University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS: A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ AND STAFF
SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS PERCEPTIONS
by
Tonatzin Elisa Brown
____________________________________________________________________
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
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Tonatzin Elisa Brown

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving and supportive husband and family,
who have always stood by me in pursuit of my doctoral degree. Without their encourage-
ment and unwavering patience throughout this process, this study would not have been
accomplished. To my mom, Caroline, who has been my inspiration and biggest
cheerleader: thank you.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The successful completion of this dissertation would not have been possible
without the encouragement and assistance of many people. With the dissertation process
complete, it is with gratitude that I thank those who helped to make this achievement
possible.
First, I thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke. Without his
encouragement, guidance, and passion for education this project would not have been
possible. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with him and support his
vision of innovation and transformation in education as part of the Rossier School of
Education.
I acknowledge committee members Dr. Michael Escalante and Dr. Alan Green for
their support throughout this process. Dr. Escalante is a true example of the leadership
and passion that can change the lives of students and create schools with a true sense of
community. Dr. Green brought to life the importance of understanding student
development and what it means to be a student advocate. Not only have my dissertation
committee members been influential, but also each of them has impacted and shaped the
educator that I have become.
Very special thanks go to Los Alamitos Unified School District and the personnel
who encouraged, supported, and allowed this study to take place. Not only was the
district extremely cooperative, but there were shared values and interests for supporting
school connectedness among students. I thank them for sharing my enthusiasm with this
project.

iv
I also thank my writing partner and friend, Dr. James Yi. Without his friendship,
time, and constant support throughout the program, this would not be possible. It is with
utmost respect and a true privilege to have shared the doctoral program with a colleague
and true friend. I thank him for all his inspiration.
Finally, and foremost, I thank my husband and family for their endless love that
carried me to commencement.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Nature of the Problem 1
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Definition of Key Terms 7
Chapter Summary 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 9
School Membership 11
Peer Attachment 13
Teacher-Student Relationships 15
Academic Engagement 18
School Climate 19
Extracurricular Activities 21
Athletic Participation 23
Chapter Summary 24
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 26
Population and Sample 29
Data Collection and Instrumentation 34
Student Connectedness Scale 34
Teacher-student relationships subscale 35
School climate subscale 35
Peer attachment subscale 35
School membership subscale 35
Academic engagement subscale 35
Student involvement in extracurricular activities subscale 36
Student participation in athletics subscale 36
Student Data Collection 36
Staff Data Collection 37
Data Analysis 37
Limitations of the Study 38
Chapter 4: Findings 40
Research Hypothesis 1 41
Research Hypothesis 2 45
Research Hypothesis 3 46

vi
Research Hypothesis 4 46
Research Hypothesis 5 48
Research Questions 48
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 51
Implications and Recommendations 57
Recommendations for Future Research 59
Conclusion 61
References 64
Appendices
Appendix A: Student/Parent Assent Form 70
Appendix B: Student Connectedness Scale, Student Version 73
Appendix C: Student Connectedness Scale, Staff Version 79
Appendix D: Sources of items on the Student Connectedness Scale 85

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Statistical Approach to Address the Research Questions 30
Table 2: Frequency Counts for Selected Student Variables 31
Table 3: Frequency Counts for Selected Staff Variables 33
Table 4: Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores: Staff 42
Table 5: Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores: Students 42
Table 6: Highest and Lowest Mean Ratings by Staff on the School
Connectedness Scale 43
Table 7: Highest and Lowest Mean Ratings by Students on the School
Connectedness Scale 44
Table 8: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Student School
Connectedness Scale Ratings: Students 45
Table 9: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Student School
Connectedness Scale Ratings: Staff 47
Table 10: Correlations for School Connectedness Scale Scores and Student
Grade Point Average (GPA) 47
Table 11: Comparison of Student Connected Scale (SCS) Ratings for Subsample
of Low-Achieving Students and Staff SCS Ratings 48
Table 12: Comparison of Student Connected Scale (SCS) Ratings for Subsample
of High-Achieving Students and Staff SCS Ratings 49

