University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Measurement of school connectedness (MOSC): modified connectedness questionnaire for secondary schools.

(USC Thesis Other)

Measurement of school connectedness (MOSC): modified connectedness questionnaire for secondary schools.

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MEASUREMENT OF SCHOOL CONECTEDNESS (MOSC)

MODIFIED CONNECTEDNESS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

by

Irina Sugar

________________________________________________________________________

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 2012

Copyright 2012 Irina Sugar
ii

EPIGRAPH
To be effective, school must concentrate on their fundamental mission of teaching and
learning. And they must do it for all children. That must be the overarching goal of
schools in the twenty-first century.
(Ravitch, 2000, p. 467)

iii

DEDICATION

For my husband Jeff, who is my strongest supporter, for his love and patience; for
my sons, Artem and Sergey, for their encouragement; for my parents, Galina and Boris,
for their unwavering belief in me.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, my committee members, Dr.
Dennis Hocevar, Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. Alan Green. I am very thankful for your
support and guidance during this process. I also thank my husband, Dr. Jeff Sugar, Laura
Travnitz, PSW, Dr. Carol Goodenow and all other friends and colleagues who advised
me and helped with development of the MOSC.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Epigraph ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter1.Introduction 1
Nature of the problem. Barriers to learning in Contemporary Urban Schools 1
Definitions 2
Conceptual framework and rationale 3
Research purpose 5
Limitations, assumptions, and design control 5
Summary. Significance of the study 6

Chapter 2. Literature review 7
Organization of Literature Review 7
Sources Searched 7
Factors that influence student academic achievement 8
Review of motivational theories in a framework of relatedness 10
Factors in school organization that contribute to building connectedness and
enhancing students’ academic and social outcome 18
Summary 23

Chapter 3. Research Design and Methodology 25
Methodology overview 25
Research questions 25
Criteria for selection 26
Sample and Population 26
Measurement tools 27
Data collection procedure 29
Measures 29
Data analysis procedure 30

Chapter 4. Results 31
Analysis of data 31
Summary 37

Chapter 5. Discussion 39
A comparison of emergent themes from the literature and the data collection 39
vi

Reliability and discriminant validity of connectedness factors 42
Correlation with GPA 42
Correlation with gender 43
Correlation with grade levels 43
Correlation between students’ and adults’ connectedness 45
Limitations and assumptions of the research 46
Conclusion and Recommendations 47
Areas of future research 48

References 51

Appendices
Appendix A. Motivational Theories in a Connectedness Framework 56
Appendix B. Students Connectedness Questionnaire 57
Appendix C. Staff Connectedness Questionnaire 58
Appendix D. Rotated Component Matrix 60
Appendix E. Reliability Statistics 61
Appendix F. Discriminant Validity Statistics 65
Appendix G. Correlation with GPA 66
Appendix H. Correlation with Gender and Grade 67
Appendix I. Correlation between Student and Adult Connectedness 75
Appendix J. Difference in Mean Values between Student and
Adult Connectedness 76
Appendix K. MOSC. Final Version 77

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gender Effects 35

Table 2: Grade Effects 35

Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix 60

Table 4: Reliability Statistics 61

Table 5: Discriminant Validity. Pearson Correlations 65

Table 6: Correlations with GPA 66

Table 7: Correlation of Connectedness with Gender and Grade levels.
Variable: Communication 67

Table 8: Correlation of Connectedness with Gender and Grade levels.
Variable: Belonging 69

Table 9: Correlation of Connectedness with Gender and Grade levels.
Variable: Liked by Students 71

Table 10: Correlation of Connectedness with Gender and Grade levels.
Variable: Liked by Adults 73

Table 11: Correlations between Student and Adult Connectedness 75

Table 12: Difference between Student and Adult Connectedness 76

Table 13: MOSC Final Version 77
viii

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to design and test a questionnaire that measures
perceived connectedness in secondary schools. The Measurement of School
Connectedness (MOSC) questionnaire, a modified version of the Psychological Sense of
School Membership (PSSM) scale (Goodenow, 1992; Goodenow, 1993), was distributed
in an urban high school with student population of 1340. A parallel questionnaire was
distributed to the faculty and staff of the same school.
Extant literature does not have a comparable study of adult connectedness in
school communities. Most of the studies are limited to measuring students’ perceptions of
belonging to a school. However, teachers, administrators, counselors, social workers,
maintenance staff and other support personnel considerably influence the general school
atmosphere and its operational structures. Therefore, it would be logical to consider the
perceptions of the adults working at a school as well. The results of this study provide
new direction in evaluating school connectedness that allows a more comprehensive view
including the perceptions of all participants.
Due to the novelty of this approach, the research findings pose more questions
than give answers. For example, the mean values of adults’ connectedness were
substantially lower than students’ values across all four factors. Would that be a normal
pattern or does it indicate a potential problem with adults’ morale that needs to be
addressed?
An exploratory factor analysis confirmed four constructs of connectedness
extracted from literature: being liked by students (connected with students), belonging,
communication, and being liked by teachers (connected with teachers). As a result, these
ix

four constructs were used in the final version of the MOSC, which contains 24 questions.
Cronbach’s Alpha and Pearson correlations support the reliability and discriminant
validity of each construct.
To investigate construct validity, connectedness was correlated with GPA, grade
level and gender. Student versus teacher differences were also considered. Results
showed a significant correlation between connectedness and grades in the liked by
students and belonging factors. There were no significant differences found in perceived
connectedness related to grade in communication and liked by teachers constructs.
Students in earlier grades demonstrated higher mean value of connectedness with a
steady decrease in values reported by their more senior peers in constructs of being liked
by students and in belonging. In constructs of being liked by teachers and in
communication, the decrease in connectedness was observed in grades from 9
th
through
11
th
, with a slight raise in mean values in 12
th
grade. There was no significant correlation
found between gender and the four connectedness factors.
The MOSC could be used to measure perceived connectedness in both students
and adults in schools. The construct of connectedness has gained acceptance in the
literature as a significant factor that influences students’ achievement. Therefore, a
measure of connectedness could be used to indicate the effectiveness of school reform
policies designed to build supportive and nurturing learning environments.
Keywords: connectedness, measurement, belonging, motivation, achievement, school,
reform.
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Nature of a Problem. Barriers to Learning in Contemporary Urban Schools.
Contemporary job market demands educated workers. Everyone seems to agree
that quality of education in the United States today is not satisfying this demand. Our
schools struggle through endless educational reforms without visible improvement. Why
doesn’t it work? Could it be possible that reforms are focused on the wrong target?
Traditionally, calls for school reform aim for increase in academic performance
through strengthening discipline, improving quality of instruction, and enlisting parental
support. However, today’s schools in the United States face more challenges that they
ever had before. The difficulties include increasingly multicultural and multilingual
student population, widening social and economic disparities, and student body with
diverse abilities and motivation. Greenberg et al. (2003) note that large numbers of
students with mental health problems and deficits in social-emotional competence have
difficulty learning or disrupt the educational experiences of their peers (Benson, Scales,
Leffert, & Roehlkepartain, 1999). Approximately 20% of young people experience
mental health problems during the course of a year, yet 75% to 80% of these do not
receive appropriate intervention (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999).
According to other sources, between 12% and 22% of all children are described as
suffering from a diagnosable mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder, with relatively
few receiving mental health services (Costello, 1989; Hoagwood, 1995). In poor families,
situation could be even worse due to difficult family situations, immigration, limited
health care, limited English language skills, and violent neighborhoods (Adelman &
Taylor, 1998).
2

There is no doubt that schools need to address social and emotional barriers to
learning in order to be able to focus on academic issues. Unfortunately, mental health
support services in schools, established by the No Child Left Behind Act, are poorly
coordinated, fragmented, and occasionally overlap, causing confusion and unnecessary
overspending (Adelman & Taylor, 2002). School-based mental health and socio-
psychological services are often seen as supplementary to the main job of education:
increasing academic scores. As a result, academic staff and support services are
disconnected and work in isolation from each other. Such marginalization, in addition to
fragmented services, greatly undermines effectiveness of intervention and addressing
barriers to learning (Adelman & Taylor, 2002).
An idea that addressing basic psychological needs, in accordance to Maslow’s
hierarchy, before expecting students’ to get better grades is surprisingly new and
therefore still undeveloped. One of the approaches in recent academic research advocates
creating school models that are built on an idea of connectedness. The goal would be to
create learning communities where students, teachers, administrators, and mental health
service providers collaborate and connect to each other.
Definitions
This research accepts understanding that a community exists when its members
experience connectedness, sense of belonging or personal relatedness through shared
values, ideas and goals. According to Waters, Cross, and Runions (2009), the most
widely accepted definition of connectedness to school to date is the Wingspread
Declaration, which states that school connection is “the belief by students that adults in
the school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals” (p. 517). In
3

addition to feeling that adults “care”, it should be noted that students also include peers in
a circle of significant others whose opinion matters.
In education and health literature, definition of “connectedness” is not uniformed.
Several other terms overlap or are used interchangeably, but generally deal with the same
concept: psychological experiences. Depending on a field of study, the variations of this
term include “belongingness”, “acceptance”, “sense of community”, “school climate”,
“school bonding”, “relatedness”, “school attachment”, “teacher support”, and
“membership”. The psychological concept of “relatedness” also applies to the same
concept. Unless otherwise noted, terms “community”, “connectedness”, “belonging” and
“relatedness” are used interchangeably in this study. For example, in a definition offered
by McMillan and Chavis (1986) sense of community is “a feeling that members have of
belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared
faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 9).
Conceptual Framework and Rationale
Osterman (2000) summarizes voices of many other researchers in a quote stating
that “one of the most fundamental reforms needed in secondary or high school education
is to make school into better communities of caring and support for young people”
(Hargreaves, Earl, & Ryan, 1996). There is overwhelming evidence that school
environment and sense of belonging influence students learning outcome (Klem &
Connell, 2004; Loukas et al., 2006; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Catalano et al., 2004;
Libbey, 2004; Roeser et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., 2003).
Mission of building schools as communities that support all aspects of students’
development is addressed by a growing number of programs and innovations that attempt
4

to eliminate barriers to students’ learning. However, the current impact of these initiatives
is limited because of insufficient coordination among the components of school
community and limited mechanisms for implementation and evaluation of these
collaborative programs. Research on school reform struggles to identify key factors of
school organization that contribute to creating supportive learning environment and
feeling of connectedness for all members of a school community.
Due to differences in terminology, conceptual definitions, job descriptions, and
performance goals in the fields of education, psychology, sociology and mental health, it
is hard to find a common ground for all members of the school community that includes
professionals from each of the mentioned above fields. This research proposes an
overview of several theories from the fields of educational psychology and sociology in a
framework of connectedness, attempting to show how this concept of connectedness, in
other sources called relatedness or belonging, explains effect of school environment on
students’ behavioral and academic outcome (appendix A). Thus, first task of this study is
to establishing common terminology and understanding of a concept of connectedness
enhances communication among members of developing school communities.
Second task is related to limited number of tools to measure perceived
connectedness among students and staff. These tools might help with evaluation of
existing and proposed programs designed to improve connectedness. Call for
accountability in education directly related to the growing need for reliable measurement
instruments that enable fair and effective evaluation process. In this study, the researcher
designs and field tests a questionnaire to measure perceived connectedness among
students and adults in a secondary school.
5

To design a tool to measure the construct of connectedness in this study, the
researcher modified existing scale called the Psychological Sense of School Membership
(PSSM) (Goodenow, 1993, Nichols, 2006). The following existing instruments from
previous research were also reviewed: the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent
Connectedness (Karcher, 2005), the Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002), and the
Collaboration Progress Checklist (Borden &Perkins, 2002).
Research Purpose
The purpose of this research is to design and test an instrument to measure
connectedness in urban secondary schools. The main purpose of this study is to determine
validity and reliability of the proposed modified questionnaire for measurement of school
connectedness (MOSC).
This study provides an overview of several motivational theories in a framework
of connectedness with attempt to clarify a definition of connectedness as it is used in
fields of education, psychology, sociology and mental health. Currently, this construct is
described by different terms in different fields of social sciences, which confines
effective communication among researchers and practitioners.
Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Control
Limitations of the study lie in a limited sample base for research due to the
novelty of the field. There are only few studies that measure connectedness in K-12
schools. The idea of building connectedness among faculty and students is also new.
Therefore, it is difficult to find urban secondary schools that are working in that direction
and are willing to measure this new construct.
6

