperforming schools. First, schools need effective leaders who can share their
vision and inspire others (Cunningham, 2006; Kearney, Herrington, & Aguilar, 2012). There
must be a collective belief that the vision can become a reality and that goals can be
accomplished. The next key concept is that the schools need to have a school-wide positive
behavior intervention and support system in place. Students should have clear expectations of
what the school expects, and the SWPBIS system should positively reinforce desired student
behavior. The third key is professional development. Different schools may have different
professional development philosophies, but the unifying theme is continuous improvement
(Reid, 2014). The fourth key concept is using data to drive instruction. Data points should be
used to inform the instruction being delivered, and appropriate adjustments should be made
(Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2005). The fifth key concept is relationships. High
performing/out performing schools are committed to making the school a place where people
want to be. Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews (2005) recognized high-performing schools as
having teachers, students, staff, and parents who work together to support one another. The sixth
and final key concept is parent participation. The principal should strive to create an environment
in which parents are welcomed and appreciated (Cooper, Ponder, Merritt, & Matthews, 2015;
Kearney, Herrington, & Aguilar, 2012).
Critique of the Literature
Since the phenomenon of student engagement is still emerging, there are still questions
that have been left unanswered. In addition, there are discrepancies among the different
theoretical frameworks. Theoretical frameworks for student engagement fall into one of two
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 61
categories. The first category holds that there is a single continuum of engagement ranging from
high to low, and the second category refers to student engagement as continua that separate
engagement from disengagement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). This creates an interesting dynamic in
how engagement is measured from one framework to the next. It also begs the question, is
student disengagement the absence of engagement or are there separate and different criteria for
disengagement?
Another budding issue around student engagement is the notion of motivation. Different
theorists classify motivation in different ways. Some scholars use engagement and motivation
interchangeably, whereas, other scholars parse out motivation and engagement as isolated and
distinct terms (Christenson & Reschly, 2012). For some researchers, motivation represents the
intention or inner drive of the subject being studied and can be defined in terms of intrinsic or
extrinsic motivation (Christenson & Reschly, 2012; Shernoff, 2013). Yet, other researchers
define motivation in tandem with agency. Russell (2011) defines motivation as feeling
competent and belonging. In both of these examples, it is important to note that motivation
cannot be observed. In regards to the definition of engagement, some scholars believe that
engagement represents the action of an individual and is observable. Schernoff (2013) ascertains
that engagement is active, goal-directed focused interaction with the social environment.
An additional area of concern with engagement is the unintended consequences of raising
cognitive demand for students. In the era of Common Core State Standards and the need to
compete globally, the academic rigor in the classroom has been elevated. Unfortunately, many
of the supports for student learning did not increase at the same rate as the rigor. Students,
especially those already struggling, will find it more difficult to stay engaged, and many will
avoid the task. According to expectancy-value theory, students will not engage in a task if they
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 62
expect to fail (Shernoff, 2013). Students who are unsuccessful have a low self-efficacy and will
further withdraw from school (Shernoff, 2013). Because of low achievement, students will
become disengaged. Disengaged students will no longer participate, will not be cognitively
involved, will not be connected to the school, and will exhibit counterproductive behavior (Finn
& Zimmer 2012). Therefore, any approach to student engagement needs to be aligned with the
instructional initiatives, provide scaffolds, and have an intervention component.
This study will contribute to the literature by examining strategies that schools in
outperforming schools utilize to engage students. A theoretical framework will be applied in
order to systematically define and capture data. The study will investigate how school leaders
create and foster a culture of high achievement. School programs, processes and practices will
be studied to determine if they contribute to student engagement and ultimately to student
academic success.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study was conducted at Wonderful Elementary School, which is a K-5 elementary
school located in the Troy Unified School District. Wonderful Elementary School was identified
by the California Office to Reform Education as a high-performing Title one school (CORE
Corner – January 20: Recognition of Reward Schools, 2016). According to CORE Corner
(2016) high-performing Title I Schools are identified by using the following criteria: (1) Top
30% of Title I schools based on average ELA and Math performance of the all students group
(percent proficient and above) in each of the years 2011 through 2013; and (2) Within-school
achievement gap (as defined in focus schools section) in the lowest 30% across all participating
schools for 2013; or the lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved from 2011 to
2013 (i.e. change is >0); and (3) Met California AYP in 2013 by showing significant improved
performance for a school ’s lowest performing subgroup. The question becomes, what are these
schools doing differently? What engagement strategies are being implemented in high-
performing schools to motivate students? The question of engagement is significant because high
levels of engagement are associated with increased levels of achievement (Chase, Hilliard,
Geldhof, Warren & Lerner, 2014). This study explored what student engagement strategies are
present in the school setting and how those strategies influence the achievement of students at
Wonderful Elementary School.
Research Methodology
The central purpose of this paper is to present a case study of students at a high-
performing elementary school and their levels of engagement within the school. According to the
research of Rumberger and Rotermund (2012) engagement is defined as the psychological
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 64
investment in and effort directed towards learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge,
skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote. The following research questions
were used to delve into the work of a successful, high-performing Title I school to expose
strategies the school employs to create and foster a culture in which student are positively
engaged.
Research question #1. To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive engagement present in a high-performing urban school?
Research question #2. What school programs, processes, and practices are perceived to
contribute to student engagement?
Research question #3. What are the unique elements within Wonderful Elementary
School ’s structure that support student engagement?
Research question #4. To what extent do students perceive being in a state of flow
during the school day?
The relationship between academic achievement and student engagement were studied
through the bounded case study approach. The bounded case study approach is one in which a
single entity has been chosen to be studied (Merriam, 2009). For the purposes of this paper,
Wonderful Elementary school served as the entity being studied. This qualitative study utilized
methodological triangulation which included: (a) document reviews (b) surveys (c) interviews
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 65
and (d) observations. Surveys, interviews, and observations were conducted with Wonderful
Elementary School staff and stakeholders. Documents were mined for data on past practices in
regards to student engagement. Interviews and surveys made it possible to gain insight and
perspective into what participants thought and felt about the school ’s approaches to engage
students. Observations allowed the researcher to witness the different engagement strategies in
practice with students, teachers, and stakeholders. Having multiple data points and using
multiple data collection methods allowed the researcher to triangulate the data, which makes the
data more reliable and trustworthy. Merriam (2009) suggests that by triangulating the data, the
researcher can say with some certainty that his findings are valid and credible.
Document reviews are an easy and convenient way to systematically gain information
(Merriam, 2009). Most schools that receive federal funding are required to keep documentation
of how monies were spent, whether it be on programs or personnel. In addition, many schools
also have a school plan for student achievement which identifies priorities and initiatives set by
the school. By reviewing school documentation, it allowed the researcher to identify how the
school strategically plans for academic success and if engagement either directly or indirectly is
a part of that plan. Unlike surveys, interviews, and observations the researcher does not alter
what is being studied. Documents reviews are considered an unobtrusive and non-reactive
measure (Merriam, 2009).
In order to understand engagement strategies and how schools and stakeholders interact
with them, the research team decided to utilize the qualitative research method. The qualitative
method creates a thick and rich narrative that you cannot get from quantitative studies.
Qualitative research uses multiple perspectives and provides the readers with depth and
complexity on the subject matter that you simply cannot get from numbers alone. In addition,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 66
qualitative methods are inductive and exploratory in nature (Maxwell, 2013). In qualitative
research, the research is not bound; qualitative research allows the researcher to explore areas of
interest which may have not been considered before. Because of the exploratory nature of
qualitative research, components of engagement that were not considered in the past may now be
explored and documented, which may lead to additional research. Merriam (2009) claims that
qualitative research attempts to make meaning in a real-world context.
In qualitative research, interviews are conversations that serve a particular purpose.
Interviews are particularly important to qualitative research because they share the perspective of
the participant. Patton (2002) claims that interviewing allows the researcher to delve into
another person ’s world. During interviews, the researcher can gain insight by what is said or in
some cases, not said. Interviews can lead to new developments and can take the researcher in
directions that were not anticipated (Maxwell, 2013). Interviews are particularly important in the
study of engagement because what is observed may not accurately represent the internal dialogue
of the student. For example, a student who is quietly completing his or her assigned work may
appear engaged, but upon interviewing the participant, it may be discovered that he was going
through the motions of completing the work so as not to have a negative consequence and in
actuality was not on task. The converse is true as well. A student may be observed staring
blankly ahead. However, when interviewed, it may be revealed that he or she was contemplating
the task at hand and was deeply engaged. Through interviews the researcher can learn about the
participants, feelings, emotions, opinions, and experiences (Maxwell, 2013).
Observations in qualitative research allow the researcher to view the participant in a real-
world context. Through observations, the researcher can determine if the participants are doing
what they say they are doing. In terms of student engagement, the researcher can identify
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 67
whether or not engagement strategies that were identified were being implemented. School
wide, the researcher can determine if there is fidelity to the student engagement strategies.
Observations also allow the researcher to see or be involved in the activity. In doing this,
researchers gain a deeper understanding of what they are studying that could never be conveyed
by quantitative data alone. Observing participants through the lens of the researcher ’s theoretical
framework allows specific questions to be answered. For the purpose of this study, engagement
was measured through behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components. However, since
qualitative research is inductive and exploratory, the researcher was able pursue other avenues of
interest that may help him to answer his research questions (Mertler, 2013).
This case study was conducted at the University of Southern California and is one of 18
thematic dissertation case studies. The principal researchers for the 18 studies were Dr. Stuart E.
Gothold and Dr. Maria Ott. All of the 18 studies being conducted were based on perceived
factors that contribute to academic achievement in high-performing urban schools. Doctoral
candidates were co-investigators in this case study examining 18 high performing urban schools
throughout the Southern California region. Through the examination of 18 high-performing
urban schools, the researchers had hoped to identify patterns and trends that contributed to
student engagement and ultimately high student achievement. When perceived factors were
parsed out and studied, the researchers were able to provide a conceptual lens that will help all
schools to increase student achievement.
Conceptual Framework
Through an extensive literature review, no consensus on the definition of engagement
could be found and multiple conceptual frameworks attempting to quantify and measure
engagement as it relates to student achievement were identified. In order to have a more
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 68
complete understanding of all the factors that interplay with both engagement and achievement,
the USC cohort looked to the work of Urie Bronfenbenner. Bronfenbrenner identified systems
and showed how those systems interacted with each other. Adapted from Bronfenbenner ’s
ecological systems theory the USC cohort created a conceptual framework (Figure 2) that shows
how different systems: (a) Mesosystem (b) Exosystem (c) Macrosystem interact with
engagement, which ultimately impacts student achievement (Oswalt, 2015).
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 69
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
•On Task
•Participation
•Attention
•Referrals, Suspension, Expulsion
•Task Completion
Behavior
•Sense of Belonging
•Feel Safe
•Access (One adult to advocate for the
student)
•One Friend
•Peer Relationships
•Relationship Skills with peers and adults
Emotional
•High Grades
•Quality of work
•Perserverance
•Grit
•Internal locus of control
Cognitive
FLOW
DISENGAGEMENT
Exto-System
Social Capital
Meso-System
Meso-System
School
Environment
Macro - System
Macro-System
School
Environment
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 70
The conceptual framework was developed through a USC cohort collaboration and
focuses on three separate types of student engagement: (a) behavioral (b) emotional and (c)
cognitive. The three types of engagement have separate indicators relating to their
corresponding engagement level. The research team theorized that when behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive engagement is high, students may experience “flow. ” Shernoff (2013) asserts that
“flow ” is when skillful and successful action seem effortless, even when large amounts of mental
or physical energy are being asserted. People in flow also lose track of time because of their
hyper engagement in an activity.
Schools have the ability to influence all three types of student engagement: behavioral,
emotional and cognitive. However, what is often overlooked in the research is the fact that
multiple systems are constantly at work. In some cases, the systems work to fortify the school ’s
message. For example, parents who recognize the importance of school set aside time and a
workplace for their children to complete work. These same parents have conversations with
their children about school and show a genuine interest in their studies and school life.
Conversely, there are situations in which students do not have support, and parents offer little in
the way of social capital. These students are receiving a different message from the environment
in the meso-system, which does not comport with the school. Furthermore, the low soci-
economic student ’s (SES) exosystem, lacks support in other ways. In low SES neighborhoods,
there is often minimal community health services, and the neighborhood environment often is
not conducive to learning because of drugs, violence, and lack of supervision.
Population
Two factors were used to determine if a school was urban. The following two factors
were developed collectively by the student engagement cohort to define an urban high
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 71
school.
The qualifying criteria consisted of the following two conditions:
1.The student body and demographics were consistent with characteristics of urban-
like high schools as defined by the dissertation group; and
2. The school was exceeding expectations compared to other similar schools.
The dissertation group defined urban or urban-like schools to be characterized by the
following:
1. Ethnically diverse student population, with at least 51% of the students being minority
status.
2. A large English Language Learners (ELL) population not less than 15% of the schools
population is ELL; and
3. A significant number of socio-economically disadvantaged students as defined by
60% or more of students qualifying for free and reduced lunches.
Selection of a high-performing school presented a challenge to the USC cohort because
of recent changes to California state testing. Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
published their last set of assessment results in 2013. The Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) which is the new standardized assessment tool was only able to provide
baseline data for the 2014-2015 school year (Smarter Balance Assessment, 2016). Since there
were limited options in terms of data, the USC cohort examined historical data, similar school
rankings from the 2013 school year, and the CORE criteria. According to CORE Corner
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 72
(2014) high-progress Title I Schools are identified by using the following criteria: (1) top 10%
most improved academic performance from 2010-2012 across average ELA and Math in all
grades in the “all students ” group (percent proficient and above), (2) the lowest performing
subgroup in each school has improved by at least 5% from 2010 to 2012 and (3) schools
cannot be designated highest-progress if they have a stagnant or worsening achievement gap.
By showing significant improved performance for a school ’s lowest performing subgroup,
CORE ’s methodology meets USED ’s requirement that a High-Progress school must not have
significant achievement gaps that are not closing (CORE Corner – January 26: Recognition of
Reward Schools, 2014).
The following factors were used to determine if a school was a high-performing school.
To be considered a high-performing school for this research study, the school must exhibit the
following factors:
Factor 1- The school must have an API score of 860 or more for the 2012-2013 school
year.
Factor 2- Met AYP in the 2012-2013 school year.
Factor 3- Top 30% of Title One Schools as defined by CORE.
Wonderful Elementary School, an elementary school located in an urban California
District, was the subject for this bounded case study. Wonderful Elementary School was
selected to be studied because of persistent high performance, culminating with being named a
CORE waiver high-progress school in 2015-2016. Wonderful Elementary School met all of
the criteria as defined by the USC research team.
According to the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for the 2014-2015 school
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 73
year, the demographic breakdown for Wonderful Elementary School is as follows: (1) African
American 4.9% (2) American Indian 0.2% (3) Asian 7.9 (4) Filipino 4.4% (5) Hispanic or
Latino 60.0% (6) Pacific Islander 0.2% (7) White 19.4% and (6) two or more races 3.0%.
Students on the free and reduced lunch program who are considered socioeconomically
disadvantaged made up 64.4% of students. English Learners made up 15.7% of the student
population (Wonderful School Accountability Report Card, 2015). The campus is ethnically
diverse, and there is a wide variety of economic and racial backgrounds.
A unique area of difference at Wonderful Elementary School is the magnet program.
The Wonderful Elementary School Arts and Magnet program provides students with a
rigorous school curriculum which is infused with arts and technology. Specialists in music,
visual arts, physical education, computers and dance collaborate with teachers to provide
Common Core Standards base instruction that is integrated (Wonderful Academy of Arts &
Technology Magnet, n.d.).
Wonderful Elementary School has a Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program,
but only 5% of students receive those services. All teachers at Wonderful Elementary School
hold a full credential and are considered by the state to be highly qualified. The overall rating
of the physical school environment is exemplary, and parent involvement is encouraged
through programs such as Advisory Council, Parent Teacher Association, Supervision
Volunteer, Fund Raising, and School Beautification. The suspension rate for the 2014-2015
school year was zero, which is 3.80% below the state average (Wonderful School
Accountability Report, 2015).