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the most prevalent factors of school con-
nectedness in a southern California comprehensive high school by examining the
variance between high- and low-achieving students and between student and staff. Seven
factors have been identified and tested as measures of the construct of school con-
nectedness: school membership, peer attachment, teacher-student relationships, academic
engagement, school climate, extracurricular activities, and athletic participation. Data
were collected via a school connectedness scale that utilized both standardized and
researcher-developed survey questions. Data were analyzed using repeated measures,
analysis of variance, Pearson correlations, and 1-sample t tests to address the 3 research
questions.
The data showed similarities and differences of perception for students and staff
with the population surveyed. As expected, students identified peer attachment as the
most essential factor for establishing a relationship to school. Staff identified the teacher-
student relationship factor as the most needed to support school connectedness. Staff and
the high-achieving population of students had similar perceptions about the academic
engagement factor. Overall, findings were consistent with previous research that
demonstrated a direct correlation between positive sense of school connectedness and
academic achievement. Findings support the need to continue research in this overall
construct to ensure that students’ basic developmental needs are met. In addition, this
study produced a reliable and valid tool for identifying areas of priority that a school
should consider when addressing school connectedness concerns. Increasing school
connectedness by addressing the factors that mean most to students offers not only

ix
healthy individual development but a positive school social ecology that maintains the
human connection needed by all.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Nature of the Problem
It is known that a positive sense of school connectedness can have positive
impacts for students (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Finn, 1993; Goodenow, 1993; McNeely &
Falci, 2004; Waters, Cross, & Runions, 2009); however, students’ and staff’s perceptions
of connectedness have yet to be compared. Students who are high achieving generally
engage in many of the factors of school connectedness that have been shown to enhance
academic achievement (Libbey, 2004). This study was designed to identify the needs and
interests of at-risk students on one campus and to compare staff’s and students’ percep-
tions of connectedness to determine whether there is alignment between the two. Data
may also reveal which students and staff have the most similar perceptions of school
connectedness.
School connectedness, or the student’s relationship to school, has been measured
using diverse methods. Researchers have used constructs such as school membership,
attachment, bonding, and climate to determine what engages students to school (Libbey,
2004). In each study parameters for the construct to be measured were set to define how
school connectedness would be determined. Data have been collected in a variety of
formats to demonstrate how specific constructs contribute to overall connectedness and
the positive impacts of school connectedness on student achievement. There has been
very limited research comparing students’ and staff’s perceptions when academic per-
formance is taken into account. Much of the research has focused on testing a specific
construct of school connectedness; the current study compares various factors under the

2
umbrella of school connectedness. It is apparent in the literature that many of the meas-
ured constructs contribute to school connectedness; however, data from previous research
were based on student responses, generally to identify differences between high-
achieving and low-achieving students. Research has not yet compared students’ and
staff’s perceptions of school connectedness when achievement is considered.
For this study, a blend of the various constructs was used to allow for a mutually
exclusive yet collectively exhaustive list of factors to measure student connectedness. A
survey of students was designed to capture the parameters of how school connectedness
is defined. Previous work has measured connectedness with prescribed constructs; in
contrast, this study allowed for a range of key components to be examined.
Not enough is known about staff’s perspectives of students’ sense of connected-
ness, compared to actual student responses when achievement level is taken into account.
Data from this study highlight the prominent constructs of connectedness that support
student engagement at one school. Previous work has demonstrated high levels of student
engagement to be correlated with increased attendance and graduation rates, as well as
increased academic achievement (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Finn, 1993; Goodenow, 1993;
McNeely & Falci, 2004; Waters et al., 2009). All of these measures were used to generate
findings that can assist in designing programs that will address specific student needs.
Public schools are charged with the task of meeting national goals set forth in the
2001 federal legislation called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). However, as Darling-
Hammond (2007) stated, “Standards and tests alone will not improve schools or create
educational opportunities where they do not now exist” (p. 325). Recognizing inequality
in education across the nation and that the dropout rate is currently at 69% (Darling-

3
Hammond, 2007), educators seek to maintain student engagement. Recently, public
awareness and emerging literature have brought to light the need for student connected-
ness and a sense of belonging (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Martin & Dowson, 2009;
Osterman, 2000) to engage all students so that the next generation will be equipped with
the skills and education needed to join the labor market (Darling-Hammond, 2007). This
is a paradigm shift from research focused on improving instructional practices and
teacher qualifications (Bear, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kagen, 1990). Researchers
agree that, for education reform to be successful, the focus must move toward changing
the quality of learning opportunities, supported by personalization in schools (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Goodenow, 1993; Waters et al., 2009). This means connecting students
to school in a way that students feel that they belong to a learning community.
Research has effectively demonstrated that student connectedness is a factor that
can increase student achievement and related outcomes (Klem & Connell, 2006; Libbey,
2004; Waters, Cross, & Shaw, 2010). School reform efforts have recently focused on
increasing levels of student connectedness in the hope of realizing improved student
achievement (Klem & Connell, 2004). According to Klem and Connell (2004), the efforts
of First Things First (FTF) reform has put in place three specific goals for schools:
(a) strengthen relationships among students, school staff, and families; (b) improve
teaching and learning in every classroom every day; and (c) reallocate funds, staff, and
resources toward the achievement of the first two goals. The highlight of this reform
effort is a dedicated focus to improve relationships at school among all personnel. FTF
targets student connectedness as the underpinning idea geared to supporting students’
perception that adults in the school care about them and their learning (Blum & Libbey,