The study assumes that sample used is representative of urban adolescent
population with multiracial, multi-linguistic, and multicultural student body, diverse
economic backgrounds, and various levels of previous academic experiences.
Summary. Significance of the Study
Growing complexity and intensity of social-emotional barriers to learning
represent new set of challenges for contemporary educators, social workers,
psychologists, and health professionals. There are increasing concerns about quality of
academic, health, and social outcomes for the young generation of American students.
These new challenges demand new solutions and approaches to a long awaited school
reform. Vision of school that is based on the idea of connectedness gains support across
all fields of social sciences.
Accountability comes with a strong demand for effective and efficient K-12
education. There is a clear need for measurement tools that would allow assessment of
the interventions in the field of connectedness. The purpose of this study is to design and
test an instrument that could be used to determine if connectedness exists in a particular
learning community. The study will look for correlation between adults’ and students’
connectedness.
Another significant aspect of the study is a proposed framework that clarifies use
of term connectedness among professionals from several fields of social sciences.
7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Organization of the Literature Review
Literature is organized by three sections. First is a review of factors that influence
students’ academic achievement with emphasis on connectedness or sense of belonging
in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy of psychological needs. Second is a review of
several motivational theories through lens of connectedness as an attempt to clarify use of
this construct across different fields of social sciences. Third section is a review of factors
in school organizations that contribute to building connectedness and enhancing students’
academic and social outcomes. Literature search also contains studies on measurement
tools for connectedness.
Sources Searched
Initially, the following four areas were identified for selection of literature: factors
that influence students’ academic achievement, connectedness and sense of belonging in
traditional schools, building connectedness in distance learning environments, and
measurement of connectedness. The following databases were searched: Google Scholar,
ERIC, JSTOR, PsychInfo, National University Libraries and the University of Southern
California Libraries.
The following keywords were used: measuring connectedness, adolescent
connectedness, factors influence academic achievement, online learning, connectedness
in distance learning, belonging among adolescents, student motivation, hybrid school
models, barriers to learning, urban education, and building school community. Majority
of publications were extracted from the following journals: American Psychologist,
Distance Education, Educational and Child Psychology, Educational Psychologist,
8

Educational Technology Research and Development, The Elementary School Journal,
The Internet and Higher Education, Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Journal of School Health,
Peabody Journal of Education, Psychology in Schools, and Review of Educational
Research. A total of 55 research studies were selected for the review. A time range of
these articles extends from 1970 to 2010.
Review of the Literature: Factors that influence student achievement
What factors influence students’ academic achievement? Researchers and
practitioners are tirelessly looking for answers. Having spent time and resources studying
obvious subjects such as student cognitive abilities, instructional strategies, resources,
and teacher qualification, contemporary educational psychology is becoming more
focused on students as active agents in educational process. A proverb “One can take a
horse to the water, but one can’t make him drink” is applicable to teachers’ experience.
Students need to be motivated to learn.
The examined works of research are drawn from three areas of study: view on
connectedness through various motivational theories, influence of connectedness on
academic achievement, and models of school communities that create sense of belonging
and where all stakeholders experience connectedness.
Acceptance of connectedness as an important factor that influences student
achievement is relatively new. As recent as in late eighties and nineties, most educational
research on academic improvement focused predominantly on quality of instructional
delivery, strategies for maintaining order on school campus, and parents’ support in
homework completion and student motivation (Kagan, 1990; Bear, 1998) Even such
9

extensive works as monograph by Hawley, Rosenholtz, Goodstein, and Hasselbring
(1984), which incorporates results of more than 3000 studies, do not consider addressing
psychological needs of students as a factor in a research-based school reform. This
particular study suggests the following important but not surprising elements of the
school reform: classroom management, interactive teaching methods, school discipline
and students’ self-discipline, high expectations and standards, direct parental
involvement, using students’ scores to guide instruction, and using computers. It is
remarkable that within such a rich body of research there was no space for students’
feelings and internal motivation.
According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, individuals first must fulfill
physiological needs including basic survival elements such as food, air, water, and
shelter. Second are the needs for physical and psychological safety and security. Third
are social needs for friendship, feeling of belonging, and acceptance of the group. The
fourth level is the esteem needs such as self-respect, recognition, self-confidence,
appreciation, competence, and status. The fifth level includes self-actualization needs of
making lasting and significant contribution and maximizing personal potential (Maslow,
2000). Applying this hierarchy to a school situation, one can see that academic
achievement appears only on level four as competence or mastery. Educators must ensure
that prior needs are fulfilled before expecting students to be engaged in learning.
Therefore, students must be healthy, feel safe and secure in their environment, and feel
accepted in a school community as a pre-requisite to their efficient involvement in
academic performance.
10

The role of interpersonal relationships in students’ academic motivation,
engagement, and achievement is hard to dispute. Numerous research findings maintain
that students’ psychological needs for acceptance, support, and belonging are important
in educational setting (Osterman, 2000; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Blum & Libbey, 2004).
However, the definition of connectedness is not clear and similar concepts are used in
different fields of study under different names.
Martin and Dowson (2009) assumed a concept of relationship as an organizing
framework for theories that are concerned with the achievement motivation. Their
framework includes attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, goal theory, self-
determination theory, self-efficacy theory, and self-worth motivational theory. Martin and
Dowson (2009) propose that relationships affect achievement motivation by directly
influencing motivation’s constituent beliefs and emotions. For example, belongingness
creates positive emotions and fulfills social needs on a path to self-esteem and self-
actualization.
Other researchers came to similar conclusions based on a social cognitive theory
perspective on motivation and an extrinsic and intrinsic motivation theory (Osterman,
2000; Schunk, et al., 2008). The studies emphasize the central role of interpersonal
relationships or connectedness in each of these theories.
Review of motivational theories within a framework of connectedness
According to Attribution theory, the perceived causes of an event are influenced
by two sets of factors: environmental and personal. Based on these factors, individuals
attribute their failure or success to certain causes that are categorized by being external or
internal as well as controllable and uncontrollable (Appendix A). The control dimension
11

tends to significantly influence students’ responses to setback, pressure, and fear of
failure (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990). In a school environment, students
gain sense of control from a feedback given by teachers and parents (Weiner, 1986).
Teachers’ feedback is crucial in influencing attribution. Therefore, a teacher or a parent
explicitly attributing students’ success to effort can evoke positive affect and feelings of
pride in the student. On the other hand, a teacher explicitly attributing poor performance
to a lack of ability may evoke negative affect in that student. From a connectedness
perspective, students’ attributions affecting their motivation for academic success are
directly related to their connection with their teachers and parents. Internal attributions
affecting students’ motivation are influenced by their perception of being liked by
teachers and peers as well as by the sense of belonging to school community. Given the
importance of students’ perception of events in Attribution theory, it is suggested that
teachers should attempt to give accuracy feedback to the students, rather than non-
credible feedback designed to encourage them and maintain their self-esteem
(Blumenfeld et al., 1982). Teachers also should foster internal attributions by not
allowing students to blame others for their failures or attribute success to luck.
In a framework of the Expectancy-value theory of motivation, achievement
behavior is predicted by two general components: expectancy and value (Schunk et al.
2008). Expectancy means whether a student believes in his ability to be successful in a
given test. Value refers to importance and cost of a task to this student.
In a situation where students feel connected, teachers can model cognitive and
motivational value and interest in the content of the lesson or unit. They can help students
to increase their expectancy for success by helping to overcome stereotypes. For
12

example, support girls in becoming more confident in science and math through
modeling, inviting guest speakers, and sharing facts about successful women scientists
and mathematicians.
Students’ self-perception of ability or competence in a subject plays an important
role in their motivation and, ultimately, in their performance. Common opinion among
teachers is that competition is the key to motivating students. One should be careful in
applying this assumption in educational setting. Teacher should help students maintain
relatively accurate but high expectations and perception of competence and avoid illusion
of incompetence (Schink et al., 2008). Students develop accurate self-perceptions from
constructive and informative feedback from a teacher and through actual success on
academic tasks. From prospective of the Expectancy-value theory, teachers should foster
the belief that competence or ability is a changeable, controllable aspect of development
and that students are able to learn and achieve academic satisfaction. Therefore, public
display of relative ability information such as ranking students’ performance on a task
and posting it on a bulletin board would be more harmful then motivating for the low
performing students. Teacher can significantly decrease test and performance anxiety in
the classroom and help students feel accepted by reducing social comparison and public
display of test scores.
Goal theory is based on the idea that people have difference needs and goals and
that the search to satisfy these motivates behavior. Recent development in goal theory
propose three groups of goals: performance (to demonstrate superiority), mastery (to
affirm competence) and social goals (social reasons for achievement) (Martin & Dowson,
2009). The goals perceived as being directed towards either approach or avoidance.
13

Regardless of their directionality, goals that students adopt and their effect on motivation
and achievement are related to the influence of others. For example, Martin et al. (2007)
found relationship with teachers had the most impact on students’ mastery and avoidance
goals, and Dowson and McInerney (2003) found that parents may have the most impact
on students’ social goals. Therefore, adopted goals are strongly influenced by
relationships student have with teachers, peers, and parents (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
Goal setting is also supported by effective communication. As an example of
instructional application of this theory, the performance-oriented nature of testing
situations could be refocused on mastery and formative assessment purposes through
discussing tests as opportunities for all students to demonstrate what they have learned
(Schink et al., 2008).
Self-determination theory explicitly emphasizes relatedness as a fundamental
ingredient of motivation (Martin & Dowson, 2009). It proposes that for one to be
motivated and to function at optimal level, a set of psychological needs such as
relatedness, competence, and autonomy must be supported (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Students with strong sense of relatedness or belonging are in a better position to accept a
challenge, establish high expectations, and demonstrate resilience. In school environment
that meets these needs students more likely to function more successfully. Quality
relatedness with parents also predicts quality relatedness with teachers (Ryan et al.,
1994).
Helping students to move from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation is a perpetual
goal of teachers and parents. Intrinsic motivation is engaging in an activity for its own
sake, extrinsic motivation is motivation to engage in activity as a means to an end. There
14

are four extrinsic self-regulatory styles in a process of gradual transition of an individual
from being amotivated to a state of intrinsic motivation: external regulation, introjection,
identification, and integration. This transition is fostered by relatedness and interaction
with the environment represented by teachers, parents, and peers. Teachers and parents
could influence development of intrinsic motivation through providing challenging
activities, provoking curiosity, providing opportunities for control over students’
academic outcomes, and involving learners in fantasy and make believe. They could
provide students with options to choose from and have them consider the consequences
of each choice. Teachers should facilitate students to set goals, periodically evaluate their
progress, and decide if a chance in strategy in necessary (Schunk et al., 2008).
Interest and Affect approach refers to increased interest in contemporary research
in role of emotions and affect in achievement motivation. Interest is defined as “liking
and willful engagement in an activity” (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). There are three most
commonly accepted perspectives on interest: personal interest, situational interest, and
interest as psychological state. Each definition includes affective and cognitive
components of the construct (Krapp, 1999). First perspective, personal interest, is
conceptually related to intrinsic interest mentioned above. It is understood as a personal
trait that is directed toward specific activities or topics. For example, vocational
education and career choice literature is often based on studying person’s interest in a
certain activities domain as potential choice for future career (Schunk et. al., 2008).
Second perspective is focused on characteristics of a task that make this task
interesting for a person. That concept is presented as interestingness that leads to
situational interest. As defined by Krapp et. al. (1992), the situational interest is the
15

psychological state of being interested in the task or activity. In school environment,
situational interest could be triggered by teachers through use of elements of novelty,
surprise, ambiguity, personal importance, etc. However, it is important to remember that
situational interest might be “short lived” if it is not sustained.
Third perspective refers to interest as a psychological state. According to Krapp
et. al. (1992), situational interest represents one of two types of interest as a
psychological state. Another type is actualized individual interest, in which “an
individual personal interest interacts with the interesting environmental features to
produce heightened interest” (Krapp et. al., 1992). For example, student can develop
heightened interest in studying history if teacher is able to trigger and sustain student’s
interest to the subject. Ainley (2006) was able to show through monitoring students’
interest level in the beginning, during, and at the end of the task, that interest needs to be
maintained consistently.
Interest is inseparably related to a psychological construct of affect or positive
activation. Research shows increasing recognition of affect as a variable that significantly
influences interest and motivation in achievement context (Ainley, 2006). From the
connectedness point of view, need for positive activation and sustained interest is
satisfied through supporting interactions and effective communication among students,
teachers, and other members of school community.
Another variable related to personal and situational interest is a concept of self-
worth or self-esteem (Schunk et. al., 2008). According to a Self-worth motivational
theory, students’ self-worth is largely derived through their ability to perform
academically and competitively (Covington, 2002). Not to be confused with a concept of
16

self-efficacy (individual’s perception of his or her competence), self-worth is a more
affective or emotional reaction to the self. In educational environment, students’
perceived self-worth is conditional on achievement. Students evaluate their self-worth in
school based on comments from persons of influence. This evaluation impacts students’
ability to feel confident and empowered. This suggests that relationships affect their self-
worth and then their motivation and achievement. Thus, self-worth theory also could be
conceptualized in relational terms (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
The Social Cognitive theory of motivation proposes three central assumptions.
First, behavior is explained through a triadic reciprocity among environment, personal
factors, and human behavior. Second, the motivation influences both learning and
behavior. Third, learning could be enactive and it could be vicarious.
The interaction between personal factor and person’s behavior could be explained
through self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is person’s perception of his or her abilities to
perform in a specific domain or task (Schunk, et al., 2008). Research demonstrates that
self-efficacy influences achievement behaviors such as persistence, effort, and choice of
task. Students that have low self-efficacy in a field of study would achieve less and
choose easier tasks than students with high self-efficacy. However, receiving good grades
that indicate students’ progress would increase their self-efficacy, which in turn might
lead to a higher achievement behavior.
The social cognitive theory states that human actions could be explained through
interaction among environment, personal factors such as cognition or emotions, and
person’s behavior where all three elements influence each other.
17