Wonderful Elementary School had a base Academic Performance Index (API) score of
827 in 2012. API is determined by the number of students who are scoring advanced or
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 74
proficient on the STAR. In 2013, Wonderful Elementary grew 33 API points and had a total
API score of 860. Wonderful Elementary met Average Yearly Progress for all students and
reduced the achievement gap among the lowest performing sub groups. Socio-economically
disadvantaged students scored 63.5% advanced or proficient and had an 8.5% API increase
over a five year period (Wonderful School Data Summary Sheet, n.d.). According to the
school ’s website, the mission of Wonderful Elementary School is that all students will be
literate, communicate successfully, be responsible citizens and demonstrate a strong sense of
self-worth while functioning in and contributing to a culturally diverse society (Wonderful
Academy of Arts & Technology Magnet, n.d.). With an API of 860 and years of continual
growth, Wonderful Elementary is performing in alignment with their mission.
Document Analysis
For the document analysis, The Single Plan for Student Achievement document, the
California Assessment of Student performance and progress website, the Los Angeles Times
California School Guide, the California Department of Education website, the School
Accountability Report Card, the district and school ’s website, the school handbook, and the
parent/student handbook were reviewed and analyzed. The documents reviewed were selected
because they provide a narrative about the school and are unobtrusive to the participants
(Merriam, 2009). These public documents also show how the school communicates with its
stakeholder groups and provide a synopsis of how the school functions. Through the
document analysis, school priorities, specifically around engagement, were identified and
marked for further study.
Survey
Pervasive in the research is the need for consistency in definition and identification of
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 75
engagement (Burch, Heller, Burch, Freed & Steed, 2015). In order to maintain consistency
with previous studies on engagement, The USC cohort adopted a survey to measure student
engagement that was developed at the Learning Achievement Coalition in Oakland, Michigan.
By standardizing the engagement tool, research data can be easily compared and will provide
better insight into student engagement. The survey was offered to teachers and administrators
at Wonderful Elementary School. The survey questions all revolved around the three
components of engagement that were identified in the conceptual framework. Specifically,
questions were asked in regards to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The
survey was designed to show how various stakeholders perceive student engagement at
Wonderful Elementary School. The survey was voluntary, and the participants were provided
the necessary time to reflect and respond to questions. Survey data was collected and
examined for patterns and trends.
Observations
Observations were used by the USC research team to determine what links exist
between behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement and student academic achievement.
The researcher observed in multiple settings at the school site including: professional
development meetings, grade level meetings, parent meetings, and during lunch. However,
most of the observations took place in the classroom. Observations were done randomly, and
prior approval from the principal was obtained. Observations included a cross-section of the
school which included two different grade levels, subject matter, and English Language
Development levels. The researcher studied factors related to ecological systems theory, as
well as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in relation to academic achievement.
The goal of the observations was two-fold. First, identify the initiatives set forth from the
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 76
review of the document analysis and confirm or disconfirm the data from the survey. Second,
establish evidence through a written record of the perceived factors that contribute to
engagement and ultimately student achievement.
Interviews
Interviews with various stakeholders such as students, teachers, administrators and
support staff helped to answer questions about engagement that remained after the data
collection procedures were exhausted. Interviews provided additional information and
specific details to the engagement strategies that led to academic achievement. Five
interviews were conducted during the research cycle, and a student focus group was convened.
All participants were asked what they perceived as productive engagement strategies that led
to student achievement. The question that was sought to be answered was as follows: Does the
data collected from interviews match the data collected from other means? By triangulating
the data through the use of multiple methods, the researcher can assume a certain level of
reliability and validity (Merriam, 2009).
All interviewees were selected in advance, and permission from the various
participants were garnered in writing, via a signed consent form. Participants were selected at
random, and the invited participants were given the option to opt out. The USC research team
developed a semi-structured interview protocol that allowed for comparability, but also had
flexibility to explore other areas the researcher thought were appropriate. The researcher had
standardized questions and probes prepared for additional lines of questioning. All of the
interviewees were allowed time to process the questions, and questions could be skipped at the
request of the interviewee. The average interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Once the
interviews were completed, the data was examined, and patterns and trends were identified
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 77
and analyzed by the researcher.
The researcher wanted to explore the perceived factors that were associated with
student engagement which ultimately led to student academic achievement. All of the
interviews were recorded and transcribed. All of the participants were kept anonymous, and
the data was protected according to Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines. The
researcher was cognizant of verbal, as well as non-verbal cues, and appropriate notes were
taken to record both. At the end of the interview, all of the participants were asked if there
was additional information that they could provide to help the researcher understand the
success of the school community.
Data Analysis
At the conclusion of the study, the researcher complied and examined all of
the relevant data. Because the researcher was the instrument used in the data collection
process, interviews and observations are inherently the researcher ’s interpretation of reality
(Merriam, 2009). With this in mind, the researcher was cognizant about his reflexivity.
Reflexivity is the critical self-refection by the researcher in relationship to the study that may
affect the investigation (Merriam, 2009). Strategies such as peer review or examination and
member checks were used to determine the congruency of the emerging findings.
Conclusion
Through the collection of document reviews, surveys, interviews and observations, the
researcher was able to categorize and interpret the data in meaningful ways. Through this process
of data collection, the researcher was able to show how behavioral, cognitive, and emotional
engagement coupled with systems theory has a direct effect on student achievement. Though this
chapter focused on methodology, the next chapter, chapter four, seeks to provide answers to the
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 78
research questions. Are the indicators of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
present in a high-performing urban school? What school programs, processes, and practices are
perceived to contribute to student engagement? What are the unique elements within Wonderful
School ’s structure that support student engagement? And finally, to what extent do students
perceive being in a state of flow during the school day?
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 79
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS
The main purpose of this chapter is to review and evaluate the research findings derived
from the Wonderful Elementary School Study. This study revolved around answering specific
research questions dealing with student engagement. The research questions for the study were as
follows:
Research question #1. To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive engagement present in a high-performing urban school?
Research question #2. What school programs, processes, and practices are
perceived to contribute to student engagement?
Research question #3. What are the unique elements within Wonderful
Elementary School ’s structure that support student engagement?
Research question #4. To what extent do students perceive being in a state of
flow during the school day?
In order to protect the identity of teachers, students, staff and administration at the school
being studied, the pseudonym Wonderful Elementary was used in this paper (Creswell, 2009).
Furthermore, all names of teachers, students, and administration have been eliminated and a
pseudonym was used in their place to maintain confidentiality (Creswell, 2009).
The data collection process for this study took place over a six-day period at Wonderful
Elementary School, which is located in the Troy Unified School District. Prior to entering the
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 80
campus, the researcher made contact with the Troy Unified School District and completed their
internal Institutional Review Board process. Once the researcher gained clearance to study the
school, emails to the principal were sent, and an appointment was made to have a telephone
conference with the principal. During the telephone conference, the researcher explained to the
principal that the proposed study was designed to study student engagement and that her school
was selected because of their high-performing status as a Title I elementary school.
The study utilized student surveys, staff surveys, document analysis, in-class
observations, campus observations, one-on-one interviews with teachers, and a student focus
group. Through the use of multiple data collection tools, the researcher was able to organize the
case study to reveal relationships, uncover themes, and identify patterns. Eight of the 20 online
staff surveys were completed. All surveys for both staff and students needed to be completed
outside the instructional day, per Troy Unified School District policy. Staff surveys were
distributed by the principal via email on behalf of the researcher. The researcher explained the
survey at the faculty meeting and gained individual staff consent for those staff members
participating in the study. Twenty staff member consent forms were received, and 16 individuals
started the survey, but only 8 completed the entire survey. Staff member surveys provide
valuable insight and are used as a secondary source to answer research questions 1-3.
Through the course of the study, seven on-site individual interviews were conducted.
The researcher interviewed six teachers and the school principal. Five of the teacher interviews
were conducted in individual classrooms, and one teacher interview was conducted in the
principal ’s office. Teacher interviews ranged from 15-33 minutes in length. The principal ’s
interview, which took place in the principal ’s office, lasted an hour and fifteen minutes. In
addition to the individual interviews, the researcher also conducted a student focus group, which
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 81
consisted of four students: three fifth grade students and one fourth grade student. The focus
group was conducted in the school library and was approximately 40 minutes long.
In this study, triangulation was utilized to add to the reliability and validity of the
research. Through the use of triangulation, the researcher was able to identify relationships,
discover patterns, and categorize themes. Triangulation with multiple collection methods
reinforced the findings in the study. To communicate the findings, a qualitative approach was
utilized to communicate a thick, rich, and meaningful narrative.
In this chapter, the findings of the study are parsed by individual research questions. Each
question is analyzed, and the resultant data is organized into over-arching themes. Both student
surveys and teacher surveys were distributed electronically. Low response rates for the surveys
were identified. The researcher attributes the low return rate to two issues. The first issue is that
the survey had to be done outside of the school day to protect the teachers ’ and students ’
instructional block. Second, end of school year activities and the complex demands of closing
out a school year during the time of the observations did not lend itself to completing the survey.
However, in addition to the surveys, the researcher was able to gather data on multiple
observations and complete a thorough document review.
In the 2015-2016 school year, Wonderful Elementary School made the transition to an
Arts and Technology Magnet school. The principle reason for the transition to magnet status
was due to declining enrollment and the fact that many neighborhood students were being lured
to other schools, such as charter or private schools. Based on interview data, the Wonderful
Elementary School staff landed on the idea of becoming an Arts and Technology Magnet
because they wanted to offer something unique that would set them apart from other schools.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 82
When the principal shared the idea with parents and the community, there was an overwhelming
response to move forward with the new magnet proposal.
Using various data points, the researcher identified Wonderful Elementary as a high-
performing urban elementary school as it met all of the established criteria for the case study.
Wonderful Elementary was also identified by the California Office to Reform Education (CORE)
as a high-performing Title I School. High-performing Title I schools are identified by using the
following criteria: (1) Top 30% of Title I schools based on average ELA and math performance
of all student groups (percent proficient and above) in each of the years 2011 through 2013; and
(2) Within-school achievement gap (as defined in focus schools section) in the lowest 30%
across all participating schools for 2013; or the lowest performing subgroup in each school has
improved from 2011 to 2013 (i.e. change is >0); and (3) Met California AYP in 2013 by
showing significant improved performance for a school ’s lowest performing subgroup.
In addition to being recognized by CORE, Wonderful Elementary also received the Gold
Ribbon School award from the California Department of Education in 2016. According to the
California Department of Education (2016), in order to qualify for Gold Ribbon status, schools
must have made gains in implementation of the academic content and performance standards
adopted by the California State Board of Education. These include the following: California
Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, California English Language
Development Standards, and Next Generation Science Standards.
Not only does Wonderful Elementary School cultivate the student ’s mind, but they also
care about student health. Wonderful Elementary applied for and received the bronze award for
being a Healthy US school. According to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (2016) the
National Healthy School award is given to schools to acknowledge positive changes that lead to
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 83
healthier school environments. The criteria for the award included the following: (a) having a
health committee that meets four times a year to discuss school health and safety polices, (b)
implementing a local wellness policy that is congruent with district goals, (c) providing students
with at least 20 minutes of recess time each day and (d) students have access to safe drinking
water at no cost (Howard, 2008).
Upon arriving at the campus for the initial observation, the researcher noted brightly
colored murals and signs that reflected the school ’s numerous awards. When the researcher
entered the office, he was immediately greeted by the office technician who asked how she could
be of service. The researcher explained that he was there to conduct observations and interviews
and that he would be there for the remainder of the week. The office technician shared that the
principal was aware of the visit, but at the moment was conducting supervision. At that point,
the researcher was asked to sign in as a visitor and was given a visitor ’s badge.
Shortly after the bell had rung signaling the start of class, the principal entered the front
office and invited the researcher back into her office. During the first meeting, the researcher
reviewed the plan for the research which was shared with the principal via email the previous
week. The plan consisted of how the observations would be conducted, what the focus group
with students would look like, how long the teacher and the principal interviews would take, how
the survey would be distributed and what kind of questions would be asked. The researcher also
shared how the school was identified to be researched and the specific purpose of the
observation. After a short discussion and review of the agenda, the principal led the researcher
on a tour of the campus and introduced him to various staff members that were encountered
along the way.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 84
Wonderful Elementary School has self-contained classrooms, and classes begin at 8:00
a.m. and end at 2:20 p.m. for 26 Tuesdays during the year. The school has shortened days and
classes let out at 1:20 p.m. Teachers utilize this time for professional development (PD).
Thirteen of the sessions are district led PD, and thirteen are taken by grade level teams for
planning. Occasionally, the principal will call an after school faculty meeting. At the faculty
meeting, the principal reviews school policies and updates the staff on school developments.
On the second day of observations, the principal held a faculty meeting to review the
closing of school procedures and introduced the researcher to the staff. At this meeting, the
researcher took the opportunity to review the study and framed the purpose of the visit. The
researcher shared that Wonderful Elementary School is defying the trend among Title I schools
and that low socio-economic students, students of color, and English Learners are finding
success at the school. I t was at this meeting that researcher distributed consent forms for the
teachers to participate in the study. He also reviewed students assent forms and parent consent
forms. Finally, the researcher shared how to access the survey based on the link that was sent out
by the principal.
Findings by Research Question
Question 1: To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement present in a high-performing urban school?
Research question number one was designed to measure the extent to which behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive indicators of engagement were present at Wonderful Elementary
School. As one may imagine, some indicators of engagement are self-evident. For example,
high grades, quality of work, attendance, task completion, referrals, suspension, and
expulsions. Other indicators of engagement are not easily identifiable and are difficult to
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 85
quantify. How do you measure grit? What does an internal locus of control look like to an
observer? What is the quality of student relationships? With these questions in mind, it was
paramount that the researcher triangulate the data through a document review, classroom
observations, surveys, teacher interviews and through a student focus group.
In terms of behavior engagement, the researcher looked specifically for the following
indicators as defined by the literature review: (a) students on task (b) classroom participation
(c) attention and (d) task completion. For the purposes of this study this cluster of behavior
engagement indicators will be called On Task Behaviors. Also derived from the literature
review was the idea that referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and attendance were strong
indicators of behavioral engagement. This cluster of engagement indicators will be called In-
seat Indicators. Each of the individual indicators were studied, observed, and discussed with
students, teachers and the principal.
On Task Behaviors
Throughout the observation cycle, the researcher consistently found high levels of on
task student behavior across classrooms. In teacher Banjo ’s class, the researcher identified the
following: 19/20 students actively engaged with writing in their journals. In a separate part of
the room, a paraprofessional was working one on one with an English Learner student in a
parallel activity, but using technology as a scaffold. Thirty seven minutes later in the same
class, 20/20 students were responding to the teacher ’s question by use of their fingers to show
their response. In table group activities, 5/5 groups were engaged in conversations around the
task. Students were taking responsibility for their learning and were responding to one another
as illustrated in the following statements: “I agree with Greg, ” “I disagree, it ’s about people, ”
and “that is true.” One student that had just completed an underlining task in her text said,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 86
after being called on, “I am so excited. ”
Similar trends spanned across fifth grade. As the researcher observed classes,
observation notes were made identifying the number of students on task. On task behavior was
defined by students tracking either the teacher or students who were speaking and by asking
and answering questions. The following chart delineates on task behavior for the 5
th
grade
classes:
Table 3: Fifth Grade Engagement
Teacher Ms.
Chick
Ms. Dub Mr.
Gil
Mr. Banjo
On Task Class
behavior
26/27 24/24 9/9 19/20
In fourth grade classes, on task behavior looked somewhat different, but remained at
high levels. All of the fourth grade teachers used a “Universal Access ” approach. Through the
universal access approach, individual students worked independently or with a partner to
complete tasks while teachers and paraprofessional engaged in small group activities that
targeted a specific need, based on data.