Social cognitive theory emphasizes motivation as an influential factor in learning
and behavior. For instance, learning itself is distinguished from performance of
previously learned behavior. Humans don’t demonstrate all behaviors they learn as well
as they don’t necessarily demonstrate behavior immediately after learning. They need to
be motivated to perform. For example, students do not begin solving math problems
unless they are directed by the teacher, even if they know how to do the task. Another
aspect of motivational influences on performance is self-regulation. For example,
students do not talk with each other during class because they understand consequences
for disturbing teacher’s presentation. They are able to refrain from demonstrating an
undesirable behavior.
Learning can occur through enactive learning, which means using person’s own
actions and experiences. “Successful actions are retained; those that lead to failure are
discarded” (Schunk, et al., 2008). However, large part of learning occurs vicariously or
not directly, through observation of models. Vicarious learning can occur by observation
of other people performing tasks as well as by observation of symbolic models or even
print models. Results or consequences of model’s performance inform learners about
usefulness of the behavior. From the view of social cognitive theory, such information
motivates learner rather than reinforces behavior. If learners believe that model’s
behavior leads to success, they more likely will learn from this model.
From this perspective, building connectedness in school community is very
important because when students feel connected to school, they will most likely accept
models of behavior that are established at the school. Students’ sense of belonging to
school is created not just by the fact that school is a place for socializing with their peers.
18

Students perceive that they are part of a school when all school personnel including
administrators, teachers, social workers, counselors, and support staff collaborate in a
friendly, responsive and supportive atmosphere. In a sense, feeling of belonging comes
through vicarious learning from adults that care for each other and for the students.
Consequently, when adults in school feel supported, professionally satisfied, and safe
physically and emotionally, they would contribute to the overall goal of creating
connectedness by modeling support and respect to their colleagues and to students.
A summary of motivational theories in a framework of connectedness is presented in the
Appendix A.
The following factors related to perceived connectedness were extracted from the
behavioral outcome above: 1. sense of belonging, 2. perception of being liked by peers, 3.
perception of being liked by teachers or other adults, 4. effective communication, 5.
feeling of safety, 6. self-confidence, and 7. academic satisfaction. These factors were
selected as constructs for the proposed Measurement of School Connectedness (MOSC)
questionnaire.
Factors in school organization that contribute to building connectedness and
enhancing students’ academic and social outcome
Educational literature agrees on conditions that contribute to students’ academic
success. These conditions include high standards for academic learning and personalized
learning environments. Research indicates that supportive learning environment plays an
important role in increasing students’ motivation, their self-efficacy and their engagement
in educational process (Klem & Connell, 2004). Longitudinal research suggests causal
relationship between school connectedness and decrease in health-risk behavior
19

(McNeely et al., 2002). Focus on interpersonal relationships as a central factor in
academic motivation brings up discussion about the need of change in perspective on
current models of school communities.
Connectedness to school has been linked to increased positive outcomes in
academic achievement and mental health of adolescents (Waters et al., 2009). However,
the question remains: what factors in school organizations consistently contribute to
students’ feeling of belonging? How to make students’ feel “connected”?
Waters, Cross, and Runions (2009) propose a theoretical model that helps with
better understanding of the complex relationship between school environment and
adolescent connectedness. The model has four phases. The first phase defines school
ecology that includes organizational and interpersonal components. For example,
organizational component includes school structure, function, and built environment.
Interpersonal component includes peers, teachers, and family. The second phase focuses
on developing connection to school through autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In
this view, connectedness to school is “the extent to which students feel autonomous yet
supported, competent in all they attempt and related to adults and peers” (Waters et al.,
2009). The third phase represents a person-environment fit, which in the period of
adolescence is characterized by declining need of parent and teacher support and
increasing reliance on friends and peers. In this phase, establishing school environment
that provides adolescents with feeling of respect and appreciation by others is the most
beneficial. Presence of these three phases leads to establishing connectedness within a
school community, which is the purpose of the whole system. The fourth phase
20

represents health and academic outcomes as results of the effective functioning of a
learning community.
The study (Waters at al., 2009) elegantly connects components of school
organization that are associated with improved connectedness, health, and academic
achievement. For example, within the organizational structure, the authors emphasize the
importance of small class size that enables more tailored and supportive environment by
giving an opportunity for each student to connect with a teacher more easily. Small
learning community allows teachers to work more collegially across subjects rather than
by departmentalizing.
The model suggests a specific functional structure of a learning community with
clear, consistent and fair discipline expectations paralleled with high expectations for
individual academic achievement. It is important to note that authors include students as
active agents of their learning through involving them in making decisions and
supporting their autonomy. Other important elements of the functional component
include developmentally appropriate, student-centered teaching practices, increased
parental involvement, and extracurricular activities that enhance teacher-student
relationships.
Similar elements that help build connectedness are supported in several other
research publications. For example, when discussing effective methods for building
connectedness in distance learning, Woods and Ebersole (2003) suggest that
extracurricular activities or personalized discussions appear to be the most effective tool
among several other methods of community building. Other researchers mention
importance of peer influence in establishing sense of belonging to school. Such
21

communication among students does not have to be academically oriented. However,
positive and supportive peer connections enhance motivation and self-efficacy in
academic tasks. That applies to the online communities as well (Zhao et al., 2010). In
order to create social connections students need a place to mix socially and there is no
difference either this mixing happens in a physical space or in a virtual reality (Wheeler,
2005).
Rowe and Stewart (2007) advocate the potential of the whole-school approach on
building school connectedness. The authors illustrate how to build connectedness through
active participation of community members and supportive structures such as school
policies and school physical environment. Their framework of the health promoting
school (HPS) identified this model as contributing to improved academic achievement
and engagement, reducing crime, and protecting health, academic, and social outcomes in
the long term (Rowe & Stewart, 2007).
Creating such versatile school community is possible only with capable, informed
and involved leadership. Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss four conceptual types of
organizational leadership appropriate to different types of organizations. Structural frame
applies to an organization that exists to accomplish an established goal. Roles and
responsibilities of members of such organization are well-defined. Coordination and
control are essential to its effectiveness. Role of a leader in this frame is to establish clear
rules, predictable routines and consistent structures. Human Resource frame exists to
serve members’ needs. In this frame, organization focuses on promoting members’
strengths and both the members and the organization benefit from this supportive
relationship. A leader needs to facilitate individual productivity through fostering human
22

relationships, communication, and motivation. The Political frame serves well when
resources are scarce and opposite interests compete for power within an organization.
Decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiating. Alliances are built and networks are
established often based on personal power. Leadership in this frame requires coalition
building and providing arenas that allow conflicts to surface. Symbolic frame applies
when goals of an organization are uncertain, and when meaning of events is more
important than the events themselves. In a situation when people interpret events
differently, the meaning is hard to define. Therefore, people create a tapestry of symbols,
rituals, and ceremonies that help them to find purpose, support their faith and passion,
and rationalize decision making. (EDUC 524, Power Point).
School as an academic organization might contain elements of several frames,
depending on its goals and structures. On one hand, urban high school has goals to
educate students that require clear rules and expectation for all stakeholders. Thus school
could be placed in the structural frame. However, scarce resources and multitude of
stakeholders’ interests require approaches that would be more suitable for the political
frame. Attention to human resources that promote caring and supporting learning
environment is also impossible to ignore. Additionally, according to Bolman and Deal,
one of characteristic of academic organization is ambiguity of goals. Organizational goals
might not be clear and meaning of events could be interpreted differently by various
stakeholders. For example, adolescent students might not be sure about their goals for
being in school. For them, social aspect of belonging to school could be more appealing
than academic efforts. Teachers, parents, school administration, external constituencies,
and mental health support providers could have their own visions and expectations.
23

Those factors demand from a leader creating and promoting a common vision as well as
being an inspirational force. In this case, the symbolic frame could be utilized.
The symbolic frame offers ways to unite interests of all the team members.
Traditions, mascots, rituals, attractive school buildings and ceremonies that create sense
of unique identity serve the goal. They define for stakeholders who they are and how they
fulfill their need of belonging to their organization. Universities represent great examples
of utilizing such symbolism through use of traditions, regalia, and rituals. Waters et al.
(2009) highlight an importance of well-maintained, architecturally attractive school
building that create pleasant and attractive environment and makes students and other
members of school community feel proud. In a virtual community, feeling of pride of
belonging to school could be achieved through tapping into exclusiveness of the online
community, novelty, and perceived competence in the online skills.
Summary
Extensive body or research in fields of psychology, education, health, and social
sciences indicates that connectedness highly correlates with students’ academic, health,
and social outcomes. The construct of connectedness is clearly represented in numerous
motivational theories. However, the lack of agreed upon terminology impedes
communication and collaboration among field of social sciences. Therefore, an overview
of motivational theories in a framework of connectedness was conducted to provide
better understanding of effects of perceived connectedness on behavioral outcomes. The
overview was also used to facilitate selection of seven constructs used as a base for
creating proposed measurement of school connectedness (MOSC) questionnaire.
24

Theoretical frameworks and practical studies identify factors that contribute to
building connectedness in traditional schools as well as in distance learning. These
factors include small learning communities to allow building close relationships and
improve communication, students-centered teaching practices to support confidence and
academic satisfaction, organizational measures to ensure safe learning environment, and
extracurricular activities that are focused on developing sense of pride of belonging to
this particular school through symbolism.
Current literature provides some evidence of tools designed to measure
connectedness in school communities. However, there are several limitations that need to
be addressed. First, most of the present research is conducted in higher education instead
of K-12 setting. Second, measuring of perceived connectedness seems to be applied only
to students. There is no evidence of measuring adults’ connectedness. There is also no
research that compares perceived adults’ and students’ feeling of belonging in the same
school.
This research presents a measurement tool that can be used in a secondary school
setting. The study determines reliability, content validity, discriminant validity, and
construct validity of the proposed modified questionnaire. The study also attempts to
demonstrate correlation between perceived connectedness among students and among
adults on campus.
25

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Methodology Overview

The goal of this study was to design and test a scale to measure perceived school
connectedness among students and among adults in a secondary school setting. For data
collection, participants completed one survey as a method of data collection for perceived
sense of belonging. The survey was presented online or in paper and pencil format. The
survey consisted students’ and adults’ versions. Both versions contain almost identical
questions, slightly paraphrased to make them appropriate for each audience.
Research questions
The purpose of this study is to design and test an instrument to measure school
connectedness in K-12 schools. The study examines reliability and validity of the
measurement tool.
The study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. Do the factors on the Connectedness Questionnaire correspond to the factors
identified in the research literature?
2. Are the connectedness factors identified in a factor analysis reliable?
3. Are the connectedness factors identified in the factor analysis differentiated
enough to be practically useful?
4. Do the connectedness factors predict Grade Point Average (GPA)?
5. Do the connectedness factors relate to gender and grade level in a way that is
consistent with extant theory and/or research?
6. Is there significant correlation between students’ and adults’ perceived
connectedness at the same school?
26