From the design of the room, to universal access, to how students were selected, it was
apparent that effective teacher planning had been taking place. In addition to the observation,
teacher planning and preparation time was acknowledged by teachers during interviews and in
the survey as an important component of the school ’s success. Because of this planning and
preparation, when the researcher asked students what they were working on, all students were
able to identify and explain the task. One student told the researcher, “all students are reading
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 87
different books. Winn-Dixie, Chocolate Touch, Super Fudge. I am looking for text dependent
questions. Then I go into the text to find out the answers. ”
In small groups, teachers or paraprofessionals led the group. One class was working on
paragraph writing. The teacher worked collaboratively with the group, and not only did the
teacher give feedback, but students in the group also provided the author with feedback.
Students were listening to one another and were actively taking notes on the feedback they
were given. In another class, the teacher had students work together in small groups to solve
math problems. Groups were actively engaged and were solving problems using multiple
pathways. Students argued and debated approaches to the problem, and even when it was time
to present findings, groups would come back together to confer over the problem. Students
were able to identify and correct errors as they worked through the process.
The data gathered from the observations closely mimics data derived from the student
surveys. Using a five point Likert scale, students were asked if they put forth effort in their
classes. 81% of students answered that they strongly agreed with that statement. When
students were asked the following question: teachers are clear about participation in my class,
62% of students said they strongly agreed with the statement and the average value on the
Likert scale was 3.56. When students were asked if they were actively engaged in learning in
class, 88% of students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. In the survey, one
student responded, “They [teachers] motivate me because the school is a magnet school and a
Blue Ribbon Award school, that’s why I work hard. ”
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 88
Table 4: On Task Behaviors
# Question Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Response Avg.
Value
4 I put forth effort
in my classes
- 1 2 13 16 3.75
9 Teachers are
clear about my
participation in
classes
- 1 5 10 16 3.56
11 I am actively
engaged in
learning in class
- 2 7 7 16 3.31
Through teacher interviews, the researcher was able to identify themes for on task
behavior as well as what “on task ” behavior looked like in individual classrooms. Teachers in
the study consistently identified that one indicator of on-task behavior was the amount of work
that students produced and that assignments were handed-in on time. Other teachers drilled
down deeper when identifying on task behavior. One teacher used a checking for
understanding strategy called talking points. She would hold students accountable by having
students restate, apply reasoning, or re-voice what was said. In one classroom, the teacher had
peers hold one another accountable. According to the teacher, group work encourages students
to finish assignments on time. In the teacher survey, one teacher commented, “All students are
given high expectations and goals, think pair share, every child participates by using white
board paddles, everyone has a chance to answer and participate.”
In-Seat Indicators
In-seat indicators are another component of behavioral engagement and include:
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 89
referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and attendance. In the interview with the principal, Ms. Joon
explained that the school uses a positive behavior support approach to reduce the number of
referrals, suspensions, and expulsions. Twice a year, she holds assemblies (one each semester)
to review student behavior expectations. The three school rules at Wonderful Elementary
School are Be Safe, Be Respectful, and Be Responsible. To illustrate what that means in
different areas of the school, Ms. Joon had her deaf and hard of hearing students create a video
of how to behave and follow rules in different areas. In addition to the video, Principal Joon
would lead students through rotations to “teach ” the expected behaviors to students in the
different area of the school: in hallways, the cafeteria, common areas, etc. Principal Joon
credits the Positive Behavior Support approach with low referral rates, the absence of any
expulsions, and a single suspension in the last two years.
In terms of attendance, there are a variety of systems in place to support students.
There are school wide initiatives for students who struggle with attendance, and there is a more
targeted approach for high-risk students. One strategy used school wide is perfect attendance
certificates. If students are not absent for the entire month, they receive a perfect attendance
award certificate and are acknowledged by the principal in front of their peers. Another
strategy employed at Wonderful Elementary is that the class with the best attendance, at any
given grade level, receives a trophy which they get to keep for the month. In addition to the
trophies, the students in the class that has the highest attendance rate in the school also get a
popsicle party. As a short-term incentive, students who have perfect attendance for the week
get to attend a dance with the principal party which takes place the last 20 minutes of the
school day on Friday afternoons.
While the school wide strategy works for most of the student population, for students
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 90
who are chronically absent or tardy, there are more strategic strategies. The school sends out
letters, and the principal takes steps to meet with parents. In some cases, the principal, Ms.
Joon, has made home visits to see how she can support the family and increase student
attendance. In a severe case, Ms. Joon did have to take a family to the School Attendance
Review Board (SARB) to have the case heard. SARB meetings are designed to address
student attendance concerns and involve professionals from a variety of backgrounds. At the
meeting people from the Social Security Department, Los Angeles Police Department,
Housing Department, and Pupil Services Attendance office all chimed in to see how
attendance for the student could be improved. For this particular family, the principal makes
almost daily contact and is constantly monitoring attendance.
Question 2: What school programs, processes, and practices are perceived to contribute
to student engagement?
The purpose of question number two was to look at the perceived factors that contribute
to student engagement in a high performing school. The word perceived was incorporated into
the research question to capture the participants ’ perceptions of what they think contributes to a
high performing school. Different individuals will have different perceptions of various
programs, processes, and practices related to student engagement in a high performing school.
By adding the word perceived, individuals can answer the question from their own point of
view, thus providing a unique perspective of what programs, processes, and practices
contribute to student engagement.
As the researcher conducted interviews and analyzed survey and observation data, three
distinct themes began to emerge in answering this research question. Leadership,
relationships, and program options were the three central perceived factors that contribute to
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 91
student engagement in a high-performing urban elementary school. Under each identified
theme, sub-themes related to the central themes were also identified to provide deeper insight
to a particular theme.
Leadership
School leadership takes shape in many different forms. There is the site leader of the
school, district leadership, teacher leaders, student leaders, parent and community leaders, and
more. Consistently found in the data is the notion that leadership matters. More specifically,
the principal at Wonderful Elementary was constantly referred to as one of the drivers of
success at the school. This notion was discussed during interviews, highlighted in the student
focus group, and observed by the researcher during the study.
Magnet School
In some cases the principal ’s leadership was subtle, and in other situations it was bold. A
bold action taken by the principal was to move away from traditional schooling to an Arts and
Technology Magnet school model. The principal realized that she was losing students to
charters and the private sector and had to act. This meant getting teachers, staff, and
community to buy-in for the proposed change. It also meant that teachers would have to re-
apply for their jobs in the magnet school, which is not an easy task at a unionized urban school
(Gipson & Abrahams, 2016).
Once through the logistical hurdles of completing the magnet application, engaging
stakeholders, and petitioning the Troy Board of Education for magnet approval the principal
made arrangements to have teachers trained on how to integrate Arts and Technology into the
curriculum. It was at this point that the principal ’s leadership style became more subtle. She
implemented grade level planning on a weekly basis and acknowledged that teachers and staff
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 92
were grappling with many issues including: common core, a new curriculum, and the infusion
of Arts and Technology. To accommodate for change, the principal allowed for flexibility and
autonomy in the grade level meetings. Ms. Joon stated that she told teachers, “research and
implement it, whether it works or not, just do it. At the grade level meeting or staff meeting
we can discuss it.”
Support and Accountability
Another way that principal was able to provide leadership was by being strategic in her
initiatives and actively supervising instruction. The principal recognized that the Troy District
was rolling out too many initiatives at one time causing the teachers to become overloaded.
Knowing this, the principal streamlined what was expected to be accomplished and narrowed
the focus for each teacher. Principal Joon shared the following: “We just want to focus on two
things; close reading and number task. That ’s all we ’re going to focus on this year because
those two tie in very well with teaching and learning framework. ”
In addition to setting the parameters for instruction, the principal provided support and
supervision by walking around and observing classrooms. Ms. Joon had scheduled and
unscheduled visits where she would go into the classroom and look for evidence of close
reading and number task. Principal Joon explained to the researcher, “I visited every single
classroom and observed my teachers doing that [close reading and number task] and that made
a huge difference. ” Ms. Joon also credited this process with helping the school to become a
Gold Ribbon school.
Throughout the study, students and teachers alike acknowledged that the principal was
supportive of the school. In terms of teacher support, Ms. Joon encouraged innovation and
gave teachers the latitude to experiment with new things. For example, teachers had concerns
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 93
about the lack of challenge in the math program and proposed a new approach. Ms. Joon
responded, “go for it, I will back you up. I will make copies and everything. I will support
you. ” Ms. Joon acknowledged through her actions and words that teachers had a lot on their
plates, and she does what she can to support their work.
Another way the principal supports teachers is through the use of an instructional coach.
The instructional coach provides valuable training and support to teachers. The instructional
coach leads professional development around the school initiatives and provides valuable
feedback to teachers after observing lessons. A unique use of the coach at Wonderful
Elementary is that she also provides training to teachers’ assistants. The principal ’s rationale
for doing so is that all of her TA ’s want to be teachers. During the researcher ’s interview with
Ms. Joon, she stated, “I really want my instructional coach to teach our TA ’s; give them lots of
support so they can be utilized effectively. ”
With support comes accountability. When Principal Joon enters the classroom, she
expects a high level of engagement in the classroom. She expects there to be high level
questioning which she refers to as level three and four questions. Her expectations for teachers
align with the school initiatives and the teaching and learning framework. Specifically, she is
looking for discussion techniques and student participation. She goes on to say that
implementation looks different in different rooms, but what she may expect to see is literature
circles, students reading literature of their own selection, and group work.
Data
When the researcher asked the principal how she comes up with the initiatives, she
explained that she puts out a Google survey to teachers and parents for feedback on students
strengths and continuing needs. The principal also gathers information from parent meetings,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 94
the English Learner Advisory Council, and the School Site Council. However, she does not
stop there; the principal also used multiple data points to help guide the instructional focus. In
reading, the principal directs teachers to utilize Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills test to provide data which will then be used to target instruction. Student groups are
formed based on the data, and teachers work on comprehension, fluency, and complete
reading. Groups are flexible in nature and the teacher monitors students to evaluate growth. In
math, an entire curriculum was changed because the data did not support the program, and the
principal, along with the teachers decided to return to a more rigorous math program.
Teacher Leaders
Another prominent component of leadership that was identified at Wonderful Elementary
was teacher leadership. Teachers at the school took ownership of the data and worked
collaboratively to analyze test scores with the hopes of improving each year. Grade levels
worked together with a focus on instructional tasks. Ms. Dub, a fourth grade teacher, shared
that her grade level has been working on common core standards, close reading, types of
questions, argumentation, and number talks; all strategies that are in-sync with the school ’s
vision.
In addition to her work with the grade level, Ms. Dub continued with her own
professional growth over the summer. Ms. Dub did an in depth study of the “growth mindset ”
philosophy that the school adopted and has integrated strategies into her classroom that help
students to find success in the classroom. Now students are talking about the work they put
into a task, versus “not getting it ” which according to Ms. Dub has increased the quality of
work.
Teachers at Wonderful Elementary are cognizant about teaching strategies, initiatives,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 95
and student centered learning, but also recognize that as teacher leaders, there are additional
components to a High Quality School. In the following table, teachers responded to the survey
and identified the perceived factors that support student growth and learning in a high quality
school.
Table 5: Teacher Leadership
Survey Question: What makes a high-quality schools that support student growth
and learning?
Survey Response: High expectations, teachers willing to work as a team, a
community, every student is their student, good staff unity and morale, positive and
compassionate attitudes towards student and learning; parental support and
involvement.
Professionalism, passion, positivity
Collegial atmosphere, professional development that takes the teachers needs into
account, common philosophies around student potential.
Teachers that are supported. Innovative thinking. High quality tools, technology,
materials. Individual attention-small classes!
Relationships
According to recent research, a common denominator of high-performing schools is their
ability to create and maintain relationships. Wonderful Elementary is no exception to that rule.
The researcher observed a school that goes out of its way to provide a warm, welcoming, and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 96
safe environment for teachers, staff, parents, and students. The school is adorned with murals
and is colorful, teachers and paraprofessionals are on the yard interacting with students, and the
principal is open and available to parents, teachers, and staff.
Principal Relationship with Students
As the researcher walked the school with the principal, Ms. Joon made it a point to greet
students by name. She would ask students about their classes and if they were enjoying school.
Students would run up to the principal and say, “hi Ms. Joon. ” A student from the deaf and
hard of hearing class was picking up trash on the yard. Upon the principal witnessing this, she
smiled and signed, “Thank you ” to the student. In an interaction with another student, she
thanked the student for being present at school, but reminded him that he needed to be on time.
She told the student, “it ’s your new job to remind your mom to set her alarm. Remember, if
you are here every day for testing, you and your classmates get a movie and popcorn party. ”
The student smiled and responded to the principal with a high-five.
A group of students ran over to Ms. Joon to share awards that they had won over the
weekend. One student was particularly excited to share that she won an award for her work
with horses. Ms. Joon shared her excitement and told the student next time take pictures or
video to share. Other students shared that they performed in the inter-school dance
competition. Ms. Joon inquired about the team ’s performance and high-fived students for their
accomplishments in the competition. When Ms. Joon saw a student named Chris, she asked
how he was feeling and told the student that she did not want him to miss any more days. She
reminded other students to do their homework and provided encouragement by saying, “you
can do it! ” When Ms. Joon saw Brian, she asked him about his behavior and told him that he
needed to earn his trip to the museum.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 97
Ms. Joon entered the computer lab to give words of encouragement to her students who
were taking the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium exam. She told students that this
was their opportunity to, “show what you have learned. ” She reminded students not to rush
and that the test was not timed and then provided the students with tootsie roll candies as a way
of saying thank you for all of the students ’ hard work.
Principal Relationship with Staff
In the researcher ’s conversations with teachers, it was revealed that the staff at Wonderful
Elementary had a positive working relationship with one another and the administration. Ms.
Check stated, “I feel comfortable going and talking to my colleagues and sharing ideas or
frustrations or worries. It is a friendly, positive environment.” Mr. Banjo shared that he was
so impressed with the principal ’s support and how the school operated that he was going to
bring his son to Wonderful Elementary. Mr. Banjo stated, “you know what, I like what ’s going
on here, and I ’m going to feel very comfortable having him [his son] here too.” Ms. Z shared
that the principal is supportive of her teaching staff and that she personally feels supported in
her work.
Although the principal has a positive working relationship with the staff, that doesn ’t
mean that teachers are not held to high standards. During the interview with Ms. Joon, she
took pride in the fact that the school was a CORE waiver rewards school as well as a Gold
Ribbon School. Ms. Joon points out that she regularly visits classrooms and that she wants
Wonderful Elementary School students to be challenged. She will allow for teachers to make
professional decisions and will support her teachers, but at the same time, she will strongly
voice her opinion and expects to see rigor in the classrooms.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 98
Principal Relationship with Parents
At Wonderful Elementary, the parents and community are valued and respected. The
principal has instituted an open-door policy for parents and is pro-active in her approach to
parents. She listens to parent concerns and makes herself available to parents. According to
Ms. Joon, she is also active and involved in the community which is a positive thing for the
school. Based on observations and interview data, Ms. Joon ensures that all parents in her
community are included. She makes sure to translate all communications going out to parents
into Spanish so that parents and guardians can access the information. Ms. Joon takes a
personal interest in students and families. She shared in her interview that one of the parents at
the school had a child going through chemotherapy, and that she would have regular
conversations with that parent about her child, even though the child did not go to her school.
Ms. Joon is a member of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) at Wonderful Elementary
and works extensively with that group to bring in a variety of activities to the school. She
brings in workshops for parents and activities/assemblies for students. Ms. Joon stated that
although her main focus is academics, she needs to make sure to bring some “fun ” into the
school. Ms. Joon, along with the PTA created a father-daughter bowling night and mother-son
dance night. Some of the other fun activities she and the PTA brought to the school included:
the Fall Festival, Park Rangers, Bubble and String, Fire Trucks, and a “Just Say No ” assembly
sponsored by the Los Angeles Police Department which was observed by the researcher.