Criteria for selection
The study is based on data collected from an urban high school in Los Angeles
area. The selected school offers traditional on campus classes and distance learning
classes. All students attend traditional classes on campus, even if they take additional
courses online. Three times a week, students meet with their Advisory teacher for 30
minutes classes assigned by grade level. The advisory classes contain from 15 to 40
students depending on their grade level distribution. Since every student at school attends
advisory classes, and they are not academic classes, it was decided to distribute the
survey through advisory teachers.
Sample and Population
The selected school is an urban senior high school that was first opened a year
prior to the study. Total student enrollment in 2010/ 2011 school year (year of the study)
was 1,340 with 450 students enrolled in 9
th
grade, 540 in 10
th
grade, 230 in 11
th
grade,
and 120 in 12
th
grade. Although students were not asked directly about their ethnicity, the
school population is predominantly Hispanic (64.6%), with 12.5 % White, 12.2% Black,
6.2% Asian and 4.5% other. The majority of students came from low income families,
based on the number of students receiving free and reduced lunches at school (73%).
Student attendance rate in 2009-2010 was 94.24%. Staff attendance rate is
95.5%. The Academic Performance Index (API) for 2010 was 718. According to the CST
results from 2009-2010, 55% of all students scored proficient and advanced in English-
Language Arts, 14% in math, 33% in science, and 31% in history and social studies.
Based on these test results, in 2009-2010, the school has met only 10 out of 18 possible
criteria on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
27

The school consists of four small learning communities. Each of the communities
has one counselor, one assistant principal, and an office clerk. There is also a principal
and central office clerical staff. Support personnel are represented by one full time school
psychologist, a full time nurse, a full time psychiatric social worker who supervises five
intern social workers, a full time attendance (PSA) counselor, a college counselor, a
compensatory funds coordinator, a bilingual coordinator, four special education teachers,
and four special education teacher assistants. There are 56 teachers ranging from 1 to 31
years of experience. Teachers, school administration, counselors, social workers, school
psychologist, and other certificated support personnel participated in this research as
adult subgroup.
Measurement tools
The design of a measurement instrument began with researching available tools
that serve similar purpose. The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale
(Goodenow, 1992; Goodenow, 1993) was used as a base for this instrument. Other scales
and questionnaires used for measuring connectedness in traditional and online settings
were also searched and considered (Karcher, 2005; Rovai, 2002; Borden &Perkins,
2000).
Initially, the questionnaire contained 42 questions combined in seven constructs:
perceived sense of being liked by students (e. g., “Students here are friendly”, “Students
here like me the way I am”), perceived sense of being liked by adults (e. g., “ The
teachers here respect me”, “I feel that teachers want me to succeed”), feeling self-
confident and accepted (e. g., “I feel connected to others”), communication within school
community clear and responsive (e. g., I know who to ask for help when I need it at
28

(name of school)”), professional/ academic experience satisfaction (e. g., “I feel that I
learn a lot at (name of school)”, “I feel that I am given many opportunities to learn”),
school climate and safety (e. g., “I enjoy being at (name of school)”, “I feel safe at (name
of school)”), and sense of pride and belonging (e. g., “I like our school traditions and the
way we do things”, “I feel proud when I tell other people that I am at (name of school)”).
The questionnaire had student and adult versions, each containing almost identical
questions paraphrased to sound appropriately for each audience. To avoid the
development of the “response set”, approximately one-third of the questions were stated
in a negative direction (e. g., “I feel very different from most other students here”, “I feel
it is hard to get help when I have a question”). The items were written in a 4-point Likert
scale format with responses ranging from “strongly agree” (0 points) to “strongly
disagree” (3 points).
The first version of the scale was distributed for review and feedback to several
University professors and practitioners at schools such as teachers, school counselors and
psychiatric social workers. Based on the feedback, it was considered that the scale could
be shortened to 28 questions to eliminate redundant and unclear items. However, the
actually administered questionnaire consisted of all 42 questions to provide maximum
data collection and allow all results to be analyzed for determination of reliability and
validity of the proposed tool.
Data collection procedure
Administration of the school requested the proposed questionnaire to be
administered with intention to use collected data primary for the school accreditation
(WASC) report. To accommodate needs of the accreditation report, additional six
29

questions were included in the questionnaire. These six questions contained information
related to academic instruction at school and were not used for the purpose of this
research. The current study was allowed to use collected materials as secondary data.
Before distributing questionnaire to students, the researcher explained purpose of the
survey during whole school Professional Development meetings. Instructions were given
to Advisory teachers regarding administration procedures for students. Questionnaires
were administered to students by their Advisory teachers. To adults, the questionnaire
was administered via online tool Qualtrics.
Measures
The Measurement of School Connectedness (MOSC) questionnaire was the
primary measure of perceived sense of connectedness at school by students and by adults.
In contrast to questionnaires previously used in literature, MOSC contains a scale for
each of two groups: students and adults. Each of the scales measure perceived sense of
connectedness for members of each group at school as a whole. Students’ and faculty
sense of connectedness is the outcome (dependent) variable in this study. Independent
variables are separated in two subgroups: students’ characteristics (gender, grade level,
GPA) and staff characteristics (gender, years of experience [1-2, 3-5, 6-10, more then
11], position [teacher, administrator, health and mental health professional, other support
personnel]). There were 798 student and 18 adult responses.
Data analysis procedure
Because this study uses modified connectedness questionnaire, exploratory factor
analysis was conducted to ensure that the proposed questions relate to the construct that is
intended to measure. Factor analysis was performed by examining the pattern or
30

correlations between the observed measures. If the test questions measure the same
underlying dimensions, they would be expected to correlate with each other. Variables
that do not correlate with any others were excluded. The correlation matrix for all
variables was created to detect potential problems such as lack or correlation of some
variable with any others or variables with too high correlation. Variables that correlate
too high (extreme multicollinearity) or correlate perfectly (singularity) were avoided
because it is becomes impossible to determine their unique contribution to a factor (Field,
2009). The data has been processed using the SPSS software.

31

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Organization of Data Analysis
Before analyzing data, an exploratory data analysis was completed using descriptive
statistics to examine and correct inconsistencies. Research data analysis began with
looking at the reliability of each constructs and scale trimming, which means eliminating
questions that negatively affect Cronbach’s Alpha in each of the seven originally defined
factors. As a result, there were 33 questions left to work with. Then the factor analysis
was conducted to determine if factors of the questionnaire correspond to the factors
identified in literature. Next, it focused on measuring reliability of the each newly defined
construct. Fourth, it looked into discriminant validity to determine if the connectedness
factors differentiated enough to be practically useful. Fifth, the issues of construct
validity of the questionnaire were addressed including correlation between connectedness
and GPA, influence of gender on perceived connectedness, and difference in students and
teachers perceived connectedness.
Analysis of Data
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Based on literature, the following seven constructs
were identified: perceived sense of being liked by students, self-confidence as feeling of
being accepted in general, easiness and freedom of communication (ability to ask and
receive help when needed), perceived sense of being liked by adults (teachers),
professional or academic satisfaction, feeling of safety at school, and pride of belonging
to the school. Since the questionnaire contained extended modified set of items, it was
important to determine if factors or constructs of the set correspond to the factors
identified in research literature. The initial analysis addressed content validity, which is a
32

measure that implies a consensus judgment of the content that comprises the domain of
the construct. Therefore, checking for content validity of the questionnaire means to look
if all defined domains are well represented in participants’ responses.
By performing exploratory factor analysis, researcher wanted to see if the items
that were written to index each of the mentioned above constructs actually “go together”.
Principal factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying
structure for the 33 items of the Connectedness Questionnaire. There was no specific
number of factors requested to see if the seven identified factors would be confirmed.
After rotation, there were only six well defined components with items clustered into
groups defined by their highest loading. The 1
st
factor accounted for 13.4% of the
variance, the 2
nd
factor accounted for 13.3% of the variance, the 3
rd
factor accounted for
8.5%, the 4
th
factor accounted for 7.4%, the 5
th
factor accounted for 7.3%, and the 6
th

factor accounted for 5.2% of the variance. The items are sorted so that the ones that have
highest loading from factor 1 are listed first, and they are sorted from the one with
highest factor weight (.734) to the lowest (.287) for factor 1. Therefore, only four
constructs were included in the final version of the MOSC: being connected and liked by
students, belonging, communication, and being liked by teachers. See Table 3 (Appendix
D) for Rotated Component Matrix.
Reliability. The next step in data analysis contained determination of reliability of
each newly defined constructs. See Table 4 (Appendix E) for the tables. When two or
more measures, items, or assessments are viewed as measuring the same variable,
reliability of the scale can be assessed. Reliability is used to indicate the extent to which
the different items or measurement are consistent with one another and free of error. To
33

assess whether nine items that were summed to create the “being liked by students’”
score formed a reliable scale, Cronbach’s Alpha was computed. The alpha for nine items
on the liked by students’ scale was .871, which indicates that the items form a scale that
has reasonable internal consistency reliability. Similarly, the alpha for seven items for the
belonging (.878), four items for the communication (.679) and four items for the being
liked by teachers (.749) indicated good internal consistency of these scales.
Discriminant validity. The next task was to determine discriminant validity of the
measurement tool to see if the connectedness factors identified in factor analysis
differentiated enough to be practically useful. Discriminant validity concerns with
discriminating between the constructs and not-the-constructs. The researcher here is
interested in showing dissimilarity with measurement of connectedness. See Table 5
(Appendix F) for the tables. The table provides the descriptive statistics for the four
variables liked by students, communication, belonging, and liked by teachers. A Pearson
correlation was computed to assess correlation among variables. None of the correlations
among four factors are greater than .80. Thus, the discriminant validity is supported.
Table 5 Correlations

communication belonging
Liked by
students
Liked by
teachers
communication Pearson Correlation 1 .543
**
.598
**
.616
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 778 682 776 769
belonging Pearson Correlation .543
**
1 .636
**
.548
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 682 682 681 677
Liked by students Pearson Correlation .598
**
.636
**
1 .582
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 776 681 778 769
Liked by teachers Pearson Correlation .616
**
.548
**
.582
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 769 677 769 773

34

Correlation with GPA. A correlational analysis was conducted to assess whether
the perceived connectedness could predict GPA. To determine if the connectedness
factors defined by the Connectedness Questionnaire predict GPA, Pearson correlation
was computed. See Appendix G for the tables. The results show significant positive
correlation between GPA and student perceived connectedness in the constructs for liked
by students, communication, and liked by teachers, but not for belonging.
Table 6 Correlations

GPA
communication Pearson Correlation .204
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 539
belonging Pearson Correlation .070
Sig. (2-tailed) .130
N 474
Liked by students Pearson Correlation .159
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 540
Liked by teachers Pearson Correlation .203
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 537
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

An analysis of covariance was used to assess whether gender or the grade level of
responders has an effect on perceived connectedness that would be consistent with extant
theory and research. As dependent variables, four subscales were used: liked by students,
communication, belonging, and liked by teachers. See appendix H for the tables.