School Culture
During the “Just Say No” assembly, the researcher was able to take note of the culture of
the school. Students, teachers, parents, and administration were present for the assembly. The
atmosphere during the assembly was festive, students were smiling and seemed happy, and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 99
teachers and parents were engaged in conversations. Selected teachers were involved in a
hula-hoop contest, and the students from each grade level were observed encouraging their
teachers. The assembly was initiated by an LAPD officer who acknowledged a Wonderful
Elementary School student for pledging to be drug free. For being one of the first twenty
students to participate in the program, a Wonderful Elementary student received a new bicycle
and got to take pictures with the officers.
The assembly continued with a student dance contest between the different grade levels.
Students determined the winner by applause, and all of the participants received prizes for
themselves and their classes. After the students ’ dance contest, 10 teachers, along with the
principal, were brought to the front of the assembly area and participated in another dance
contest. Students, parents and other teachers were screaming and clapping in support of the
dancers. The officers thanked the teachers and the principal for participating and reviewed the
just say no initiative with the students. The thrust of the program was that students needed to
respect themselves enough not to use drugs or join gangs. When the officer asked a student to
give an example of someone they respected, the student responded, “I respect my teacher. ”
At the end of the assembly, the principal thanked the officers for coming and then shared
with the school community that Wonderful Elementary had won an award in the best animated
film category at the Making Movies that Matter competition at the local university. She shared
that the school ’s winners walked the red carpet and received trophies and medals for their
efforts. She also reminded students that a science fair sponsored by a Troy Unified School
Board member was rapidly approaching and that the winner of the school science fair would
move onto the district science fair. The principal reviewed that the way to find out current
information at Wonderful Elementary is by logging onto the school ’s website, Facebook,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 100
Twitter, and Instagram pages. As the principal made her final remarks, an LAPD helicopter
flew overhead and circled the school culminating the event.
Teacher-Student Relationships
In the researcher ’s observation of classrooms, a common theme was rapport between
teachers and students. Observations revealed that students were not afraid to take risks and
even when students disagreed with one another, it was done with respect and courtesy. In
Banjo ’s class, students would use words like agree and disagree. He also had a process in place
for the entire class to agree and disagree. Students would use hand signals to show their
position on a particular matter, and it was a strategy the teacher used to start discussions.
In reviewing the teacher survey data, there were four particular areas that stood out to the
researcher because: (a) the responses were unanimous and (b) all of the questions related to the
relational component of teaching and learning. According to the survey responses, all teachers
surveyed at Wonderful Elementary strongly agree with the following statements about teacher-
student relationships:
Table 6: Teacher-Student Relationships / Teacher Responses
Statistics Min
Value
Max
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Total
Responses
Total
Respondents
I care that all my
students learn
4 4 4 0 0 8 8
I show personal
concern for each
of my students as
an individual
4 4 4 0 0 8 8
All of my
students feel
4 4 4 0 0 8 8
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 101
accepted in my
class
I feel it is
important for
students to feel a
sense of
community in
my class
4 4 4 0 0 8 8
Students who were interviewed as part of the focus group shared positive feelings
towards teachers and staff that were congruent to information that was collected from the
student surveys. During the focus group, Danny commented on how Ms. Dub is really nice
and how Mr. Banjo helps her to understand math by giving her individual support at the back
table by explaining how to solve problems. Another student, Josie, shared that Mrs. Fernandez
is nice and someone she can confide in.
In addition to the focus group responses, when students were asked to describe something
a teacher has done recently that has helped them learn something new, they responded with the
following in the student survey.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 102
Table 7: Teacher-Student Relationships / Student Responses
Survey Question: Describe something a Teacher has done recently that helped you
learn something new.
Student Responses: He always gives us speeches to inspire us to do better in life.
He never says we cannot do anything in life he always tells us to work harder and
harder so we could achieve our goals in life. He always keeps us entertained and he
makes most subjects as fun as he could. As a reward he is letting us go to Riley
farm. He would never call in sick. If he was sick he would still come to give us
children our education.
My teacher has help me improve my grades. From my teacher I have learned so
much. When I learn I feel happy. Because I know something new. My teachers
taught me a lot of different subjects like math, language arts, science, and social
studies. I have learned a lot from Kinder to fourth grade.
My teacher help me with my math homework on her time. She also helps me learn
how to be a better student every day.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 103
My teacher is a great teacher. Something that my teacher has done recently that
helped me out was when she told the whole class that middle school looks at the
grades for fourth and fifth grade so that help me understand that I should study
more often and that I should take fourth and fifth grade more seriously, even if I
already do, because she cares for me and the class and she cares if we pass middle
school. I know that because when SBAC was happening, I could see that she was
scared for us.
Teacher-Parent Relationships
Teachers at Wonderful Elementary, without fail, all acknowledge the importance of
parent involvement with the school and identify parent involvement as a critical factor for
student success. Ms. Check made the following comment during her interview in regards to
parents, “I see lots of parents will come in and volunteer and I have good parents in this
classroom; they have been very supportive. ” She goes on to talk about how she also likes to
handle discipline issues in the class and not send out students. According to Ms. Check, it is
more powerful to use the teacher, parent, student triangle than it is sending kids out to meet
with the principal.
Another teacher, Mr. Banjo takes pride in his bell-to-bell instruction with students. He is
quick to note that from the moment students come into the room, no time is wasted. One
strategy he uses with parents is that he explains his daily schedule in detail so that parents will
recognize the importance of having students come to school every day on time. He also takes
pride in the fact that he gets to know his students as people and builds relationships with their
families.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 104
Ms. Pash, another 4
th
grade teacher, is quick to reveal that students in her class are
supported by their parents. She goes on to say, “my parents, the parents of these kids, are very
conscientious of making sure that the kids are here on time, present and everything is in order.
They have their materials, they have their homework and so on.” Ms. Pash recognizes the
importance that parents bring to a student ’s educational experience. She also acknowledges
that parents need to be informed of what is happening in the school and in the classroom. She
talks about constantly reminding parents, making phone calls home, reminding parents about
the website and the different resources that are available to them. Ms. Pash indicates that
communication is a key component of her relationship with parents.
In the researcher ’s interview with Ms. Z, she brought up the idea of building a sense of
family in the classroom which included parents. She encourages open relationships where
students and parents can share concerns, thoughts, and ideas. She was also excited to share her
experiences with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Ms. Z described her experience with
the PTA by stating the following, “we have a wonderful PTA. Wonderful. They are amazing.
They do a lot. They have done a father-daughter dance. They have a mother-son bowling
night. They did a Valentine ’s dance. They do all kinds of fun things to get the kids excited
about school. Just making it fun to be here. ” At the end of the interview, Ms. Z also
mentioned that she has her own children enrolled as Wonderful Elementary School students
and that she is a Wonderful Elementary School parent.
Programs
According to surveys, interviews and the focus group, what helps to set Wonderful
Elementary School a part from other schools are the program options that are available to
students. Wonderful Elementary is an Arts and Technology Magnet, and as such, the school
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 105
provides a curriculum in which Arts and Technology are embedded. The school has two
computer labs, iPads in the classroom, and a science lab. Teachers incorporate art through the
Meet the Master ’s program. Each grade level studies a different artist, and they look at the
artist and his/her accomplishments over time. There is also an arts integration teacher who
comes once a week and provides art to students in the following domains: dance, theater,
visual arts, vocal music and orchestra.
Another program that both students and teachers reported was the Making Movies that
Matter Program. In this program, students combine art and technology to create a stop motion
movie about a topic that is meaningful to the student. Through this program, college students
from Cal Arts come out and meet with the Wonderful Elementary students to guide the
students through the project. These films are then showcased at a major university, and
students who created the projects are acknowledged and various awards are given.
Other after-school enrichment activities include robotics, cupcake making, chess, and Tae
Kwon Do classes. Robotics is offered on an on-going bases and is a staple at the school which
also coincides with the schools technology magnet theme. Tae Kwon Do classes came to
Wonderful Elementary because of the relationship that Ms. Joon has with the organization. At
the beginning of the year, a Tae Kwon Do teacher comes to the school and provides eight
weeks of Tae Kwon Do instruction. The program culminates with students showcasing their
skills at a high school in the greater Los Angeles Area. Cupcake making and chess were added
to provide students with additional “fun ” activities, according to Ms. Joon, the principal.
Based on concerns brought by parents and students regarding the new Common Core
math and the implementation of the new curriculum, the principal decided to bring in an
outside tutoring service to the school to provide additional support to students. According to
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 106
Principal Joon, the program was well received by the parents and is going well. The principal
was able to negotiate a reduced price of $90.00 per month for tutoring services. For students
whose parents could not afford the extra expense, Ms. Joon was able to work with the PTA to
offset the cost. According to the principal, the reason why this program is so successful is
because one of the biggest challenges is parents having to take students to the tutoring center.
By offing students the opportunity to get tutoring at the school, it helps to relieve the parents ’
burden.
Because of the magnets association with the arts, the school is provided with various
plays. The school has hosted plays on everything from Thirsty-City, a play about water
conservation, to Aesop ’s Fable that was put on by the braille institute and performed by blind
actors. The Aesop ’s fable play was particularly important to the principal because she wanted
her deaf and hard of hearing student population to become motivated about what is possible
even with the challenge of being deaf or blind.
Wonderful Elementary School students also have a student council. Students who are
interested in the council self-nominate and run for various offices. Students who are
campaigning also give speeches on why they are best suited for the office for which they are
running. The student council helps to organize different activities, including pajama day. They
also are in charge of the talent show production. According to Principal Joon, meeting with the
student council is her opportunity to listen to students. Ms. Joon, stated, “I know school is all
about learning, but it also has to be fun. ”
According to students in the focus groups, there are a lot of programs at the school of
which students can take advantage. Danny, a fifth grade student, shared that struggling
students are encouraged to get into the intervention program. Danny specifically identified the,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 107
“writing lab ” as an explicit intervention for students who struggle with writing.
Students in the focus group also talked about dance and music. Josie, a fifth grade
student, spoke about her experience in the arts. She talked about music and theater, but was
particularly excited about dance. Josie shared that in dance they learned different words like
“locomotive ” and “locomotor ” to express dancing. She also described the different types of
dances that the teacher shared with the class.
Danny described how she, Josie, and Josie ’s sister participated in the Making Movies
That Matter competition. The students spoke about how they made a stop motion movie with
an iPad using clay, puppets and other items. They were excited to know that their movie was
going to be shared at the university and had a chance to win awards. Briana was eager to
share the movie her team created with other schools and was confident that she and her team
would win an award.
The students in the focus group also identified other significant programs, such as Lego
robotics, the computer lab, the science lab, hip-hop club, soccer, and cheerleading. For
culminating fifth grade students, there were additional activities which included: a picnic, a
movie and barbecue, game day against teachers, breakfast at Ihop, and a culminating activity to
Riley ’s farm. When the researcher posed the question about what makes you proud about your
school, Josie responded, “having a goal driven school and magnet school. I like having a lot of
different clubs and like different programs. ”
When the researcher asked that same question during an observation in Ms. Hernan ’s
class, a student responded, “I know I am smart enough to go to this school, we are a magnet. ”
When the researcher asked the student to elaborate on what it meant to be a magnet, he
responded with the following statement, “We use more technology, we have more iPads, we
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 108
use Tenmark, Alex, and Movie Max [computer applications]. We have technology Tuesday
and have homework on the computer. ”
Question 3: What are the unique elements within Wonderful Elementary School ’s
structure that support student engagement?
The purpose of the third research question was to identify and parse out unique
elements that support student engagement at Wonderful Elementary School. Unique elements
were identified through mining the data, observations, surveys, and interviews. By using
multiple data points, the researcher was able to connect what participants said with what was
observed.
Teaching Strategies
Teachers at Wonderful Elementary all utilize a variety of teaching strategies and share
best practices across grade levels. The researcher consistently found that teachers at
Wonderful Elementary strategically apply grade specific teaching strategies that help students
to clarify and extend learning opportunities.
Questioning
The researcher observed that teachers at Wonderful Elementary did not give answers to
students, but instead questioned students to do the following: (a) focus their learning, (b) assess
their learning, and (c) extend their learning. In all of the classrooms, in addition to direct
instruction, there were also long blocks of student exploration. Exploration looked different
from classroom to classroom, but all students at Wonderful Elementary were given an
opportunity to grapple with concepts. The teacher would listen to student conversation without
interjecting and then ask the students questions to guide learning. In some cases, the teacher
would reach out to other students in the class to help facilitate learning.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 109
In math, Ms. Pash questioned collaborative groups on how they solved math problems.
Students would not blurt out answers, but would confer with their group and give an agreed
upon response. The teacher would then look to the rest of the class to provide additional
feedback to the student group. Essentially, Ms. Pash was making students responsible for their
own leaning and at the same time was allowing for multiple pathways to solving math
problems.
In Ms. Check ’s room, questions were posed using the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)
monitor. Students read the questions orally and discussed responses in their groups. Groups
would then formulate responses to the questions and write their answers on post-it notes for
others to read. At this point, students would then respond to one another using additional post-
it notes. At the end of the period, Ms. Check reviewed responses and helped students to clarify
their learning by asking them to provide evidence to support their answers.
In Mr. Banjo ’s class, the students were also repeatedly questioned. In a history
exercise, Mr. Banjo would pose questions and then have students go into the text to annotate
their evidence. Mr. Banjo would ask questions like, “what does that mean? ” or “where did you
get that from? ” In addition to the oral conversations that were being held, the teacher also
checked for understanding using non-verbal cues for students to agree or disagree with one
another. When the class transitioned away from the teacher led discussion, students moved
into groups and continued to question one another. Each group had a facilitator that ensured
all students in the group were participating.
During small group instruction in Ms. Hernan ’s class, students were broken up into
small learning groups. Both the teacher and the paraprofessional used a similar questioning
style in which they never gave student answers, but helped facilitate learning. When the
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 110
paraprofessional was given an answer to a question, she would say, “go back into the text and
find it. Prove it to me. Underline it.” Students knew and understood that they would not only
have to provide the paraprofessional with an answer, but that they would need to support their
assertion with evidence. In the teacher group, she used the same strategy, but would have all
of the students answer questions through the use of a white board. This made all students at
the table responsible for answering questions and maximized learning.
High Academic Expectations
Students at Wonderful Elementary School are held to high academic expectations.
Teachers aim to deliver a curriculum that is relevant and rigorous. Teachers are constantly
evaluating their programs and are always trying to find ways to improve the student learning
experience. Students are supported in their educational journey, but are also held accountable
for their learning.
In Ms. Check ’s class, she has integrated the Science Standards into Language Arts in
what she calls an “intense curriculum. ” Students are exposed to difficult informational text and
are encouraged to work with partners, in effect, scaffolding the activity to make the
information comprehensible. In addition, Ms. Check also gives students target reading points
that she monitors on the computer. The idea is not that students reach a particular Lexile level,
but instead that students show growth over time. For students who are struggling in math, Ms.
Check provides math tutoring three times a week after school.
In Mr. Banjo ’s room, he models high expectations by being at school every day on
time. Mr. Banjo wants parents and students to understand that every minute in his classroom
counts. In terms of instruction, Mr. Banjo shared, “I try to challenge them as much as I can. ”
He acknowledges that planning for him is critical to success. He also noted that he scaffolds
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 111
lessons based on the needs of the class. For Mr. Banjo, having high expectations means
students are able to explain their work. Students in Mr. Banjo ’s class all are expected to be
college prepared and career ready.
Ms. Hernan is a National Board Certified (NCB) teacher who holds high expectations
for her students. Ms. Hernan was trained through the USC Sandra Kaplan summer gifted
institute and challenges students through Dr. Kaplan ’s Depth and Complexity prompts. Ms.
Hernan believes in open-ended math problems that provide multiple solution paths. She
encourages students to come up with strategies for solving problems. Ms. Hernan also folds in
Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) activities to encourage problem solving in
the classroom. Ms. Hernan shared in her interview, “I ’m always looking for things to kind of
raise the bar and make them [students] think critically not just regurgitate information. ” Ms.
Hernan is always trying to increase the level of rigor in her class and is cognizant about asking
higher level depth of knowledge questions.