35

Gender Effects.
Table 1 Dependent variable: Liked by Students

Dependent variable: Communication
Male Female F Sig
1.93 (.59) 1.95 (.54) .990 .320

Dependent variable: Belonging
Male Female F Sig
2.13 (.56) 2.09 (.60) .219 .640

Dependent variable: Liked by Teachers
Male Female F Sig
2.05 (.55) 2.08 (.52) 2.434 .119

Results indicate no significant correlation between genders and perceived connectedness.
Grade Effects.
Table 2 Liked by students
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 F Sig
2.12 (.51) 2.0 (.44) 1.94 (.59) 1.86 (.51) 8.975 .000

Communication
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 F Sig
1.97 (.55) 1.93 (.55) 1.92 (.60) 1.94 (.56) .988 .398

Belonging
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 F Sig
2.19 (.59) 2.14 (.55) 1.99 (.64) 1.86 (.61) 7.657 .000

Liked by Teachers
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 F Sig
2.11 (.53) 2.07 (.49) 1.99 (.64) 2.03 (.52) 3.221 .022

Results show significant correlation between connectedness and grades in the
liked by students construct. There is a steady decrease in the mean value from 9
th
to 12
th

grade (from 2.12 to 1.86). Similarly, significant correlation is shown between grades and
Male Female F Sig
2.05 (.52) 2.05 (.48) .837 .360
36

perceived connectedness in the belonging factor where the mean value decreases from
2.19 in 9
th
grade to 1.86 in the 12
th
grade.
Results indicate that there is no significant difference in perceived connectedness
related to grade of responders in the communication factor. However, slight difference
exists between male and female responses by grade level. While females do not show
differences in the mean among grade levels (1.9), males in grades from 9 through 12 are
inconsistent. For example, in 9
th
grade show the highest value of the mean (2.034), the
1.903 in 12
th
grade, 1.775 in 11
th
grade (lowest) and 1.899 in 10
th
grade. There is no
significant correlation found between connectedness and grade in the liked by teachers
factor as well. However, there is again a difference between male and female mean
values in relation to the liked by teachers scale. While females are consistent with their
mean value throughout grade levels from 9 to 12 (2.065, 2.098, 2.056, 2.059), males
demonstrate higher score in 9
th
grade (2.190) that gradually decreases to 1.784 in 11
th

grade and slightly goes up in the 12
th
grade (1.976).
Effect of adults’ connectedness. To examine differences between teachers and
students perceived connectedness, the T test for independent samples was completed.
Table 11 Group Statistics

students N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
communication student 778 1.9433 .55854 .02002
adult 18 1.4028 .73334 .17285
belonging student 682 2.1020 .59146 .02265
adult 18 1.5159 .66491 .15672
Liked by students student 778 2.0501 .49749 .01784
adult 18 1.4259 .51871 .12226
Liked by teachers student 773 2.0682 .52886 .01902
adult 18 1.5000 .64739 .15259
37

Table 11 shows that teachers’ perceived connectedness was substantially lower than
students’ connectedness. See Appendix I for the tables.
In the liked by students students’ mean value is 2.0501 and teachers’ is 1.4259, in
communication construct students’ mean value is 1.9433 and teachers’ 1.4028, in
belonging students demonstrate 2.1020 when teachers only 1.5159, in the liked by
teachers construct students show mean value of 2.0682 and teachers 1.5000.
Table 12 shows significant difference between students’ and teacher’s perceived
connectedness in each of the four constructs.
Table 12 Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
communication Equal variances assumed 4.028 794 .000 .54056
Equal variances not assumed 3.107 17.459 .006 .54056
belonging Equal variances assumed 4.137 698 .000 .58614
Equal variances not assumed 3.702 17.717 .002 .58614
Liked by students Equal variances assumed 5.258 794 .000 .62422
Equal variances not assumed 5.052 17.731 .000 .62422
Liked by teachers Equal variances assumed 4.482 789 .000 .56824
Equal variances not assumed 3.695 17.532 .002 .56824

Summary
The exploratory factor analysis of the questionnaire indicated four constructs
included in the final version of the MOSC: liked by students, communication, belonging,
and liked by teachers. Each construct was confirmed as a reliable measure of school
connectedness with Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .871 to .679. The discriminant
validity was supported with Pearson correlation well below .80 in each of four factors.
38

When analyzing construct validity, significant positive correlation between GPA
and student perceived connectedness was shown in the constructs for liked by students,
communication, and liked by teachers, but not for belonging. Results of covariance
analysis indicate no significant correlation between genders and perceived connectedness
in any of the four constructs. Results show significant correlation between connectedness
and grades in the liked by students and in the belonging factors. However, there is no
significant difference found in perceived connectedness related to grade of responders
neither in the communication nor in the liked by teachers factors.
The study found significant difference between students’ and teacher’s perceived
connectedness. Surprisingly, teachers’ perceived connectedness was substantially lower
than students’ connectedness.

39

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
Comparison of connectedness factors identified in literature and factors on the
MOSC
In the study, researcher reviewed existing literature on the subject of
connectedness and developed a table of motivational theories within connectedness
framework. The following seven factors were extracted from literature to serve as initial
constructs for the MOSC: 1. perception of being liked by students, 2. perception of being
liked by teachers or other adults at school, 3. pride of belonging to school, 4. effective
communication, 5. feeling of safety, 6. self-confidence, and 7. academic/ professional
satisfaction.
The exploratory factor analysis identified only six factors by clustering questions
by their highest loading. By analyzing questions in defined clusters, the following
constructs were identified based on responses to the questions: 1. Perceived being
connected to others and liked by students, 2. Belonging, 3. Communication, 4. Perceived
being liked by teachers, 5. Academic satisfaction (negative questions), 6. Self-confidence
and feeling accepted (negative questions). Factor 5 was excluded from further analysis
because it contained all negative questions that combined answers across different
domains and seemed mainly representing responders’ confusion due to their difficulties
with interpretation of double-negative questions. For example, answering the following
questions could be confusing: “I feel uncertain about others in this course” or “I feel
isolated in this course”. Factor 6 was excluded from further analysis due to very low
loadings (-.361 to -.253) and inconsistent clustering. Therefore, only four constructs were
included in the final version of the MOSC: 1. Being connected and liked by students
40

(contained 9 questions), 2. Belonging (contained 7 questions), 3. Communication
(contained 4 questions), and 4. Being liked by teachers (contained 4 questions).
Although, the finally selected factors do not reflect all the initially selected
constructs, there are very clear connections with general concept of connectedness
reflected in literature. The first cluster combined two previously identified from literature
constructs: being liked by students and being self-confident. The questions address
feelings of being respected, liked, and connected to others, generally reflecting whether a
positive and friendly atmosphere exists in a school community. The new construct
defines more general feeling of being accepted and psychologically safe in school. A
similar concept is identified in literature as a sense of “psychological membership” that
positively correlates with motivation and engaged effort that students demonstrate as
reciprocal response (Goodenow, 1992).
Sense of belonging or rather pride of belonging is another strongly identified
construct in the MOSC. Questions in this construct relate to mentioned earlier symbolic
frame of organizational factors that contribute to building connectedness (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). Feeling of belonging to a respected group is important for adolescents.
Therefore, belonging to a school that students are proud to tell other about is a powerful
factor (Goodenow, 1992). In this particular example, the subject school combines
features that contribute to this pride of belonging. The school is located in a new,
architecturally unique building, which was admired in media for its spaceship
appearance. Its performing arts orientation and favorable location in proximity to the best
cultural venues of the city adds to the attraction.
41

Clear and effective communication is the third construct that was strongly
supported by factor analysis of the MOSC. It appears important for students and staff to
be able to express themselves, experience appreciation of others, and communicate their
needs. Communication in this sense is not limited to ability to talk to others. This concept
inevitably includes feeling of safety in communication, when participants are not judged
or restricted by fear of failure. Specific factors in school organization mentioned in
literature might contribute to establishing effective communication among members of
school community (Waters et. al., 2009). For example, the subject school is combined of
four small learning communities that provide an opportunity for teachers and staff to
develop closer relationships with students and each other. Students are involved in
making decisions in many aspects of school life from organizing entertainment to
participating in a School Site Council, the highest body of school governing.
Factor of being liked by the teachers emerged as the fourth clear construct in the
MOSC. The importance of teachers’ role in educational environment is supported by
several motivational theories that were analyzed through lens of connectedness (Schunk
et. al., 2008; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ainley, 2006; Covington,
2002; Klem & Connell, 2004; Krapp, 1999). Teachers represent a powerful factor that
influences students internal attributions (attribution theory), models behavior (social
cognitive), raises motivation and self-efficacy (expectancy-value), fosters acceptance,
autonomy, and resilience (self-determination), triggers and maintains interest and affect
(interest and affect), influences goal setting (goal theory), and transforms students
motivation from amotivational state to intrinsic motivation (extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation).
42

In conclusion, the study confirmed factors of connectedness previously identified
in research literature.
Reliability and discriminant validity of connectedness factors identified in the factor
analysis
Cronbach’s Alpha values computed for each of four constructs indicate
reasonable internal consistency of the scales.
Discriminant validity of four factors was supported by moderate Pearson
correlations. Therefore, all connectedness factors identified in the factor analysis
differentiated enough to be practically useful in the questionnaire.
Correlation of connectedness factors with GPA
Literature on the subject indicates that high level of perceived connectedness by
students correlates with high academic achievement as well as generally with higher
learning outcomes (Klem & Connell, 2004; Loukas et al., 2006; Martin & Dowson, 2009;
Catalano et al., 2004; Libbey, 2004; Roeser et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., 2003). This
study’s data analysis demonstrated significant correlations between GPA and students’
connectedness in domains of being liked by students, communication, and being liked by
teachers. There was no significant correlation with the pride of belonging construct.
The results could be explained by looking into content of factors that have
significant correlation with GPA. First three factors reflect students’ perception on being
accepted and supported by others, their sense of psychological membership, self-
confidence, feeling safe in communication of their needs, and feeling of being supported
by teachers in numerous aspects of motivation. All these elements contribute to increase
in students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and their engagement in educational process (Klem
43

& Connell, 2004). Content of the pride of belonging, on another hand, is more related to
social-emotional aspect of connectedness to school and not as directly related to
academic aspect of learning as the other factors.
Correlation between connectedness and gender
Previous studies indicate observed gender differences in the strength of
association between school connectedness and expectancies of academic success
(Goodenow, 1992). It has been noted that adolescent girls perceive interpersonal
relationships more seriously than boys and feeling of connectedness would be more
significant for them. However, results of this study did not reveal significant correlations
between connectedness and gender in any of the four constructs.
Correlation between connectedness factors and grade levels
In this study, the researcher found significant correlation between connectedness
and responders’ grade level in the liked by students and the belonging constructs. In
constructs of being liked by teachers and connectedness, there was no significant
correlation between grades and perceived connectedness. However, the general level of
connectedness for all grade levels at the school is relatively high in all constructs, ranging
from 1.9 to 2.2 in the mean values, with range of possible responses from 0 to 3.
Students in earlier grades demonstrate higher mean value of connectedness with a
steady decrease in the value reported by their more senior peers in constructs of being
liked by students and in belonging. In constructs of being liked by teachers and in
communication, the decrease in connectedness is observed in grades from 9
th
through
11
th
, with a slight raise in mean values in 12
th
grade.
44

The decrease in level of connectedness from freshmen to seniors might be
explained by specific characteristics of the subject school as well as by looking into
similar findings in literature. At the time of research, the subject school has had a very
short history of existence. The year of the study was only second year since school
opening. Therefore, older students did not have enough time to develop strong
connections with the school community. Juniors’ and seniors’ low lever of connectedness
might be also influenced by other reasons. Typically, once students enter high school,
they tend to stay in the same environment close to their peers and their neighborhood
community. The newly opened subject school attracted juniors and senior who probably
valued their interest in performance art that the new school offered more than their social
interactions they left behind. Thus, they might not necessarily considered connectedness
important as much as it would be natural in other circumstances. Review of literature
uncovers similar results of decline in students’ connectedness at other schools. Monahan,
et. al. (2010) discloses that by high school from 40 to 60 percent of students report a
decrease in school connectedness.
On the positive side, connectedness is more valuable for younger students in
general, simply because they are more vulnerable during transition into high school
(Libbey, 2004; Loukas et.al., 2006). In this study, freshmen demonstrated higher level of
connectedness in all constructs when compared to level of connectedness reported by
students in other grade levels. These findings demonstrate that the school is doing a good
job in supporting younger students during their most difficult time of adjustment to new
environment.