Teaching strategies observed in the classroom and shared in the interview closely align
to the information that was provided in the teacher surveys. Teachers were asked what
strategies do you use in your practice that promotes learning for all students, including students
of color, students from poverty, and non-traditional learners? The teacher responses from the
survey highlight expectations and what that looks like in individual classrooms. This is how
the school meets the needs of all learners.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 112
Table 8: Teaching Strategies
Survey Question: What strategies do you use in your practice that promotes
learning for all students, including students of color, students from poverty, and
non-traditional learners?
Teacher Responses: All students are given high expectations and goals, think pair
share, every child participates by using whiteboard paddles, everyone has a chance
to answer and participate.
Differentiation and reading strategies: K-W-L charts and other graphic organizers,
chunking, annotation, one-on-one time when possible.
Relevant curriculum, working from a framework of assets rather than deficits, high
expectations, scaffolding.
Tangible projects. Working through a project as a way of learning. CTE education.
Growth Mindset
As the researcher conducted the study, patterns and trends among the teaching staff and
administration at Wonderful Elementary began to emerge. One of the unique elements shared
by teachers and administration alike was the “Growth Mindset. ” In the researcher ’s first
interview with the principal, she identified that the Growth Mindset is the key to the school ’s
success. She goes on to say, “it's about perseverance. It's not about your ability. It's not about
your talent you already have. It's about effort. ”
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 113
The same ideals are echoed by the teachers in words and actions. Mr. Banjo shared that
he uses the Growth Mindset approach. In fact, he claims that he has been using this style of
teaching before it was labeled as the Growth Mindset. He believes in celebrating
accomplishments and asking students to reflect on how they can improve. Mr. Banjo ’s
classroom also shows evidence of the Growth Mindset. His classroom is adorned with college
memorabilia, and there is a poster that identifies pathways to college. When Mr. Banjo was
asked about the rationale for his room environment, he responded with the following
statement, “I often try to tell them [students] you don ’t have to go to college, there is a lot of
different options. I want you to have options. ”
Ms. Hernan also uses the Growth Mindset in her class. For her, it is important that
students see learning as a process and that learning is about growing, not necessarily an end
product. Ms. Hernan uses student collaboration as a means of keeping students focused on the
Growth Mindset. Students work together in groups and encourage and question one another
about their process. Ms. Hernan believes that students should be engaged in real-world
activities that include discussing, negotiating and coming to consensus. She also sees herself as
more of a facilitator of learning versus leading the class. She listens to student conversations
and formulates questions to further their thinking.
In the interview with Ms. Dub, one thing that stood out was that fact that she took the
initiative to further her own professional growth and researched the Growth Mindset.
According to Ms. Dub, “everyone can do this [5
th
grade work], it just depends on what kind of
work you want to put into it.” Ms. Dub, is constantly stretching her students academically. She
uses the Common Core Standards as her platform for having students work collaboratively to
build depth and complexity in close reading, argumentation, and number talks. Ms. Dub
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 114
acknowledges that the Growth Mindset strategy is not always easy, but does attribute her
class ’s success to the strategy.
Question 4: To what extent do students perceive being in a state of flow during the school
day?
Research question number 4 was designed to help the research team determine how flow
impacts engagement and ultimately student learning. The researcher conducted a student focus
group and was able to speak with students during the observations. The resultant data were
reviewed and analyzed to determine if student reports were consistent with the definition of flow.
During classroom observations, when selected students were asked, “if they had been
involved in an activity where they lost track of time? ” Most responded yes, but could not provide
a great level of detail. One student mentioned that math was challenging to him and when he
finished, he would do more. The same student reported that he had been engaged in activities
where the time moved by so fast, and he did not realize that it was recess.
In the student focus group, students were asked, “have you ever been so involved in an
activity that nothing else seemed to matter? ” Student Brie shared that when her teacher involves
technology, specifically when she uses an application called Kahoot where students answer the
teacher ’s questions via an iPad, she is engaged. Another student, Danny made a similar claim
about technology being an engaging factor for her. She described a learning game in which you
gather crystals for points as something that engages her. Danny does go on however, to discuss
how during history, her favorite subject, “like it only feels like 10 minutes when you are really
focused on it.” Another student, Izzy, shared that what got her into a state of flow was being
able to express herself. She went on to say that when she was writing a poem, she was “so
engaged. ”
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 115
During observations, students seemed engaged and on-task. Students participated in
discussion and followed the speaker. Students appeared to move from task to task easily, and
there was little loss of instructional time. However, the researcher was unable to identify any
student who was so engaged that he/she stood out as being in a state of flow.
The findings suggest that students at the elementary school level do experience a state a
flow, but it tends to be for a shorter span of time than what the research suggested. This may be
due to the fact it is not developmentally appropriate for elementary school aged students to be
engaged in tasks as long as their adult counterparts. The findings on flow are preliminary and
are not conclusive. Further research will need to be conducted on the state of flow.
Discussion of Findings
Upon a review of the data collected for the study, there is significant evidence to support
that there are indicators of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement present at
Wonderful Elementary School. In terms of behavioral engagement, the data reflects that students
are on task, attentive, and teachers report high levels of task completion. Students are willing to
share ideas and take risks. Teachers support students and provide a classroom environment that
is conducive to learning. Emotional indicators reveal that the school has minimal office referrals
and only one suspension over the last two years. Furthermore, there have been no expulsions
under the current principal ’s tenure. The principal ensures that systems are in place for Positive
Behavior Support and shares her expectation school wide. Similarly, she has systems in place
for attendance as well. She has a school wide approach in which she positively reinforces
students for arriving to school on time every day, and she also has a more targeted approach for
students who are at higher risk.
Identified in the research are Wonderful Elementary School ’s programs, process and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 116
practices that are perceived to contribute to student engagement. One of the over-arching themes
is that leadership plays an important role in moving the school forward. Leadership comes in the
form of support and accountability for teachers, using data to strategically guide instruction, and
incorporating teachers as leaders.
Another over-arching theme identified are relationships. Relationships included a wide
variety of interpersonal connections, which are categorized into sub-themes. These sub-themes
include the following: (a) principal ’s relationship with students, (b) principal ’s relationship with
staff, (c) principal ’s relationship with parents, (d) teacher student relationships, and (e) teacher
parent relationships.
The programs that are identified by the research include the acceptance into the magnet
program, which comprises a curriculum that has the arts and technology embedded. In addition,
the school is given additional technology and a Meet the Masters Arts program. It also includes
an arts integration teacher who provides art instruction to students in the following domains:
dance, theater, visual arts, vocal music and orchestra.
Other programs that are highlighted by the research include a collaboration with the local
university called Making Movies that Matter, Lego robotics, Tae Kwon Do classes, tutoring
services as well as a host of other “fun ” activities. Programs that are provided offer a wide range
of possibilities for students and are part of a well-rounded approach to education. These findings
suggest that offering a variety of programs to meet the interests of students positively contributes
to engagement.
At Wonderful Elementary, teaching strategies are an important part of the school ’s
culture. Teachers share best practices across grade levels and are constantly looking for ways to
improve instruction. Questioning strategies are the cornerstone of instructional practice. In all of
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 117
the classrooms visited, teachers help to guide students through the learning process and do not
just give students answers to questions. Although questioning looks different in different
classrooms, the premise remains the same. Teachers see themselves as a facilitator or guide
through a process and not a dispenser of knowledge. Through questioning, teachers are able to
scaffold instruction, check for understanding, extend activities, and challenge students.
In addition to questioning, high academic student expectations are identified as an
important lever to school success. Teachers at Wonderful Elementary maintain a rigorous
classroom in which they embed arts and technology into the curriculum. Teachers expect
students to be able to articulate their thinking and do not settle for one and two word responses.
Teachers report that they hold their students to high expectations, but make sure to set goals
along the way so that they can monitor progress. Not only do teachers hold students accountable,
but students hold one another accountable during group work.
The teacher philosophy at Wonderful Elementary is one of the unique characteristics of
the school. All of the teachers interviewed and observed for the study prescribe to the notion of
the Growth Mindset. Teachers strive to instill in students that success is a product of hard work
and effort and not innate ability. Teachers are also quick to remind students that success is
defined by making progress in one ’s own journey and that it is not necessary or productive to
compare themselves to other students.
One of the most prominent findings of the study is that the principal has systems in place
to support student learning. There are systems in place for student behavior and attendance. She
also provides clear expectations in terms of student learning and expects teachers to rise to the
occasion and meet her standards. Teachers are provided with time to collaborate, and she
encourages innovation and supports out of the box thinking. The principal supports teachers in
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 118
their efforts to improve student learning and provides teachers with flexibility and autonomy.
Parents feel welcome and a part of the school community. Through parent connections and
connections established by the principal, the school is also able to provide students with a variety
of programs and was able to convert the school into a magnet. As a result of the principal’s work
in the above-mentioned areas, Wonderful Elementary School is identified as a CORE waiver
high-performing school and Gold Ribbon award winning school. The research results from this
study confirm the findings in the literature review that identifies principal leadership as a
promising practice for making positive change for schools.
Conclusion
A school culture that values high expectations, student centered learning, data driven
instruction, distributed leadership, parent involvement, and clear expectations is conducive to
student engagement at Wonderful Elementary School. The USC cohort that created the
conceptual framework sought to mark the indicators that are present in a high performing school
that lead to increased student engagement and ultimately a state of flow. All of the indicators of
student engagement identified in the conceptual framework are present at Wonderful Elementary
School. In addition to the researcher ’s observations of the indicators, student reports and teacher
interviews confirm the presence of engagement. However, the researcher is only able to find
limited evidence of flow. Students in the focus group did respond that there are instances in
which time moves by quickly while using technology or when they are engaged in a preferred
activity, but the researcher did not note specific behaviors in the classroom that would constitute
extended periods of flow. Further research will need to be conducted in this area.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 119
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Summary
America, once the leader in education, has seen a steady decline in student performance.
Among industrialized nations, US students are consistently being outperformed in academic
domains. Globally, the US ranks in the lower one-third in math and science. As a result, many
companies are having to search outside of the US borders to find candidates who have the
necessary skills to perform in the professional setting. In a global economy, US students are
competing against students from world markets and will need to evolve if America is to remain
competitive in the marketplace.
Over the past decade, America has seen its share of reform efforts designed to raise
student achievement: phonics versus whole language, block scheduling, conceptual math
learning, single gender classrooms, project based learning, and more recently online learning,
are just a small fraction of learning reforms that have been tried with varying degrees of success.
In addition to local school initiatives, there were also federal mandates that were passed. On
December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA). This law encouraged schools and districts to continue their work with the Common
Core Standards. The impetus of the new law was to provide students with a rigorous school
experience and to get US students college prepared and career ready.
Needless to say, the schools of today are shifting. They are shifting because of new
initiatives and because America itself is changing and evolving. Students of today are much
different than students from 20 years ago and have different needs and come into school with
different understandings and skill sets. In today ’s fast-paced, “get it now ” world, students are
easily distracted and quickly become disengaged. Local initiatives, as well as state and federal
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 120
mandates are fine, but in the end, if students are not engaged with the material that the teacher is
presenting, then all of the other reforms really don ’t matter.
The Statement of the Problem
Through various reform efforts, students of all races have seen some measure of
improvement however, black and Latino students are still experiencing an achievement gap
when compared to white and Asian students. While there has been a substantial amount of
research that has been conducted on the achievement gap, there has been little research focusing
on what high-performing urban elementary schools are doing to produce students who can be
successful in middle school years and beyond. As rural and suburban America begins to shrink
and urban centers continue their sprawl, it is important that researchers focus their attention to
successful urban schools that are creating environments and conditions that are allowing
students to access the curriculum and further their learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the role of student engagement in student
achievement in an outperforming urban school and to determine what perceived factors
contribute to high performance. This research study examined a high-performing urban
elementary school in the greater Los Angeles area to understand what specific factors contribute
to high performance at Wonderful Elementary School. Wonderful Elementary School was
selected for the study because it met the criteria of a high-performing urban elementary school
as defined by the USC cohort.
The criteria for selection of the school was based on a variety of factors. The selected
school must have free and reduced lunch participation at a rate of 60% or higher. Ethnic
minorities must make up at least 51% of the school ’s population. Schools being studied should
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 121
be at or near the state average in terms of English Learners at the school and should not be lower
than 15%. API scores should be 820 or higher to qualify for the study and the school should be
ranked one or more points higher on the similar school ranking as compared to the statewide
ranking.
In addition to all of the previous criteria, the school selected for this study, Wonderful
Elementary school, had an additional criteria which was that it was categorized by the CORE as
a high progress school. Each USC cohort member selected an individual school that met the
criteria mentioned above and each individual study is unique.
Methodology
For this study, a variety of data analysis techniques were utilized. These techniques
included, but were not limited to: document analysis, surveys, observations, a focus group, and
interviews. Document analysis laid the foundation for the study by providing essential data that
enabled the researcher to establish the school as a high-performing elementary school. Interview
protocols developed by the USC doctoral cohort were meant to help focus the interview, but at
the same time, allowed for flexibility in questioning which allowed the researcher to explore
other areas of interest. Questions asked by the researcher revolved around the participants ’
perception of academic achievement and what role student engagement played in academic
success. Observations allowed for the researcher to gain firsthand knowledge about the school.
Observations were used to triangulate various data sources. Survey information provided unique
perspectives of teachers, administrators, and students.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four overarching research questions:
1. To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 122
present in a high-performing urban school?
2. What school programs, processes and practices are perceived to contribute to student
engagement?
3. What are the unique elements within the school structure that support student
engagement?
4. To what extent do students perceive being in a state of flow during the school day?
Instrumentation
The USC cohort group designed the study to examine the relationship between student
engagement and academic achievement through a bounded case study approach. A conceptual
model was developed by the USC cohort team and was the frame through which the research
was conducted. Each member of the USC cohort used the same protocol tools and had
administered identical surveys for the study. Results from the study cannot be generalized to
other schools, as the study is unique to the schools that the USC cohort studied. However, a
qualitative mixed methods approach does add to the research by helping professionals in the
field identify and understand the perceived factors that contribute to student engagement and
ultimately result in increased academic success.
Data Collection
In order to comprehend the factors that contributed to student engagement in a high-
performing school, the researcher was engaged in an intensive data collection process. Prior to
observations, the researcher reviewed pertinent documents that identified the school ’s goals and
objectives. Through this data mining process, the researcher was able to determine strengths and
needs at the school site. The researcher spent six days at the school examining what makes
Wonderful Elementary School high-performing through the lens of the research questions. The
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 123
researcher was able to visit multiple classrooms, observed a variety of programs, and interacted
with students, staff, and administration. Surveys were also given to students and staff to help the
researcher triangulate the data. Through this data collection process, the researcher was able to
experience the school ’s culture though different stakeholder perspectives.
Limitations
The school for this study was, in part, selected based on data from 2011-2013. The
reason for this was in California, testing was moving from the California Standards Test (CST)
to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). 2014 was the field test for the SBAC
which provided baseline results, but because the test was new, there were some concerns
regarding the reliability and validity of the assessment. There was also nothing to compare it to
since the CST and SBAC were so different in terms of what they tested and how they tested it.
Another limitation of the study was that the study focused on a single high-performing
urban elementary school. This means that the results of this study are specific to this school and
cannot be generalized to other schools. The study took place over a week long span, which
represents a specific moment in time when the researcher was able to gather data. Being that the
research was conducted at the end of the school year, it may affect the results of the study. It
should also be noted that the researcher is the tool through which the data is gathered and
analyzed. Every effort was taken to remain unbiased, but there may be unintended researcher
bias.
Finally, the researcher concedes that engagement is not something that only happens in
school. There are many factors outside of school that can and do contribute to high levels of
engagement in school. These factors were identified in the theoretical framework developed by
the USC cohort. Things like family, peers, school, community, and one ’s social capital play a
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 124
role in engagement. In fact, following Bronfenbrenner ’s ecological systems theory model, these
factors are constantly engaging and influencing each other and have a direct impact on
schooling.
Findings
The over-arching themes identified in the study were the following: (a) systems
thinking (b) leadership (c) relationships (d) programs and (e) teaching strategies. These broad
themes were then broken down into smaller sub-themes that could be observed and analyzed.
Findings for the study will be delineated in the following five paragraphs:
Systems Thinking
In order to effectively run an urban school, the principal made it her priority to
have systems in place. Some of the systems at Wonderful Elementary were the following:
meeting times for common planning, using data to guide instruction, positive behavior
intervention and support systems to guide behavior, attendance initiatives, behavior assemblies,
and teaching behavior expectations. In general these systems address the needs of students and
teachers. However, for high risk situations, a second tier of support was needed and provided by
the principal or her staff. Having systems in place that are proactive allows more time for the
principal to shift her attention to instruction and student learning versus dealing with operational
components.
Leadership
Evident in the research was that leadership matters. Leadership was not only recognized
at the principal level with her vision for the school, but also at the teacher level where teachers
took initiative and were empowered to make changes when necessary. A major component of
the leadership paradigm was that leadership not only meant support, but that it also meant
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 125
pressure. Teachers were supported by the administration and sheltered from over-reaching
district initiatives while expected to get results. Results were measured using multiple methods
from teacher observations to student scores.
Relationships
Relationships helped to shape the school culture. Students trusted teachers and teachers
respected the administration. Parents were actively involved in student affairs, and there was an
overall feeling of belonging at the school. The principal of the school set the tone for
relationships. She had an open door policy for teachers, students, parents, and staff. She went
out of her way to greet students by name, and parents saw her as approachable. The principal
was actively engaged in the PTA and, not only allowed, but encouraged parent participation in
the school. Teachers felt supported by the principal which allowed for effective collaboration
and open dialogue between staff and administration.
Programs
Wonderful Elementary provided diverse programs across all grade levels which included
robotics, music, dance, art and movie making all of which increased engagement at the school.
Students from diverse backgrounds had the opportunity to try new things and to excel at
different activities they enjoyed. Through the research, it was evident that technology was a
high-interest activity for most of the students. Learning through the use of computers and
gaming was a common theme and was something that was utilized as a part of being a
technology magnet. For other students, the arts, dance and music were motivating factors.
Teaching Strategies
Finally, teachers planned, worked collaboratively and utilized a “Growth Mindset ”
philosophy. Teaching strategies were shared across grade levels, and the focus for teachers was
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 126
on questioning and clarifying versus giving the students answers. Teachers believed in the
mission of the school and infused arts and technology into the curriculum. Teachers shared the
excitement of learning which engaged and inspired students to be active participants in the
classroom.
Recommendations
Examination of the data and the findings indicate that systems, leadership, Relationships,
programs, and teaching strategies are important conditions that should be in place at schools to
encourage student engagement. Not only do these strategies help to keep students on task and
focused on the curriculum, but they also help to increase student achievement. In an
environment where there is clear expectations and the leadership at all levels is focused on the
common goal of increasing student achievement, students will be engaged, and as a result,
academic achievement will rise. Relationships are the foundation on which the leader ’s vision is
built. Teachers must be given the autonomy and authority to make decisions in the classroom to
best meet student needs, and at the same time, the principal’s role is to support, pressure, and
monitor data to make sure the school is moving in the right direction. Programs that are made
available to students should offer a wide range of variation and expose students to multiple
disciplines. Providing high-interest programs for students, not only engages students at the
program level, but also causes them to be more interested in school and creates a more intimate
bond between student and school. Lastly, teaching strategies that put students at the center of
the learning process allows for students to take ownership of their studies and encourages critical
thinking. Project based learning, partner work, and teacher questioning strategies are a few
approaches that cause students to extend their thinking and apply learning. Recommendations
derived from the study for other urban schools are:
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 127
• Have systems in place that support student learning. These things include a Positive
Behavior Support and Intervention program, clear expectations, an administration that
supports teachers, but also holds them accountable for results.
• Provide incentives for desired student behavior. This will look different from school to
school, but may include awards assemblies, dance parties, certificates, trophies and other
incentives that support positive student behavior.
• Provide time for teachers to meet and collaborate. Focus teachers ’ attention on
questioning strategies and how to redirect students without directly giving students the
answers. Allow students to construct knowledge for themselves, while the teacher guides
the process. Also, hold teachers accountable for their meetings by having them create
minutes and action items to be accomplished.
• Leadership matters at all levels. Distribute leadership and build capacity in teacher
leaders.
• Work in conjunction with your stakeholder groups to come to consensus on decisions.
Keep the lines of communication open with parents, teachers, community and students.
• Use data to guide instruction. Get input from parents, teacher, students, and community
members. Have teachers monitor students and generate reports to determine student
progress towards goals.
• Build relationships. Not only should the school value academics, but the school should
also look to enhance or develop student socio-emotional intelligence. The goal is to have
a well-rounded student who can self-monitor and take ownership of his or her academic
and emotional well-being.
• Create a “Growth Mindset ” culture in which teachers, parents, staff and community value
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 128
hard work, persistence, and grit. The work students produce should be associated with
the effort they put forth and not innate ability.
• Provide a wide range of programs that appeal to different cross sections of the school
community. Diverse offerings allow for students to explore different disciplines and try
new things which also allows for cross-pollination of student groups.
• As a school community, it is vital that all school employees have high expectations for
students. However, it does not end with high expectations. Teachers should develop
goals for students and monitor progress along the way. If the trajectory is unfavorable,
the teacher needs to have the autonomy to make the appropriate changes to get students
back on track.
Suggestions for Future Research
This research study focused on the perceived factors of academic achievement and the
role that engagement played. Future research on how to increase academic achievement are
listed below:
• Compare student engagement at high-performing school with a low-performing school.
Are different levels present at each school? How do corresponding levels of engagement
effect achievement?
• A blind quantitative study is needed to determine if the perceived factors are actually
influencing student achievement. If so, how?
• Narrow the scope of the study and drill down on one specific factor of student
achievement. For example, look at leadership, systems, relationships, programs, or
teaching strategies to see how these individual factors contribute to student achievement.
• Study the idea of flow in elementary school students versus teens and adults. What does
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 129
flow look like in elementary school? Is flow developmental? If so, what would ideal
lessons in elementary schools look like to support student engagement and episodes of
flow?
Conclusions
There are many factors that need to be considered when contemplating how individual
schools achieve high level of academic success. It is apparent from the research that a high-
performing urban elementary school must employ a variety of techniques to involve and engage
students. Just like no two snowflakes are alike, no one strategy will work for all students.
Different student have different needs, and the school should adapt to meet the needs of
students.
What this means is that schools should have clear and consistent leadership at all levels
that is supportive of student learning. Systems should be in place to deal with day-to-day
operations, and backup systems should be available for students who do not fit the mold.
Relationships are the foundation of the culture and climate of the school. Successful schools are
schools in which teachers, students, and staff converse freely with one another and are not afraid
of having hard conversations. Students should feel welcome at the school, and teachers should
get support, but be expected to produce results.
Successful schools should also offer a variety of programs to meet the diverse needs of
students. By offering diverse programming options, it gives students the opportunity to try new
things and excel at different activities to which they may be accustomed. Teachers need to work
collaboratively to best meet the needs of students. This means that teachers plan instruction
based on data. Teachers should also focus on questioning techniques instead of telling students
“how ” to answer or giving the algorithm. Teachers should craft questions that focus learning,
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 130
extend thinking, or assess student understanding. The learning is in the struggle, and students
need to be allowed to wrestle with problems versus being told the solution.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 131
References
2012-2013 APR Glossary-Base API. (2012). Retrieved from California Department of
Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary13b.asp
2015 Adequate yearly progress report information guide. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/
Alliance for a Healthier Generation (2016). National Healthy School Awards. Retrieved from:
https://schools.healthiergeneration.org/dashboard/about_celebration/national_healthy_s
chools_award_faqs/
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools,
45(5), 369-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
Bergeson, T., Shannon, S., & Ed, D. (2007). The Nine Characteristics of High-Performing
Schools: A research-based resource for schools and districts to assist with improving
student learning. (2nd Ed.). Olympia, WA: OSPI., (January 2003), 1–128.
Block, M. (2011). Receptive Vocabulary. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9
Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (2002). What We Have Learned about Class Size Reduction
in California. Capstone Report.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the Effects of Schoolwide
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Student Outcomes. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12 (3),133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 132
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Child Behavior Problems. Pediatrics, 130(5),
e1136 –e1145. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0243
British Broadcast Corporation (2015, May). News Asia tops biggest global school rankings.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772
Burch, G. F., Heller N. A., Burch J. J., Freed R., & Steve A., Steed S. A., (2015) Student
Engagement: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Survey Instrument, Journal of
Education for Business, 90:4, 224-229, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821 To link to
this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821
Burkins, J., Yaris, K. (2013) Defining Close Reading. Retrieved from:
http://www.burkinsandyaris.com/defining-close-reading/
California Department of Education (2016, June).California Gold Ribbon Schools Program.
Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/sr/gr/
California Department of Education. (2016). Academic Performance Indicator [Measurement
instrument]. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California English Language Development Test, California Education Code § 313(a) (2001).
Chase, P. a., Hilliard, L. J., John Geldhof, G., Warren, D. J. a, & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Academic
Achievement in the High School Years: The Changing Role of School Engagement.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 884–896. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0085-4
Christenson, S., & Reschly, C. W. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 133
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2016). Standards in Your State. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
Cooper, J. E., Ponder, G., Merritt, S., & Matthews, C. (2005). High-Performing High Schools:
Patterns of Success. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 2–23. doi:10.1177/019263650508964502
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Cunningham, P. M. (2006). High-poverty schools that beat the odds. Reading Teacher, 60(4),
382 –385. doi:10.1598/RT.60.4.9
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third Annual Brown Lecture in Education Research The Flat
Earth and Education: How America ’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future.
Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334. doi:10.3102/0013189X07308253
Dickinson, Pupil Discipline: Suspensions and Expulsions: Willful Defiance. §48900 of the
Education Code, (2014)
Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom Context, School Engagement, and Academic
Achievement in Early Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(12), 1649–1660.
doi:10.1007/s10964-01-9647-5
Duke, D., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key Decisions of a First-year “Turnaround ” Principal.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33–58.
doi:10.1177/1741143209345450
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 134
EdSource. (2015). The Local Control Funding Formula: An essential EdSource guide, (October),
1 –4.
Eroglu S., Toprak S., Urgan O, MD, Ozge E. Onur, MD, Arzu Denizbasi, MD, Haldun Akoglu,
MD, Cigdem Ozpolat, MD, Ebru Akoglu, M. (2012). A Blueprint for Great Schools
Version 2.0. Saudi Med J, 33, 3–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703993104
ESEA Reauthorization: A blueprint for reform [Fact sheet]. (2016). Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html
Ferguson, R. F., Phillips, S. F., Rowley, J. F. S., & Friedlander, J. W. (2015). The influence of
teaching: Beyond standardized test scores: engagement, mindsets, and agency, (October), 1–
118. Retrieved from http://www.agi.harvard.edu/projects/TeachingandAgency.pdf
Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary
discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536-559.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085907305039
Finn J. D., Zimmer, K. S., (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Frazee, B. D., Frunzi, K., & Hein, H. (2011). Teachers rally around writing, The Emerging
Leader 34(6).
Fredricks, J. a., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011).
Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description
of 21 Instruments. Issues & Answers. REL 2011 - No. 098. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 135
Fix School Discipline (2015). Fix School Discipline Bills AB 420 [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from
http://fixschooldiscipline.org/action/
Fullan Santiago Rincón-Gallardo, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). SPECIAL SERIES A New
Paradigm for Educational Accountability: Accountability for Professional Practice
Professional Capital as Accountability Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15), 1–22. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1998
Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: A
relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 365-368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20302
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 30(1),
45-56. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gamoran, A., & An, B. P. (2015). Effects of School Segregation and School Resources in a
Changing Policy Context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, XX(X), 1–22.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715585604
Gipson, F., & Abrahams, K. (2016). Procedures to Establish a New Magnet Program: Reference
Guide 6014.2. Troy. Troy Unified School District.
Good, T. L. (1999). The purposes of schooling in America. Elementary School Journal, 99(5),
383. doi:10.1086/461931
Goodman, M., G., (2012, November 18). Retrieved December 31, 2015, from:
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/urie-bronfenbrenner-and-child-development/
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 136
Grubb, W., & Badway, N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California Community Colleges. Contract, 1998(March). Retrieved from
http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/assessment/Revised505Compliance.pdf
Habegger, S. (2008). The Principal ’ s Role in Successful Schools : Creating a Positive School
Culture. Principal, (October), 42–46.
Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The Relationship Between School Engagement and
Delinquency in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
40(1), 3–22. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9579-5
Hochschild, J. L. & Scovronick, N. (2004). The American Dream and the Public School. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Howard, W. (2008). Best Practices of Best Practices, 2008. Retrieved from
http://media.proquest.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/media/pq/classic/doc/1562620331/fmt/pi/r
ep/NONE?hl=&cit:auth=Wolosky,+Howard+W&cit:title=BEST+PRACTICES+OF+ ’BES
T+PRACTICES ’&cit:pub=The+Practical+Accountant&cit:vol=41&cit:iss=9&cit:pg=6&ci
Ikpeze, C. (2013). Increasing urban students' engagement with school: Toward the expeditionary
learning model. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 9, 55-64. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1651855917?accountid=14749
Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. (2009). Class size reduction and student achievement: The potential
tradeoff between teacher quality and class size. The Journal of Human Resources, 44(1),
223-250. doi:10.1353/jhr.2009.0008
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 137
Kearney, W. S., Herrington, D. E., & Aguilar, D. V. (2012). Beating the Odds: Exploring the
90/90/90 Phenomenon. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 239–249.
doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.661248
Kersten, T. a, & Israel, M. S. (2005). A Nation at Risk. Planning and Changing.
doi:10.4135/9781412963992
Kondakci, Y., & Sivri, H. Salient Characteristics of High Performing Turkish Schools. Journal
of Educational Administration, 52(2), 254-272. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2012-0136
Ladd, G. W., Dinella, L.M. (2009) Continuity and change in early school engagement:
Predictive of children ’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade?
Journal of Educational Psychology. 101:1, 190-206.
Lawson, M. a., & Lawson, H. a. (2013). New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement
Research, Policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research (Vol. 83).
doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
Lazar, I., Darlington, R., Murray, H., Royce, J., Snipper, A., & Ramey, C. T. (2014). Lasting
Effects Education : a Report From the for Consortium Studies, 47(2).
Learning Achievement Coalition – Oakland (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from: http://lac-
o.org/goals/Student/SitePages/Student%20Engagement%20Home.aspx
Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness.
Evaluation, (April), 1–31. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 138
Torlakson, T. (2013, April 19). California Department of Education Release [Press release].
Retrieved from California Department of Education:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel48.asp
Troy Unified School District (2014, February 23). CORE Corner. Retrieved from:
http://home.lausd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=227154&type=d&pREC_ID=512542
Troy Unified School District Investing in Troy (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2016
from:http://home.troy.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?type=d&uREC_ID=227154&pREC_ID=72
7374
Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as Cultural Leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5),
52 –56. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.umsl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
eft&AN=504505013&site=ehost-live&scope=site
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009a). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and
Practice. doi:10.1080/13603120701576241
Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J. (2011). The Highly Engaged Classroom (Classroom
Strategies) (Kindle Location 4381). Marzano Research. Kindle Edition.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. United States of
America: SAGE.