45

Correlations between students’ and adults’ perceived connectedness
Although there is limited literature on the difference between students’ and
teachers’ perceived connectedness as well as on teachers’ connectedness effect on
students’ academic outcome, the researcher hypothesized that there is a difference
between teacher connectedness and student connectedness to school.
In the current literature, measuring of perceived connectedness seems to be
applied only to students. There is no extant study of perceived connectedness of adults’.
However, it would be logical to consider the importance of adults’ influence in school.
Teachers’ perception of being connected and supported in school would likely impact
general atmosphere on campus. “Connected” faculty would more likely model
compassion, acceptance, and high expectations.
There are some studies that cross-reference their findings on student self-reported
measures of connectedness by seeking teachers evaluation of students as “connected”,
“popular”, or otherwise (Libbey, 2004). However, this triangulation method does not
seem very reliable because in secondary school settings, even in a small learning
community, teachers work with 150 to 250 students during each semester, which makes it
very difficult to “get to know” each student on a personal level. Teachers have very
limited opportunity to observe socialization among students in non-academic settings
even during school hours. Thus, teacher observation and evaluation of students’ behavior
or social status during class may be significantly different from students’ actual
perceptions of their connectedness in non-academic circumstances.
The study found a significant difference between students’ and teacher’s
perceived connectedness.
46

Troubling results of lower mean values of teachers’ connectedness across all
domains might indicate area of potential concern that should be addressed. These
findings could be explained by the following causes. Since its opening, the subject
school went through a sequence of stressful organizational changes including serious
budgetary cuts, sudden relocations of staff, and abrupt reassignment of a popular
principal. At the end of the second year, faculty and staff were understandably affected
by these events, and it is possible that their frustration was reflected in the responses.
Limitations of the research
The first limitation of the study lies in a small number of responses from faculty
and support staff. Because of the timing of research at the end of school year, many
teachers and school administrators were overwhelmed with organizational and academic
demands, which could explain low participation.
Second, the established correlation between grades, GPA and students’
connectedness does not prove causation. Other unmeasured variable could account for the
correlations. Nor does the difference between teacher and students connectedness prove
causation. However, it is not possible to determine from the existing results if and how
connectedness of adults influence connectedness of students. Could it be a reversed
influence, when students’ perceived sense of belonging to school drives perception of
adults about the school community?
Third, general usability of the measuring tool for connectedness is complicated by
the sample and instruments used. The idea of connectedness has just recently started to
take roots in the educational research literature. Many teachers and administrators still do
not perceive the emotional atmosphere on campus as a factor that significantly influences
47

academic outcomes. Many educators underestimate the effect of motivation on learning
and focus on disciplinary and instructional factors instead. The concept of connectedness
on online classes and in hybrid schools is barely emerging within last few years as well.
Therefore, it is very difficult to find a school community that would be open to allocating
time and resources for this type of research.
The sample used is representative of an urban adolescent population with
multiracial, multi-linguistic, and multicultural student body, diverse economic
backgrounds, and various levels of previous academic experiences. Thus, generalizability
of results is limited to similar samples.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to modify and to test a questionnaire designed to
measure connectedness to school among students and faculty. Its secondary purpose was
to find a link between connectedness and behavioral outcomes through a motivational
theories framework and to explore ways in which building connectedness in schools can
lead to change of focus in educational reform.
An increasing number of research studies in various fields of the medical and
social sciences are coming together in understanding of how the brain works and what
factors are the most important contributors to children’ learning. Students’ motivation
and their psychological state is becoming a center of attention in educational studies.
Therefore, contemporary educators in the United States need to aim their strategies in
school reform towards concentrating on students as agents of their own learning instead
of investing in endless testing and other “success tracking” measures.
48

In a school setting, teachers and administrators should recognize a need for
building collaborative networks of professionals within school communities that would
include educators as well as other service providers. These networks would maximize
outcome of the efforts in addressing psychological and emotional needs of the students
before one can expect youth to reach higher academic results. In addition to
multidisciplinary meetings among counselors, social workers, teachers, psychologists,
and administrators, the faculty should consider interdisciplinary training to facilitate
development of common language and to align resources. Consecutively, applicable
strategies of frames of organization, including symbolic, human resources, political, and
structural, should be established to minimize potential conflicts and expedite the process
of interventions.
The MOSC could serve as a valuable tool for administrators, teachers,
psychologists, social workers, and mental health professionals in a secondary school
setting. With growing understanding of importance of connectedness in many aspects of
adolescent development and education, focusing on creating caring and supporting
environment in schools is crucial.
Areas of future research
Rapid technological progress puts a new spin to the connectedness challenge. Can
connectedness be built via distance learning? Students attending virtual classes
sometimes experience feeling of isolation, distraction, and limited social development
(Abrahamson, 1998; Brown, 1996). It seems that sense of community is even more
difficult to create in online classrooms where students and teachers would never meet in
physical space. Considering the lightning speed of technology’s spilling into everyday
49

life, it is logical to assume that in the nearest future distance learning becomes a common
educational practice and concerns about building connectedness in distance learning need
to be addressed. Although, there are numbers of studies that focus on virtual classes in
postsecondary education (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Woods & Ebersole, 2003; Dreyfus,
2001; DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006), very limited research exists on the subject of
distance learning in K-12 education. Yet, the importance of building community in
distance learning courses is impossible to ignore (Rovai, 2001).
In this sense, community is not necessarily based on physical proximity, but rather
on sharing similar goals, ideas, and social communication. This model is illustrated by
numerous virtual communities or social networks, such as Facebook, My Space, and
others. However, it
seems limiting to rely purely on online classes when planning for variety of
learning experiences. A warm touch of human interaction should not be eliminated.
Therefore, a hybrid school that offers combination of on-campus learning and on-line
classes could be a solution for building an effective educational community that would
benefit from implementation of strategies that promote connectedness.
Measuring connectedness in both traditional and online settings is especially
valuable with growing number of online and hybrid educational organizations.
Limitations of this study lie in a limited sample base for research, since only one
urban school was used. The researcher attempted to expand distribution of the
questionnaire to online and hybrid schools, but it was not possible to collect data within a
time frame allocated for the study. The idea of building connectedness among faculty and
50

students is also new. Therefore, it is difficult to find urban high schools that are working
in that direction and are willing to measure this new construct.
This researcher attempted to use an alternative measure for triangulation of the
results obtained by measuring perceived connectedness. Sociometrical mapping provides
visual representation of data reflecting intricacies of groups’ social connections and
supporting or disproving self-reported statements on connectedness. However, analysis of
the obtained results lied outside the scope of this study and the sociometric data was not
used in this paper.
51

REFERENCES
Abrahamson, C. E. (1998). Issues in interactive communication in distance education.
College Student Journal, 32(1), 33-43.

Adelman, H. S., Taylor, L. (1998). Reframing mental health in schools and expanding
school reform. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 135-152.

Adelman, H. S., Taylor, L. (2002). So you want higher achievement scores? Standard,
3(4), National Association of State Board of Education.

Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest
processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 391-405.
DOI 10.107/s10648-006-9033-0

Bear, G. G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: prevention, correction and
long term social development. Educational and Child Psychology, 15(1), 15-39.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Leffert, N., Roehlkepartain, E. G. (1999). A fragile
foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth.
Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Blum, R. W., Libbey, H. P. (2004). Executive summary. Wingspread declaration on
school connections. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 231-234.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J., & Wessels, K. (1982). The formation and
role of self-perception of ability in the elementary classroom. Elementary School
Journal, 82, 401-420.

Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. Artistry, choice and
leadership. Third Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F. (1999). Assessing your collaboration: A self evaluation
tool. Journal of Extension, Inc. 37 (2) ISSN 1077-5315

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition:
Interdependence of meta-cognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones,
& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 53-92),
Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, K. M. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of \
off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1), 44-71.

52

Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The
importance of bonding from school healthy development: Findings from the
Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-261.

Costello, E. J. (1989). Developments in child psychiatric epidemiology. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 836-841.

Covington, M. V. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: A needs-based
developmental perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation
of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic
psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338.

DiRamio, D., Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating learning communities and distance
education: Possibility or pipedream? Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 99-113.
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-006-9011-y

Dowson, M., McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational
goals? Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 91-113.

Dreyfus, H. (2001). How far is distance learning from education? Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 21(3), 165-174.

EDUC 524 Leadership in Urban Organizations (2009). Bolmas and Deal’s 4 frames.
Power Point presentation. University of Southern California.

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications Inc.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among
adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in
Schools, 30, 79-90.

Goodenow, C. (1992). School motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging among
urban adolescent students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. April 20-24, 1992.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P. & O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J., Frederick, L., Resnik, H.,
Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development
through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American
Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466-474. DOI: 10.1037/003-066X.58.6-7.466

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: reinventing education
for early adolescents. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

53

Hawley, W. D., Rosenholtz, S., Goodstein, H. J., Hasselbring, T. (1984). Good schools:
What research says about improving student achievement. Peabody Journal of
Education, 61(4), 1-173.

Hoagwood, K. (1995). Issues in designing and implementing studies of non-mental health
case sectors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 114-120.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469.

Karcher, M. J. (2005). The Hemingway. Measure of adolescent connectedness. College of
Education and Human Development. San Antonio: The University of Texas.

Klem, A. M., Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to
student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation, and learning: An educational-psychological
perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 23-40.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In
K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The Role of Interest in learning and
development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274-283.

Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., Horton, K. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a
mediator of school climate effects. Journal of research on adolescence, 16(3),
491-502.

Martin, A. J., Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice.
Review of The Educational Research, 79(1), 327-365. DOI:
10.3102/0034654308325583

Martin, A. H., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Green, J., Dowson, M. (2007). Getting
along with teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students’
achievement, motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counseling, 17, 109125.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Third Edition. Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc. New York.

54

Maslow A. H. (2000). Maslow Business Reader. Edited by Deborah C. Stephens. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA/ Canada McMillan, D. W., Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense
of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),
6-23.

McNeely, c. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school
connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146.

Monahan, K. C., Oesterle, S., Hawkins, D. J. (2010). Predictors and consequences of
school connectedness: the case for prevention, The Prevention Researcher, 17(3),
3-6.

Nichols, S. L. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about student belonging in one
middle school. The Elementary School Journal, 106 (3), 255-271.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501486

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.

Ravitch, D. (2000). Left behind: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C. Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in
school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(3), 408-422.

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33-48 ISSN 1042-
1629

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.
The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.

Rovai, A. P., Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A
Comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2)

Rowe, F., Stewart, D. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through whole school
approaches. Health Education, 107(6), 524-542. DOI
10.1108/09654280710827920

55

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to
parents, teachers, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-
esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and
directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education. Theory,
Research, and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, Merril
Prentice Hall.U.S.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A report of the
Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health.

Waters, S. K., Cross, D. S., Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structures
supporting adolescent connectedness to school: A theoretical model. Journal of
School Health, 79(11). 516-524.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A
presence of mind? Featured paper for the TAFE conference, Queensland,
Australia: 11 November, 2005.

Woods, R., Ebersole, S. (2003). Becoming a “Communal Architect” in the online
classroom-integrating cognitive and affecting learning for maximum effect in
web-based learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VI.
State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center.

Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Huang, W. (2010). What makes them happy and curious
online? An empirical study on high school students’ Internet use from a self-
determination theory prospective. Computer and Education 56, 346-356.
www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
56

APPENDIX A
MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES IN A CONNECTEDNESS FRAMEWORK

Theory External Factors Internal Factors Effect of Perceived Connectedness on
Behavioral Outcomes
Attribution Antecedent condition
Environmental factors:
social norms, specific
information, situational
features.
Personal factors: causal
schemas, prior knowledge,
individual differences,
attributional bias.
Perceived causes:
attributions
for ability, effort, luck,
teacher, task difficulty,
mood, health, etc.
Causal Dimensions:
Stability, Locus, Control.
Psychological
Consequences:
self-efficacy, affect,
expectancy for success.
Internal attributions affecting students’
motivation are influenced by their
perception of being liked by teachers,
connected to peers as well as by sense of
pride of belonging to school community.
Expectancy
-Value
Social World:
Cultural milieu
Socializers’ behaviors
Past performances and
events.

Cognitive processes &
Motivational beliefs:
Expectancy and Task
Value.

In school communities where students feel
connected, teachers can influence the
belief that competence or ability is a
changeable, controllable aspect of
development and that students are able to
learn and achieve academic satisfaction.
Goal
Theory
Goal setting is influenced by
others’ values and group
norms

Performance Goals:
demonstrate competence
in
comparison to others.
Mastery Goals: focus on
learning, and mastery
Adopted goals are strongly influenced by
relationships student have with teachers,
peers, and parents. Goal setting is
supported by effective communication.
Self-
Determinat
ion
Environment that supports
feelings of relatedness,
acceptance, and autonomy.
Motivation is fostered by
relatedness, competence,
and autonomy.
Students with strong sense of belonging
are in a better position to accept challenge,
establish high expectations, and
demonstrate resilience.
Extrinsic
and
intrinsic
motivation
Amotivational.