McIntosh, K., Kelm, J. L., & Canizal Delabra, A. (2015). In Search of How Principals Change:
A Qualitative Study of Events That Help and Hinder Administrator Support for School-
Wide PBIS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi:10.1177/1098300715599960
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 139
Mead, S.M., Rotherham, A., & Brown, R. (2014). The Hangover: The Unintended Consequence
of the Nation ’s Teacher Evaluation Binge. In Hess, F.M. & McShane, M.Q. (Eds.) Teacher
Quality 2.0: Toward a New Era in Education Reform. Pp. 19-42.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A. (2014). Introduction to action research. In Action research: Improving schools and
empowering educators (pp. 3-33). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
Messacar, D., & Oreopoulos, P. (2013). Staying in school: A proposal for raising high-school
graduation rates. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(2), 55-61. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1505354822?accountid=14749
Mirci, P., Loomis, C., & Hensley, P. (2011). Social Justice, self-systems, and engagement in
learning: What students labeled as “at-risk ” can teach us. … Leadership and Administration:
Teaching and …. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ965194
Mullen, C. a., & Jones, R. J. (2008). Teacher leadership capacity ‐building: developing
democratically accountable leaders in schools. Teacher Development, 12(4), 329–340.
doi:10.1080/13664530802579892
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: a
research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors1. School Leadership & Management,
27(2), 179–201. doi:10.1080/13632430701237420
Nagy, A., (2011) A Descriptive, Ex Post Facto Study of the Leadership Behaviors of Three
Southern California Elementary School Principals in High-Performing Schools A
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 140
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree D. (2011),
(January).
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2013). Common Core State Standards for mathematics: Kindergarten
introduction. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/finalelaccssstandards.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2013). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/ccssmathstandardaug2013.pdf
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) [Fact sheet]. (2016). Retrieved from U.S. Department
of Agriculture: https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 USC 6301 § 115 ( 2001)
Northouse, P. G., (2013). Sixth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Oswalt, A. (2015, November). Urie Bronfenbrenner and Child Development. Retrieved from
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/urie-bronfenbrenner-and-child-development/
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (2016). Tests Modern, High-
Quality Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/about/the-parcc-tests
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 141
Porter, a., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New U.S.
Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
doi:10.3102/0013189X11405038
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2015), 1 –2.
Reavis, C. A., Vinson, D., & Fox, R. (2009). Importing a Culture of Success Via a Strong
Principal. The Clearing House, 72(4), 199 –202. doi:10.1080/00098659909599391
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook
of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer US.
Reid, S. (2014). Knowledge influencers: leaders influencing knowledge creation and
mobilization. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 332 –357. doi:10.1108/JEA-01-
2013-0013
Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Russell, B. (2011). Factors that Encourage Student Engagement : Insights from a Case Study of
“First Time ” Students in a New Zealand University . Factors that Encourage Student
Engagement : Insights from a Case Study. Learning, 8(1).
School accountability report card (SARC) [Fact sheet]. (2017). Retrieved from California
Department of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
Schrag, P. (2007). Policy from the hip: Class size reduction in California. Brookings Papers on
Education Policy, 2006(1), 229-243. doi:10.1353/pep.2007.0009
Shernoff, D. (2013). The nature of engagement in schools. Optimal learning environments to
promote student engagement, 47-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7089-2
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 142
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/212284572?accountid=14749
STAR California Standards Test Blueprint. (2016). Retrieved from California Department of
Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/blueprints.asp
Smarter Balance Assessments. (n.d.). Development and Design. Retrieved December 31, 2015,
from: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-assessments/
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (2016, February). National Evaluations Again Confirm
Quality and Alignment of Smarter Balanced End-of-Year Test. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/news/national-evaluations-again-confirm-quality-and-
alignment-of-smarter-balanced-end-of-year-test/
Smarter balanced assessment system [Fact sheet]. (2016). Retrieved from California Department
of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/index.asp
Sutherland, D., Levine, K., & Barth, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of a career education
program on school engagement. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(1), 131.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1468381447?accountid=14749
Suber, C. (2011). Characteristics of Effective Principals in High-Poverty South Carolina
Elementary Schools. Creative Commons Attribution License †, 1 –15.
Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 143
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
The University of Chicago.
University of California. (2016). Admission Requirements [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved
from http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/index.html
Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association
with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: A review of empirical
research. European Psychologist, 18(2), 136-147.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1027/1016-9040/a000143
Vinovskis, M. a. (1992). Schooling and Poor Children in 19th-Century America. American
Behavioral Scientist, 35(3), 313–331. doi:10.1177/0002764292035003008
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological porcesses.
Retrieved from aiz.vic.edu.au search design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What Did You Do in School Today?
Transforming Classrooms through Social, Academic, and Intellectual Engagement. (First
National Report). Imagine, (May), 52. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-
ace.ca/files/cea-2011-wdydist-introducing.pdf
Wonderful Academy of Arts & Technology Magnet (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016,
from:http://wonderfulstes.troy.net/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1409206483051
Wonderful Performance Meter- Data Summary Sheet (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016, from
http://schoolinfosheet.troy.net/budgetreports/linker?app_name=data_sum&cost_center_cod
e=1519801&school_code=5198
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 144
Wonderful School Accountability Report Card (2015). Retrieved February 23, 2016,
from:http://search.troy.net/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarc20142015&which=5198
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of Students on Engagement: A Report on the 2006 High School
Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana
University. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=eric&AN=ED495758&site=ehost-live
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167 –177. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680
Zhang, Y., G., Y., Cham, H., Wang, M.-T., Willett, J. B., Eccles, J. S., Appleton, J. J. (2012).
School Engagement Trajectories and Their Differential Predictive Relations to Dropout.
Journal of Adolescence, 74(4), 274–283. doi:10.1002/pits
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 145
Appendix
Focus Group Protocol
05/08/2016
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study of role of engagement in student achievement
in out-performing urban schools. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer some of my
questions …. The focus group should take about an hour, does that work for you?
Before we get started, let me tell you a little bit about the study and answer any questions that you may
have. Your school was selected because it is outperforming. In other words, students at this school
usually do well in their class(es). I am trying to find out what the teachers and students at this school are
doing differently. I want to find out what makes you excited about school and what kinds of activities
keep your interest.
I would like everyone to participate. There are no right or wrong answers. What is said here, will stay in
the room and none of the data I collect will be shared with other teachers, the parents, or the district …
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. Might you have any
questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don’t have any (more) questions I would like
to have your permission to begin the interview …. I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can
accurately capture what you share with me.
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of interest
(e.g. position, role, etc.))
I am hoping we could start with you telling me a little bit about your school …
III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to your Research Questions)
(Minimum of 2 questions from Strauss, et. al. typology: Hypothetical, Devil ’s Advocate, Ideal
Position, Interpretive (done in the moment)
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 146
Research Questions Focus Group Questions
RQ1: To what extent are the
indicators of behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive
engagement present in a high
performing urban school?
1. Tell me what you like about your school?
2. Tell me about a positive school experience? (behavioral)
3. What does your school do to encourage good attendance?
(behavioral)
4. How does your school help to make this a place you feel
safe? (emotional)
5. Do you think students at this school have an adult on
campus that they comfortable (talking to) confiding in?
(emotional)
6. Are some subjects difficult for you? (cognitive)
RQ2: What school programs,
processes, and practices are
perceived to contribute to
student engagement?
1. What extra-curricular, after school clubs, or activities
exist at the school? Are you involved in any of these
activities?
2. Are you proud to be a Wonderful ES student? Why?
RQ3: What are the unique
elements within the school
structure that support student
engagement?
1. Do the teachers at your school work together? How do
you know?
2. How much time do you spend on projects during a typical
class?
3. How often do your teachers create activities where you
get to talk to other students about what you are learning?
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 147
(student interview only)
RQ4: To what extent do
students perceive being in a
state of flow during the school
day?
1. Do you ever find yourself so involved in something you
are learning that nothing else seems to matter?
a. Can you tell me about a specific time when this
has happened?
b. Did you find the activity or learning experience
challenging?
c. Have you had this happen to you in more than
one class, if so, in which subjects does it happen
more than others?
2. Can you tell me more about what was special or particular
about that experience that made it so interesting for you?
3. What was the teacher doing while you were deeply
involved in the moment of learning?
4. How much time do you spend in academic discussion
during a typical class period?
a. How much time does the teacher spend
lecturing?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share?
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not
have covered?
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and
willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study.
ii. Probing Statements/Questions (it is a good idea to pre-manufacture some potentially helpful
probing statements/questions):
That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about …
I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean by …
It would be great if you could walk me though …
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 148
Teacher Protocol
05/04/16
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study of role of engagement in student
achievement in out-performing urban schools. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to
answer some of my questions …. The interview should take about an hour, does that work for
you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating …. I am currently a doctoral candidate at USC … I
have structured my line of inquiry around how “outperforming schools influence student
engagement and ultimately student academic performance. ” “I am particularly interested in
learning how outperforming schools engage students. ” In order to gain insight into how an
outperforming school engages students, I will be observing classrooms and staff meetings.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I will not be making any
judgments on how you are performing as a teacher …. None of the data I collect will be shared
with other teachers, the parents, or the district …
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. Might you have
any questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don ’t have any (more) questions
I would like to have your permission to begin the interview …. I have brought a recorder with me
today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me.
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))
I am hoping we could start with you telling me a little bit about your school …
III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to your Research
Questions) (Minimum of 2 questions from Strauss, et. al. typology: Hypothetical, Devil ’s
Advocate, Ideal Position, Interpretive (done in the moment)
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 149
Research Questions Teacher Interview Questions
RQ1: To what extent are the
indicators of behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive
engagement present in a
high performing urban
school?
1. What does your school do in regards to
discipline? (behavioral)
2. What does your school do to encourage
attendance?(behavioral)
3. How do you know when students are on
task? (behavioral)
4. How do you create a sense of community in
your classroom? (emotional)
5. Do students have an adult on campus that
they comfortable confiding in? (emotional)
6. To what extent do you think students feel
safe at school? (Classroom?) (emotional)
7. To what extent do you feel students are
challenged in your school? (cognitive)
a. What opportunities does the
school have for students Enrichment ….
Rigor …. Challenge
8. How do students to persist through difficult
tasks? (cognitive)
9. What does a highly engaging lesson look
like? (cognitive, behavioral, emotional)
10. Is there anything else you would like to
share?
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 150
RQ2: What school
programs, processes, and
practices are perceived to
contribute to student
engagement?
3. What programs do you have at the school that are
culturally inclusive?
4. How would you describe your interactions with
faculty, staff and administrators?
5. How welcome do you believe Second language
learners feel as a student at Wonderful ES
6. What extra-curricular activities exist at the school?
7. Do all students feel included in the mainstream
school community?
a. How well do you think EL, AA, Latino, SPED,
low SES are integrated into the mainstream
school community?
8. What does the school do to create a sense of
student belonging?
a. For instance …Second step …. Character
Counts ….. Assemblies …..Mottos,, morning
message, attendance rallies, etc
7. Is there anything else you would like to share?
RQ3: What are the unique
elements within an X school
structure that support
student engagement?
4. How does the schedule at your school affect student
engagement?
5. Tell me about the academies at your school.
6. How do you describe students ’ experiences in
utilizing campus support services such as tutoring,
library, advising, and counseling?
7. How does mixing affect student engagement?
a. For instance EL mixing, ability level mixing,
subject level mixing.
8. Is there anything else you would like to share?
(student interview only)
RQ4: To what extent do
students perceive being in a
state of flow during the
school day?
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 151
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I
might not have covered?
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if so, if
email is ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please take this gift
card as a token of my appreciation.
VII. Special Considerations and Probing
i. Transitions (notice the sections in your protocol where you transition from one topic
to the next … pre-manufacture a transitional statement that will help make the switch
more natural and insert where appropriate) (Patton p. 371):
We have been talking about what defines a high performing school, now I would like to ask your
opinions about the schools success …..Before we move to the next questions …..So, we have
spent most of our time talking about …. Now I would like to change gears a little bit and ask
about …. Before I ask you about the next question, is there anything else you would like to
add ….
ii. Probing Statements/Questions (it is a good idea to pre-manufacture some potentially
helpful probing statements/questions):
That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about …
I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean by …
I am wondering how you were feeling in that moment?
It would be great if you could walk me though …
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 152
Principal Protocol
05/04/16
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study of role of engagement in student
achievement in out-performing urban schools. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to
answer some of my questions …. The interview should take about an hour, does that work for
you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating …. I am currently a doctoral candidate at
USC … I have structured my line of inquiry around how “outperforming schools influence student
engagement and ultimately student academic performance. ” “I am particularly interested in
learning how outperforming schools engage students. ” In order to gain insight into how an
outperforming school engages students, I will be observing classrooms and staff meetings.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how
you are performing as an administrator …. None of the data I collect will be shared with other
teachers, the parents, or the district …
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. Might you have
any questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don ’t have any (more) questions
I would like to have your permission to begin the interview …. I have brought a recorder with me
today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me.
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))
I am hoping we could start with you telling me a little bit about your school …
III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to your Research
Questions) (Minimum of 2 questions from Strauss, et. al. typology: Hypothetical, Devil ’s
Advocate, Ideal Position, Interpretive (done in the moment)
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 153
Research Questions Principal Interview Questions
RQ1: To what extent are the
indicators of behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive
engagement present in a
high performing urban
school?
11. What does your school do in regards to discipline?
(behavioral)
12. What does your school do to encourage
attendance?(behavioral)
13. How do you know when students are on task?
(behavioral)
14. How do you create a sense of community in your
school? (emotional)
15. Do students have an adult on campus that they
comfortable confiding in? (emotional)
16. To what extent do you think students feel safe at
school? (Classroom?) (emotional)
17. To what extent do you feel students are challenged
in your school? (cognitive)
a. What opportunities does the school have for
students Enrichment …. Rigor …. Challenge
18. How do students to persist through difficult tasks?
(cognitive)
19. What does a highly engaged classroom look like?
(cognitive, behavioral, emotional)
20. Is there anything else you would like to share?
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 154
RQ2: What school
programs, processes, and
practices are perceived to
contribute to student
engagement?
9. What programs do you have at the school that are
culturally inclusive?
10. How would you describe your interactions with
faculty, staff and teachers?
11. How welcome do you believe Second language
learners feel as a student at Wonderful school
12. What extra-curricular activities exist at the school?
13. Do all students feel included in the mainstream
school community?
a. How well do you think EL, AA, Latino, SPED,
low SES are integrated into the mainstream
school community?
14. What does the school do to create a sense of
student belonging?
a. For instance …Second step …. Character
Counts ….. Assemblies …..Mottos,, morning
message, attendance rallies, etc
7. Is there anything else you would like to share?
RQ3: What are the unique
elements within an X school
structure that support
student engagement?
9. How does the schedule at your school affect student
engagement?
10. Tell me about the academies at your school.
11. How do you describe students ’ experiences in
utilizing campus support services such as tutoring,
library, advising, and counseling?
12. How does mixing affect student engagement?
a. For instance EL mixing, ability level mixing,
subject level mixing.
13. Is there anything else you would like to share?
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I
might not have covered?
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if so, if
email is ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 155
VII. Special Considerations and Probing
i. Transitions (notice the sections in your protocol where you transition from one topic
to the next … pre-manufacture a transitional statement that will help make the switch
more natural and insert where appropriate) (Patton p. 371):
We have been talking about what defines a high performing school, now I would like to ask your
opinions about the schools success …..Before we move to the next questions …..So, we have
spent most of our time talking about …. Now I would like to change gears a little bit and ask
about …. Before I ask you about the next question, is there anything else you would like to
add ….
ii. Probing Statements/Questions (it is a good idea to pre-manufacture some potentially
helpful probing statements/questions):
That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about …
I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean by …
I am wondering how you were feeling in that moment?
It would be great if you could walk me though
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 156
Teacher Survey
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 157
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 158
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 159
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 160
Student Survey
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 161
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 162
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 163
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 164
Principal Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
THE ROLE OF ENGAGEMENT ON LEARNING
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to identify what programs, processes, and practices influence
student engagement in a high performing urban school.
This study will add to the existing literature by specifically examining the programs,
processes, and practices that are perceived to contribute to student engagement in an high-
performing urban school. This study aims to make this information accessible to educators to
support them in implementing similar strategies and practices that can improve pedagogical
decisions and interventions within their schools.
Your participation is voluntary. Your relationship with USC and/or your school/district will
not be affected, whether or not you participate in this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
NO SURVEYS OR INTERIVEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING SCHOOL HOURS
Researchers will be looking at how programs, processes, and practices influence student
engagement in the school. Researchers will specifically look at how school and classroom
structures affect behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement and the impact on
teaching and learning which have assisted your school in flourishing in the area student
achievement.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 64-question survey. The survey is
anticipated to take 20 minutes to complete.
You may also be asked to participate in an interview; the interview may be audio-recorded
with your permission and is anticipated to take 30 minutes of your time.
The data collected will be shared with school and the district.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 165
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential
and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California ’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data will be coded with a false name or pseudonym; identifiable information will be kept
separately from your responses.
The data will be stored on password-protected computers and held for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric J. Maxey
emaxey@usc.edu
818-618-5303
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702 (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
I agree to participate in the study
Name ____________________________________________________________
Date______________________________________________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 166
University of Southern California
PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
Student Engagement in Outperforming Urban Schools
Focus Group Parent Permission Form
Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Eric Maxey, from the
University of Southern California. Your child ’s participation is voluntary. You should read
the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand before
deciding whether to allow your child to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be
asked his/her permission. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow
participation. You and/or your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or
friends. If you and/or your child decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
You will be given a copy of this form.
FOUCS GROUP
A focus group is defined as a group of interacting individuals having some common
interest or characteristics, brought together by a moderator, who uses the group and its
interaction as a way to gain information about a specific or focused issue.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To examine the role of engagement in student achievement in high-performing urban schools.
Your child ’s school has been chosen based on its academic merit.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, he/she will be asked to:
● Take part in a Focus Group which will last approximately 45 to 60 minutes. (The
focus group will be conducted during lunch, before school or after school, as not
to interrupt instructional time.)
● The Focus Group will not take place during school hours
● The results of the study will be shared with the school and Troy USD
● Your child will be audio recorded during his/her participation in the Focus Group.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 167
What are the risks involved in this study?
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study.
What are the possible benefits of this study?
Your child will receive no direct benefit from participating in this study; however, her/his
participation will help us understand the possible benefits of student engagement and
provide valuable information for other schools and districts as they implement strategies
designed to increase student engagement.
Does my child have to participate?
No, your child ’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your child may decline to
participate or to withdraw from participation at any time. You can agree to allow your
child to be in the study now and change your mind later.
What if my child does not want to participate?
In addition to your permission, your child must agree to participate in the study. If you
child does not want to participate they will not be included in the study and there will be
no penalty. If your child initially agrees to be in the study they can change their mind
later without any penalty.
Will there be any compensation?
Neither you nor your child will receive any type of payment participating in this study.
How will your child ’s privacy and confidentiality be protected if s/he participates
in this research study?
Your child ’s privacy and the confidentiality of his/her data will be protected. The
researcher will not be using real names of students or of the school. All materials will
be held by the researcher and will be guided by the University of Southern California ’s
privacy policy. If it becomes necessary for the Institutional Review Board to review the
study records, information that can be linked to your child will be protected to the extent
permitted by law. Your child ’s research records will not be released without your
consent unless required by law or a court order. The data resulting from your child ’s
participation may be made available to other researchers in the future for research
purposes not detailed within this consent form. In these cases, the data will contain no
identifying information that could associate it with your child, or with your child ’s
participation in any study.
If you choose to participate in this study, your child will be audio recorded. Any
recordings will be stored securely and only the research team will have access to the
recordings. Recordings will be kept for one year and then erased.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 168
Whom to contact with questions about the study?
Prior, during or after your participation you can contact the researcher Eric Maxey at 818-
618-5303 or send an email to emaxey@USC.edu for any questions or if you feel that you
have been harmed. This study has been reviewed and approved by The University
Institutional Review Board.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you or your child have questions, concerns, complaints about your child ’s rights as a
research participant or the research in general and are unable to contact the research
team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact
the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)/LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to allow my child
participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
AUDIO
□ I agree for my child to be audio recorded.
□ I do not want my child to be audio recorded.
Name of Child _______________________________________________________
Name of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative __________________________
Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative_______________________
Date________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 169
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s)/Legally Authorized
Representative, and answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s)
understand the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent _________________________________________
Date_______________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 170
University of Southern California
YOUTH ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Student Engagement in Outperforming Urban Schools
Student Focus Group Assent Form
You are invited to be a part of research study conducted by Eric Maxey and the
University of Southern California.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
I am doing a study on successful schools. Students at this school usually do well in their
class(es). I am trying to find out what the teachers and students at this school are doing
differently. I want to find out what makes you excited about school and what kinds of
activities keep your interest.
If you agree to be in my study, you will take part in a focus group session. I will invite 6-
8 students to meet together to discuss their experiences about school. The discussion
topics will include what you enjoy about school, if you are a part of any clubs, and what
makes you proud of your school.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to:
● Take part in a Focus Group which will last approximately 45-60 minutes. (The
focus group will be conducted during lunch, before school or after school, as not
to interrupt instructional time.)
● The Focus Group will not take place during school hours
● The results of the study will be shared with the school and Troy USD
● You will be audio recorded during your participation in the Focus Group.
You can ask questions about the Focus Group at any time. If you decide at any time
during your Focus Group participation that you would like to stop, you can ask me to stop.
The questions I will ask are only about what you think. There are no right or wrong
answers because this is not a test.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 171
Data from this study may be used by others in the future, but your name will not be
associated with the research.
If you sign this paper, it means that you have read this and that you want to be in the
Focus Group. If you don ’t want to be in the study, don ’t sign this paper. Being in the study
is up to you, and no one will be upset if you don ’t sign this paper or if you change your
mind later.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of Participant_______________________________________________
Signature of Participant _________________________ Date ______________________
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that the participant understands the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent _________________________________________
Date_______________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 172
University of Southern California
PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
Student Engagement in Outperforming Urban Schools
SURVEY
Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Eric Maxey, from the
University of Southern California. Your child ’s participation is voluntary. You should read
the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand before
deciding whether to allow your child to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be
asked his/her permission. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow
participation. You and/or your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or
friends. If you and/or your child decide to participate, you will both be asked to sign this
form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To examine the role of engagement in student achievement in high-performing urban schools.
Your child ’s school has been chosen based on its academic merit.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, he/she will be asked to:
• Take an online survey (no surveys will be conducted during school hours)
• Students may take the online survey, on a home computer, at the library, or at
the schools computer lab during lunch, break, or after school.
• The survey is expected to take between ten and twenty minutes
• The results of this survey will be shared with school and Troy USD
What are the risks involved in this study?
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study.
What are the possible benefits of this study?
Your child will receive no direct benefit from participating in this study; however, her/his
participation will help us understand the possible benefits of student engagement and
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 173
provide valuable information for other schools and districts as they implement strategies
designed to increase student engagement.
Does my child have to participate?
No, your child ’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your child may decline to
participate or to withdraw from participation at any time. You can agree to allow your
child to be in the study now and change your mind later.
What if my child does not want to participate?
In addition to your permission, your child must agree to participate in the study. If you
child does not want to participate they will not be included in the study and there will be
no penalty. If your child initially agrees to be in the study they can change their mind
later without any penalty.
Will there be any compensation?
Neither you nor your child will receive any type of payment participating in this study.
How will your child ’s privacy and confidentiality be protected if s/he participates
in this research study?
Your child ’s privacy and the confidentiality of his/her data will be protected. The
researcher will not be using real names of students or of the school. All materials will
be held by the researcher and will be guided by the University of Southern California ’s
privacy policy. If it becomes necessary for the Institutional Review Board to review the
study records, information that can be linked to your child will be protected to the extent
permitted by law. Your child ’s research records will not be released without your
consent unless required by law or a court order. The data resulting from your child ’s
participation may be made available to other researchers in the future for research
purposes not detailed within this consent form. In these cases, the data will contain no
identifying information that could associate it with your child, or with your child ’s
participation in any study.
Whom to contact with questions about the study?
Prior, during or after your participation you can contact the researcher Eric Maxey at 818-
618-5303 or send an email to emaxey@USC.edu for any questions or if you feel that you
have been harmed. This study has been reviewed and approved by The University
Institutional Review Board.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you or your child
have questions, concerns, complaints about your child ’s rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 174
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA
90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)/LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to allow my child
participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of the Child____________________________________________________
Name of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative __________________________
Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative_______________________
Date________________________
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s)/Legally Authorized
Representative, and answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s)
understand the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent _________________________________________
Date_______________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 175
University of Southern California
YOUTH ASSENT PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
Student Engagement in Outperforming Urban Schools
SURVEY
You are invited to be a part of research study conducted by Eric Maxey and the University
of Southern California.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
I am doing a study on successful schools. Student at this school usually do well in their
class(es). I am trying to find out what the teachers and students at this school are doing
differently. I want to find out what makes you excited about school and what kinds of
activities keep your interest.
If you agree to be in my study, you will take a survey about things that happen in school.
I want to know what you think. For example, do you like working with other students in
groups, or do you like working on your own?
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to:
• Take an online survey (no surveys will be conducted during school hours)
• Students may take the online survey, on a home computer, at the library, or at
the schools computer lab during lunch, break, or after school.
• The survey is expected to take between ten and twenty minutes
• The results of the survey will be shared with the school and Troy USD
You can stop the survey at any time. The questions on the survey are about what you
think. There are no right or wrong answers because this is not a test.
If you sign this paper, it means that you have read this and that you want to be in the
study. If you don ’t want to be in the study, don ’t sign this paper. Being in the study is up
to you, and no one will be upset if you don ’t sign this paper or if you change your mind
later.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 176
Data from this study may be used by others in the future, but your name will not be
associated with the research.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of Participant_______________________________________________
Signature of Participant _________________________ Date ______________________
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of their questions. I
believe that the participant understands the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent _________________________________________
Date_______________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 177
Teacher Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
THE ROLE OF ENGAGEMENT ON TEACHER AND LEARNING
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to identify what programs, processes, and practices influence
student engagement in a high performing urban school.
This study will add to the existing literature by specifically examining the programs,
processes, and practices that are perceived to contribute to student engagement in an out-
performing urban school. This study aims to make this information accessible to educators to
support them in implementing similar strategies and practices that can improve pedagogical
decisions and interventions within their schools.
Your participation is voluntary. Your relationship with USC and/or your school/district will
not be affected, whether or not you participate in this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
NO SURVEYS OR INTERIVEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING SCHOOL HOURS
Researchers will be looking at how programs, processes, and practices influence student
engagement in the school. Researchers will specifically look at how school and classroom
structures affect behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement and the impact on
teaching and learning which have assisted your school in flourishing in the area student
achievement.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 64-question survey. The survey is
anticipated to take 20 minutes to complete.
You may also be asked to participate in an interview; the interview may be audio-recorded
with your permission and is anticipated to take 30 minutes of your time.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 178
The data collected will be shared with school and the district.
The principal, has granted the researcher permission to observe, the general school
environment, classroom instruction, staff meetings, and leadership meetings.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential
and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California ’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data will be coded with a false name or pseudonym; identifiable information will be kept
separately from your responses.
The data will be stored on password-protected computers and held for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric J. Maxey
emaxey@usc.edu
818-618-5303
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702 (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
I agree to participate in the study
Name ____________________________________________________________
Date______________________________________________________________
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 179
Document review protocol
DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
Research Question Potential Document Review Sources
RQ1: To what extent are the indicators of
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
present in a high performing urban school?
Lesson plans
School plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
Master calendar
Daily schedule
Mission statement
School plan
SARC (school accountability report card)
Curriculum guide
Student handbook
Staff handbook
LEA plan (Local education agency plan)
School site council minutes
School website
WASC (Western association of school and colleges)
accreditation
Linked Learning certification review
Departmental meeting notes/agenda
Student work/portfolio
District budget/fiscal year
Grant
Personnel
Leadership team meeting notes
Attendance rates
Dropout rates
Graduation rates
Discipline records
List of clubs/orgs
Faculty meeting notes
CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam)
SBAC (Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium)
California Healthy Kids Survey
School Ranking Report (greatschools.com)
A-G completion rates
Free and reduced lunch program
CDE (California Department of Education)
Linked Learning Certification Review
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 180
Research Question Potential Document Review Sources
RQ2: What school programs, processes, and
practices are perceived to contribute to student
engagement?
Lesson plans
School plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
Master calendar
Daily schedule
Mission statement
School plan
SARC (school accountability report card)
Curriculum guide
Student handbook
Staff handbook
LEA plan (Local education agency plan)
School site council minutes
School website
WASC (Western association of school and colleges)
accreditation
Linked Learning certification review
Departmental meeting notes/agenda
Student work/portfolio
District budget/fiscal year
Grant
Personnel
Leadership team meeting notes
Attendance rates
Dropout rates
Graduation rates
Discipline records
Academy brochure
List of clubs/orgs
Faculty meeting notes
CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam)
SBAC (Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium)
California Healthy Kids Survey
A-G completion rates
CDE (California Department of Education)
Linked Learning Certification Review
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OUTPERFORMING SCHOOLS 181
Research Question Potential Document Review Sources
RQ3: What are the unique elements within the X
school structure that support student engagement?
Lesson plans
School plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
Master calendar
Daily schedule
Mission statement
School plan
Student handbook
Staff handbook
LEA plan (Local education agency plan)
School site council minutes
School website
WASC (Western association of school and colleges)
accreditation
Linked Learning certification review
Departmental meeting notes/agenda
Student work/portfolio
District budget/fiscal year
Grant
Personnel
Leadership team meeting notes
Academy brochure
List of clubs/orgs
Faculty meeting notes
Linked Learning Certification Review
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study utilized a conceptual framework derived from the literature to understand the impact of student engagement on academic achievement. The purpose of the study was to determine how perceived student engagement factors contribute to success in a high performing urban elementary school. This study set out to answer four specific research questions: (1) To what extent are the indicators of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement present in a high-performing urban school? (2) What school programs, processes and practices are perceived to contribute to student engagement? (3) What are the unique elements within the school structure that support student engagement? (4) To what extent do students perceive being in a state of flow during the school day? The case study focused on a high performing school in the greater Los Angeles area. Wonderful Elementary School was selected for the study because it met the following criteria: (1) had an Academic Performance Index (API) score of 820 or higher (2) was ranked one or more points higher on the similar school ranking versus the statewide ranking (3) had a free and reduced lunch participation of 65% or higher (4) the school was at or near the state average for the English Learner population of 22.3% (5) was identified by the California Office to Reform Education as a high-progress school. Through the use of a qualitative mixed methods approach, data from the document analysis, surveys, observations, interviews, and the focus group were triangulated to ensure validity and reliability. This study reveals that engagement is an important component in learning and that schools should take steps to ensure that behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement strategies are being utilized with students. The emerging themes in the research indicate that engagement and ultimately academic achievement are influenced by the following: leadership, support and accountability, data driven instruction, relationships, programs, and teaching strategies.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Student engagement in an outperforming urban school as measured through cognitive, behavioral, and emotional indicators
PDF
The role of student engagement in a certified Linked Learning school
PDF
A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school
PDF
A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school
PDF
A case study of factors related to an outperforming urban charter high school
PDF
Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban school making a difference
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study
PDF
Outperformance in a nontraditional urban elementary school: a case study
PDF
A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools
PDF
Model of excellence: a qualitative case study of an outperforming magnet middle school
PDF
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Against all odds: a case study of an outperforming nontraditional urban charter school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Maxey, Eric Joseph
(author)
Core Title
The role of student engagement in outperforming schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/27/2017
Defense Date
03/14/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
data,engagement,high performing,leadership,magnet schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,out performing,programs,Relationships,support and accountability,systems,teaching strategies
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Ott, Maria (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
emaxey@usc.edu,emaxey6191@me.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-369316
Unique identifier
UC11256213
Identifier
etd-MaxeyEricJ-5284.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-369316 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MaxeyEricJ-5284.pdf
Dmrecord
369316
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Maxey, Eric Joseph
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
data
high performing
magnet schools
out performing
programs
support and accountability
systems
teaching strategies