Extrinsic motivation:
External Regulation,
Introjection
Identification,
integration

Intrinsic Motivation

Transformation from
amotivational state through extrinsic
motivation towards intrinsic motivation is
fostered by connectedness to significant
others.
Interest and
Affect
Environment provides
contextual factors that lead
to situational interest.
Personal interest and
interest as a psychological
state are influenced by
affect.
Interest and affect triggered and sustained
through supportive interactions and
communication.
Self-Worth Relationships conditional on
level of achievement.

Link between self-worth
and achievement. Fear of
failure.

Specific response to fear of failure linked
to feeling of safety and confidence
supported by connectedness to others.
Social
Cognitive
Environment:
Modeling, vicarious
influence.
Person: Self-efficacy,
goals, self- regulation
and volition

Behavior is shaped by motivation and self-
efficacy modeled and communicated by
significant others; also by vicarious
influence.

57

APPENDIX B
STUDENTS CONNECTEDNESS QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: read the statement below and select how much do you agree or disagree. Please answer based
on your experience and perceptions. There are no wrong answers, so don’t spend a long time on any of the
answers.

Question Constr
uct
Strongly
agree
Agree Dis
agree
Strongly
disagree
1. I feel that students in this school care about each other I
2. Other students in this school take my opinions seriously I
3. Other students here like me the way I am I
4. I feel that I can rely on others here I
5. I have many friends at (name of school) I
6. Students here are friendly I
7. It is hard for people like me to be accepted here II
8. I am included in lots of activities at (name of school) II
9. I am treated with as much respect as other students II
10. I feel very different from most other students here II
11. I can really be myself at this school II
12. I feel connected to others II
13. I feel that other students do not help me learn III
14. People here notice when I’m good at something and support me III
15. There’s at least one teacher or other adult in this school I can talk
to if I have a problem
III
16. I know who to ask for help when I need it at (name of school) III
17. I feel that it is hard to get help when I have a question III
18. I feel reluctant to speak openly III
19. I do not get along with some of my teachers IV
20. I am liked by most teachers at (name of school) IV
21. Teachers are not interested in people like me IV
22. Teachers here respect me IV
23. I feel that teachers understand me IV
24. I feel that teachers want me to succeed IV
25. I am satisfied with most of the subjects at (name of school) V
26. Doing well in school is important to me V
27. I feel that I learn a lot at (name of school) V
28. I feel that I learn better in online courses than in classes on
campus
V
29. I am provided opportunities to learn V
30. I feel that my educational needs are not being met V
31. I enjoy being at (name of school) VI
32. I feel safe at (name of school) VI
33. Sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong here VI
34. I wish I were in a different school VI
35. I feel uncertain about others in this course VI
36. I feel isolated in this course VI
37. I like our school traditions and the way we do things VII
38. I feel proud of belonging to (name of school) VII
39. I feel a spirit of school community at (name of school) VII
40. I do not feel a spirit of community VII
41. I feel proud when I tell other people that I am at (school) VII
42. I enjoy celebrations and events here VII
58

APPENDIX C
STAFF CONNECTEDNESS QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: read the statement below and select how much do you agree or disagree. Please answer based
on your experience and perceptions. There are no wrong answers, so don’t spend a long time on any of the
answers.

Question Constr
uct
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagre
e
Strongly
disagree
1. I feel that students here care about each other I
2. Students in this school take my opinions seriously I
3. Students here like me the way I am I
4. Students here are friendly I
5. I feel that I can rely on others here I
6. I feel that students here respect me I
7. It is hard for people like me to be accepted here II
8. I am included in lots of activities at (name of school) II
9. I am treated with as much respect as other staff members II
10. I feel very different from most other people here II
11. I can really be myself at this school II
12. I feel connected to others II
13. I feel that other staff members do not help me III
14. People here notice when I’m good at something and support me III
15. There’s at least one person in this school I can talk to if I have a
problem
III
16. I know who to ask for help when I need it at (name of school) III
17. I feel that it is hard to get help when I have a question III
18. I feel reluctant to speak openly III
19. I do not get along with some of my colleagues IV
20. I am liked by most of my co-workers at (name of school) IV
21. Teachers are not interested in people like me IV
22. The teachers here respect me IV
23. I feel that my colleagues understand me IV
24. I feel that administration here want me to succeed IV
25. I am satisfied with most of the organizational aspects at (school) V
26. Doing a good job here is important to me V
27. I feel that professionally I learn a lot at (name of school) V
28. I feel that I learn better in online Professional Development
courses than in classes on campus
V
29. I feel that I am given many opportunities to learn something new V
30. I feel that my professional needs are not being met V
31. I enjoy being at (name of school) VI
32. I feel safe at (name of school) VI
33. Sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong here VI
34. I wish I were in a different school VI
35. I feel that there is a positive climate at (name of school) VI
36. I feel isolated here VI
37. I like our school traditions and the way we do things VII
38. I feel proud of belonging to (name of school) VII
39. I feel a spirit of school community at (name of school) VII
40. I do not feel a spirit of community VII
41. I feel proud when I tell other people that I work at (school) VII
42. I enjoy celebrations and events here VII
59

CONSTRUCTS:

I. Perceived being liked by students
II. Self-confidence, feeling accepted
III. Communication clear and responsive
IV. Perceived being liked by adults
V. Professional/ academic experience satisfaction
VI. School climate, safety
VII. Sense of pride and belonging

60

APPENDIX D
Table 3 ROTATED COMPONENTS MATRIX

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Other students here like the way I am .734
Other students in this school take my opinion seriously .646 -.280
I am treated with as much respect as other students .622 .365
I feel that students in this school care about each other .620 .323
Students here are friendly .586 .287 -.361
I have many friends at (name of school) .572 .274 .332 -.303
I can really be myself at this school .566 .266
I feel that I can rely on others here .562 .289 .300 -.253
I feel connected to others .489 .262 .316 -.463
I feel proud of belonging to (name of school) .782
I feel proud when I tell other people that I am at (school) .227 .769
I enjoy being at (name of school) .361 .677
I enjoy celebrations and events here .287 .668
I feel a spirit of school community at (name of school) .627 .356 -.243
I like our school traditions and the way we do things .619 .227
I feel that I learn a lot at (name of school) .572 .222
I know who to ask for help when I need it at (name of school) .735
There's at least 1 teacher/adult I can talk to at (name of school) .699 .218
I am included in lots of activities at (name of school) .292 .528
I feel that teachers understand me .305 .282 .493 .434
People here notice when I'm good at something and support me .377 .409 -.201
The teachers here respect me .232 .259 .275 .622
I do not get along with some of my teachers -.613 .274
I am liked by most teachers at (name of school) .272 .331 .584
Teachers are not interested in people like me -.552 .208 .317
I feel that teachers here want me to succeed .268 .350 .340 .498
I feel isolated in this course -.299 .692
I feel uncertain about others in this course -.327 .604
I feel that my educational/professional needs are not being met -.224 .600
I do not feel a spirit of community at (name of school) -.382 -.259 .596
I feel that I learn better in online classes than on campus -.333 .506 .207
I feel that other students do not help me learn .267 .621
I feel very different from most of other students .595
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

61

APPENDIX E
RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Scale: liked by students

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 748 93.7
Excluded
a
50 6.3
Total 798 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Other students here like the
way I am
16.3690 15.920 .662 .853
Students here are friendly 16.4064 16.027 .621 .856
I feel that I can rely on
others here
16.5521 15.385 .662 .852
I feel that students in this
school care about each
other
16.5829 15.620 .632 .855
I have many friends at
(name of school)
16.2968 15.773 .648 .854
I am treated with as much
respect as other students
16.4840 16.467 .564 .861
I feel connected to others 16.5401 15.874 .600 .858
Other students in this school
take my opinion seriously
16.6765 16.353 .551 .863
I can really be myself at this
school
16.3168 16.359 .529 .865

Table 4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 9
62

RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Scale: belonging

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 682 85.5
Excluded
a
116 14.5
Total 798 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
I feel proud when I tell other
people that I am at (school)
12.5015 12.617 .723 .852
I feel proud of belonging to
(name of school)
12.5352 12.443 .773 .846
I enjoy being at (name of
school)
12.4809 12.688 .695 .856
I enjoy celebrations and
events here
12.4633 13.080 .664 .860
I like our school traditions
and the way we do things
12.8548 13.073 .574 .872
I feel a spirit of school
community at (name of
school)
12.7889 12.560 .662 .860
I feel that I learn a lot at
(name of school)
12.6598 13.491 .547 .874

Table 4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.878 7
63

RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Scale: communication

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 755 94.6
Excluded
a
43 5.4
Total 798 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
I know who to ask for help
when I need it at (name of
school)
5.6570 3.016 .553 .555
There's at least 1
teacher/adult I can talk to at
(name of school)
5.6993 2.728 .520 .573
I am included in lots of
activities at (name of school)
6.2053 3.275 .372 .672
People here notice when I'm
good at something and
support me
5.7430 3.456 .418 .641

Table 4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.679 4
64

RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Scale: liked by teachers

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 756 94.7
Excluded
a
42 5.3
Total 798 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
The teachers here respect
me
6.1521 2.741 .602 .662
I am liked by most teachers
at (name of school)
6.3108 2.869 .430 .755
I feel that teachers
understand me
6.3704 2.488 .612 .650
I feel that teachers here
want me to succeed
6.0040 2.780 .546 .690

Table 4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.749 4
65

APPENDIX F
DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N
communication 1.9433 .55854 778
belonging 2.1020 .59146 682
Liked by students 2.0501 .49749 778
Liked by teachers 2.0682 .52886 773

Table 5 Correlations

communication belonging
Liked by
students
Liked by
teachers
communication Pearson Correlation 1 .543
**
.598
**
.616
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000
N 778 682 776 769
belonging Pearson Correlation .543
**
1 .636
**
.548
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

.000 .000
N 682 682 681 677
Liked by students Pearson Correlation .598
**
.636
**
1 .582
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.000
N 776 681 778 769
Liked by teachers Pearson Correlation .616
**
.548
**
.582
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 769 677 769 773
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

66

APPENDIX G
CORRELATION WITH GPA

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N
communication 1.9433 .55854 778
belonging 2.1020 .59146 682
Liked by students 2.0501 .49749 778
Liked by teachers 2.0682 .52886 773
GPA 2.9910 .70233 547

Table 6 Correlations

GPA
communication Pearson Correlation .204
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 539
belonging Pearson Correlation .070
Sig. (2-tailed) .130
N 474
Liked by students Pearson Correlation .159
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 540
Liked by teachers Pearson Correlation .203
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 537
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

67

APPENDIX H
CORRELATION WITH GENDER AND GRADE

Table 7. Variable: Communication

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
gender 0 male 270
1 female 506
grade 9 grade 9 227
10 grade 10 346
11 grade 11 105
12 grade 12 98

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: communication
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 1.818
a
7 .260 .830 .562
Intercept 1852.931 1 1852.931 5922.798 .000
gender .310 1 .310 .990 .320
grade .927 3 .309 .988 .398
gender * grade 1.384 3 .461 1.474 .220
Error 240.267 768 .313

Total 3170.313 776

Corrected Total 242.084 775

a. R Squared = .008 (Adjusted R Squared = -.002)

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: communication
gender grade Mean Std. Deviation N
male grade 9 2.0337 .58155 84
grade 10 1.8991 .57333 128
grade 11 1.7747 .66899 27
grade 12 1.9032 .63468 31
Total 1.9290 .59501 270
female grade 9 1.9394 .53745 143
grade 10 1.9488 .53779 218
grade 11 1.9679 .57457 78
grade 12 1.9540 .51540 67
Total 1.9498 .53911 506
Total grade 9 1.9743 .55478 227
grade 10 1.9304 .55090 346
grade 11 1.9183 .60292 105
grade 12 1.9379 .55307 98
Total 1.9425 .55890 776
68

Estimated Marginal Means
1. Grand Mean
Dependent Variable: communication
Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.928 .025 1.878 1.977

2. gender
Dependent Variable: communication
gender Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male 1.903 .042 1.821 1.985
female 1.953 .028 1.898 2.007

3. grade
Dependent Variable: communication
grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
grade 9 1.987 .038 1.911 2.062
grade 10 1.924 .031 1.863 1.985
grade 11 1.871 .062 1.749 1.994
grade 12 1.929 .061 1.809 2.048

4. gender * grade
Dependent Variable: communication
gender grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male grade 9 2.034 .061 1.914 2.154
grade 10 1.899 .049 1.802 1.996
grade 11 1.775 .108 1.563 1.986
grade 12 1.903 .100 1.706 2.100
female grade 9 1.939 .047 1.848 2.031
grade 10 1.949 .038 1.874 2.023
grade 11 1.968 .063 1.844 2.092
grade 12 1.954 .068 1.820 2.088

69

CORRELATION WITH GENDER AND GRADE

Table 8. Variable: Belonging
Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
gender 0 male 238
1 female 443
grade 9 grade 9 198
10 grade 10 304
11 grade 11 92
12 grade 12 87

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: belonging
gender grade Mean Std. Deviation N
male grade 9 2.2726 .55165 76
grade 10 2.1171 .53146 111
grade 11 1.9752 .73937 23
grade 12 1.8827 .48258 28
Total 2.1255 .56639 238
female grade 9 2.1464 .61369 122
grade 10 2.1584 .55527 193
grade 11 1.9959 .61101 69
grade 12 1.8426 .66621 59
Total 2.0877 .60430 443
Total grade 9 2.1948 .59242 198
grade 10 2.1433 .54618 304
grade 11 1.9907 .64126 92
grade 12 1.8555 .61058 87
Total 2.1009 .59118 681

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: belonging
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 9.554
a
7 1.365 4.027 .000
Intercept 1837.851 1 1837.851 5422.391 .000
gender .074 1 .074 .219 .640
grade 7.786 3 2.595 7.657 .000
gender * grade .828 3 .276 .814 .486
Error 228.105 673 .339

Total 3243.449 681

Corrected Total 237.658 680

a. R Squared = .040 (Adjusted R Squared = .030)

70

Estimated Marginal Means
1. Grand Mean
Dependent Variable: belonging
Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.049 .028 1.994 2.103

2. gender
Dependent Variable: belonging
gender Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male 2.062 .046 1.971 2.153
female 2.036 .031 1.975 2.096

3. grade
Dependent Variable: belonging
grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
grade 9 2.209 .043 2.126 2.293
grade 10 2.138 .035 2.070 2.206
grade 11 1.986 .070 1.848 2.123
grade 12 1.863 .067 1.731 1.994

4. gender * grade
Dependent Variable: belonging
gender grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male grade 9 2.273 .067 2.141 2.404
grade 10 2.117 .055 2.009 2.226
grade 11 1.975 .121 1.737 2.214
grade 12 1.883 .110 1.667 2.099
female grade 9 2.146 .053 2.043 2.250
grade 10 2.158 .042 2.076 2.241
grade 11 1.996 .070 1.858 2.133
grade 12 1.843 .076 1.694 1.991

71

CORRELATION WITH GENDER AND GRADE

Table 9. Variable: Liked by students

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
gender 0 male 270
1 female 506
grade 9 grade 9 227
10 grade 10 347
11 grade 11 105
12 grade 12 97

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.252
a
7 1.036 4.308 .000
Intercept 1977.663 1 1977.663 8224.827 .000
gender .201 1 .201 .837 .360
grade 6.474 3 2.158 8.975 .000
gender * grade .694 3 .231 .962 .410
Error 184.666 768 .240

Total 3450.746 776

Corrected Total 191.917 775

a. R Squared = .038 (Adjusted R Squared = .029)

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
gender grade Mean
Std.
Deviation N
male grade 9 2.1359 .51939 84
grade 10 2.0774 .46833 128
grade 11 1.8025 .66494 27
grade 12 1.8759 .52589 31
Total 2.0450 .52215 270
female grade 9 2.1228 .50007 143
grade 10 2.0867 .42235 219
grade 11 1.9929 .55302 78
grade 12 1.8502 .50661 66
Total 2.0516 .48455 506
Total grade 9 2.1276 .50620 227
grade 10 2.0833 .43922 347
grade 11 1.9439 .58648 105
grade 12 1.8584 .51024 97
Total 2.0493 .49763 776
72

Estimated Marginal Means
1. Grand Mean
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.993 .022 1.950 2.036

2. gender
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
gender Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male 1.973 .037 1.901 2.045
female 2.013 .024 1.965 2.061

3. grade
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
grade 9 2.129 .034 2.063 2.196
grade 10 2.082 .027 2.028 2.136
grade 11 1.898 .055 1.790 2.005
grade 12 1.863 .053 1.758 1.968

4. gender * grade
Dependent Variable: Liked by students
gender grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male grade 9 2.136 .054 2.031 2.241
grade 10 2.077 .043 1.992 2.162
grade 11 1.802 .094 1.617 1.988
grade 12 1.876 .088 1.703 2.049
female grade 9 2.123 .041 2.042 2.203
grade 10 2.087 .033 2.022 2.152
grade 11 1.993 .056 1.884 2.102
grade 12 1.850 .060 1.732 1.969

73

CORRELATION WITH GENDER AND GRADE

Table 10. Variable: Liked by teachers
Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
gender 0 male 267
1 female 504
grade 9 grade 9 224
10 grade 10 347
11 grade 11 104
12 grade 12 96

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
gender grade Mean
Std.
Deviation N
male grade 9 2.1900 .55883 82
grade 10 2.0335 .50866 127
grade 11 1.7840 .73535 27
grade 12 1.9758 .43948 31
Total 2.0496 .55344 267
female grade 9 2.0651 .50306 142
grade 10 2.0981 .48047 220
grade 11 2.0563 .59825 77
grade 12 2.0590 .56090 65
Total 2.0774 .51565 504
Total grade 9 2.1109 .52638 224
grade 10 2.0744 .49123 347
grade 11 1.9856 .64418 104
grade 12 2.0321 .52390 96
Total 2.0678 .52885 771

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 4.031
a
7 .576 2.079 .044
Intercept 2044.831 1 2044.831 7383.013 .000
gender .674 1 .674 2.434 .119
grade 2.676 3 .892 3.221 .022
gender * grade 2.574 3 .858 3.098 .026
Error 211.324 763 .277

Total 3511.896 771

Corrected Total 215.355 770

a. R Squared = .019 (Adjusted R Squared = .010)

74

Estimated Marginal Means
1. Grand Mean
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.033 .024 1.986 2.079

2. gender
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
gender Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male 1.996 .039 1.919 2.073
female 2.070 .026 2.018 2.121

3. grade
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
grade 9 2.128 .036 2.056 2.199
grade 10 2.066 .029 2.008 2.123
grade 11 1.920 .059 1.805 2.036
grade 12 2.017 .057 1.905 2.130

4. gender * grade
Dependent Variable: Liked by teachers
gender grade Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
male grade 9 2.190 .058 2.076 2.304
grade 10 2.033 .047 1.942 2.125
grade 11 1.784 .101 1.585 1.983
grade 12 1.976 .095 1.790 2.161
female grade 9 2.065 .044 1.978 2.152
grade 10 2.098 .035 2.028 2.168
grade 11 2.056 .060 1.939 2.174
grade 12 2.059 .065 1.931 2.187

75

APPENDIX I
CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENT AND ADULT CONNECTEDNESS

Table 11 Group Statistics

students N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
communication student 778 1.9433 .55854 .02002
adult 18 1.4028 .73334 .17285
belonging student 682 2.1020 .59146 .02265
adult 18 1.5159 .66491 .15672
Liked by students student 778 2.0501 .49749 .01784
adult 18 1.4259 .51871 .12226
Liked by teachers student 773 2.0682 .52886 .01902
adult 18 1.5000 .64739 .15259

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F Sig.
communication Equal variances assumed 2.750 .098
Equal variances not assumed

belonging Equal variances assumed .498 .481
Equal variances not assumed

Liked by students Equal variances assumed .011 .916
Equal variances not assumed

Liked by teachers Equal variances assumed 2.364 .125
Equal variances not assumed

76

APPENDIX J
DIFFERENCE IN MEAN VALUES BETWEEN STUDENT AND ADULT
CONNECTEDNESS

Table 12 Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
communication Equal variances assumed 4.028 794 .000 .54056
Equal variances not assumed 3.107 17.459 .006 .54056
belonging Equal variances assumed 4.137 698 .000 .58614
Equal variances not assumed 3.702 17.717 .002 .58614
Liked by students Equal variances assumed 5.258 794 .000 .62422
Equal variances not assumed 5.052 17.731 .000 .62422
Liked by teachers Equal variances assumed 4.482 789 .000 .56824
Equal variances not assumed 3.695 17.532 .002 .56824

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
communication Equal variances assumed .13419 .27715 .80397
Equal variances not assumed .17401 .17417 .90695
belonging Equal variances assumed .14169 .30795 .86433
Equal variances not assumed .15835 .25308 .91920
Liked by students Equal variances assumed .11872 .39118 .85726
Equal variances not assumed .12356 .36436 .88408
Liked by teachers Equal variances assumed .12677 .31939 .81709
Equal variances not assumed .15377 .24456 .89192

77

APPENDIX K
MOSC. FINAL VERSION
Table 13.
MOSC FOR STUDENTS

INSTRUCTIONS: read the statement below and select how much do you agree or disagree.
Please answer based on your experience and perceptions. There are no wrong answers, so don’t
spend a long time on any of the answers.

Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Other students here like the way I am

Other students in this school take my opinion seriously

I am treated with as much respect as other students

I feel that students in this school care about each other

Students here are friendly

I have many friends at (name of school)

I can really be myself at this school

I feel that I can rely on others here

I feel connected to others

I feel proud of belonging to (name of school)

I feel proud when I tell other people that I am at (school)

I enjoy being at (name of school)

I enjoy celebrations and events here

I feel a spirit of school community at (name of school)

I like our school traditions and the way we do things

I feel that I learn a lot at (name of school)

I know who to ask for help when I need it at (name of
school)

There's at least 1 teacher/adult I can talk to at (name of
school)

I am included in lots of activities at (name of school)

People here notice when I'm good at something and
support me

The teachers here respect me

I feel that teachers understand me

I am liked by most teachers at (name of school)

I feel that teachers here want me to succeed

78

MOSC FOR STAFF

INSTRUCTIONS: read the statement below and select how much do you agree or disagree.
Please answer based on your experience and perceptions. There are no wrong answers, so don’t
spend a long time on any of the answers.

Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Students here like the way I am

Students in this school take my opinion seriously

I am treated with as much respect as other staff
members

I feel that students in this school care about each other

Students here are friendly

I have many friends at (name of school)

I can really be myself at this school

I feel that I can rely on others here

I feel connected to others

I feel proud of belonging to (name of school)

I feel proud when I tell other people that I work at
(school)

I enjoy being at (name of school)

I enjoy celebrations and events here

I feel a spirit of school community at (name of school)

I like our school traditions and the way we do things

I feel that professionally I learn a lot at (name of
school)

I know who to ask for help when I need it at (name of
school)

There's at least 1 person I can talk to if I have a
problem

I am included in lots of activities at (name of school)

People here notice when I am good at something and
support me

The teachers here respect me

I am liked by most teachers at (name of school)

I feel that my colleagues understand me

I feel that administration here want me to succeed

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The aim of this study was to design and test a questionnaire that measures perceived connectedness in secondary schools. The Measurement of School Connectedness (MOSC) questionnaire, a modified version of the Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale (Goodenow, 1992

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

The impact of Upward bound on first generation college students in the freshman year of college

PDF

How does the evidence-based method of training impact learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and mastery goal orientation compared to the traditional method of training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu?

PDF

The path to math: leadership matters: effective practices of principals that improve student achievement in secondary mathematics

PDF

Missed education: an examination of educational outcomes for African-American males

PDF

Ninth grade freshman focus: shifting the trajectory for multiple need students

PDF

A case study: a thriving secondary arts progrm in the face of high-stakes accountability

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school

PDF

Preparing students for the future - 21st century skills

PDF

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

The impact of Algebra for all

PDF

Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools

PDF

A review of successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers: invigorating the disposable generation

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

The impact of the Norton High School early college program on the academic performance of students at Norton High School

Asset Metadata

Creator Sugar, Irina (author)

Core Title Measurement of school connectedness (MOSC): modified connectedness questionnaire for secondary schools.

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/09/2012

Defense Date 04/26/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement,belonging,connectedness,measurement,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform,School

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Creator Email isugar266@gmail.com,sugarhomes4u@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-25079

Unique identifier UC11288051

Identifier usctheses-c3-25079 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SugarIrina-584.pdf

Dmrecord 25079

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sugar, Irina

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