4
2004). Educational reform such as FTF can improve student achievement and produce
outcomes that are commonly associated with student success.
This study continues the work of previous researchers on school connectedness
and compares students’ perspectives of connectedness to staff’s perspectives of connect-
edness. The data revealed whether there are differences in perceptions of school connect-
edness between high- and low-achieving students. Previous research was utilized to shape
the various constructs of school connectedness and to determine how these constructs
have been defined and measured.
With numerous means to test for school connectedness, the constructs in this
study have shown positive results in previous work. While most measures have tested
only one factor in isolation, this study blends seven factors within one survey, each of
which has marked impact on influencing student connectedness positively: (a) school
membership, (b) peer attachment, (c) teacher-student relationships, (d) academic
engagement, (e) school climate, (f) extracurricular activities, and (g) athletic participa-
tion. Results of this work not only serve as validation of expected outcomes but provide
evidence of the most salient constructs that students in one school perceived support their
connectedness. Results of the study compare perceptions of school connectedness
reported by high-and low-achieving students and the school staff. These results can be
used as a starting point for implementing interventions to engage and connect students
who are vulnerable to dropout, health risk behaviors, or delinquent behaviors (Blum &
Libbey, 2004). For example, understanding which factors are most influential at different
achievement levels and how student needs differ could support implementation of new
organizational or classroom structures. This understanding may also lead to student

5
empowerment for innovative programs to respond to a specific population and provide
access to new resources. The emerging field of student connectedness has a valid place
for current and future study to investigate how schools can engage students to persist and
find success by creating an environment where they feel valued as they acquire skills
needed to enter the 21st century.
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study
Research surrounding school connectedness reports agreement regarding positive
impacts of the concept (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Finn, 1993; Goodenow, 1993; McNeely &
Falci, 2004; Waters et al., 2009). Ecological theory is also fundamental to a paradigm
shift from teacher qualifications and instructional practices. According to
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (1979), development is influenced by several envi-
ronment systems (Santrock, 2009). In this model five environmental systems interact and
influence adolescent development. The first and most basic system is the microsystem,
which consists of the individual’s immediate interactions, where most direct interactions
take place: family, peers, school, and neighborhoods. The second system is the mesosys-
tem, which includes the connections made between microsystems, such as school, family,
and church. The third system is the exosystem, which consists of links between the social
settings in which the individual does not have an active role but can be impacted within
the individual’s immediate context. The fourth system is the macrosystem, which essen-
tially involves the culture in which one lives. The fifth system is the chronosystem, which
recognizes the importance of time and events that can occur throughout life to change
how one interacts with the environment (Santrock, 2009).

6
Understanding that compulsory education spans the time of childhood and adoles-
cence, educators must envision school as a platform that can support connections to
peers, adults, and outside world that must eventually be navigated. Bronfenbrenner’s
model emphasizes the underlying need for students to feel connected to school and can
provide descriptions of components that will enhance student connectedness (Waters et
al., 2009). Work by Moos (1979) has extrapolated Bronfenbrenner’s work to a school
setting, where it was seen that environmental and personal components of school social
ecology are equally influential for academic and health outcomes (Waters et al., 2009). It
is clear from Bronfenbrenner’s model of ecological theory that schools are an influential
space in adolescent development and that connecting students to school should be a focus
for all schools.
Purpose of the Study
The comparison of staff’s and students’ perceptions of school connectedness has
yet to be explored. The literature has described how student connectedness can positively
impact student achievement. However, measures that have been used previously tested
factors independently, in contrast to the current study, in which factors were compared to
each other. The perspective of student-teacher relationships was used to explore this
construct of student connectedness. Research has indicated that teacher-student relation-
ships have been key in reducing dropout and delinquent behaviors and increasing social
capital (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Klem & Connell, 2004). Data regarding staff’s percep-
tions of teacher-student relationships were compared to students’ perceptions to identify
differences and similarities. In addition, results will highlight school programs or delivery
methods that are positively impacting students’ sense of connectedness to school.

7
Research Questions
Three research questions will be addressed in this study:
1. Which factors of school connectedness will be rated most prevalent by students
and staff?
2. How are student perceptions related to their grade point average (GPA)?
3. How do staff perceptions of school connectedness differ from those of
students?
Each of these questions was designed to investigate the needs at one school site
and to determine how the needs of low-achieving students can be addressed to increase
school connectedness. A comparison of staff’s and students’ perceptions of school con-
nectedness will support alignment of an ecological structure within the school that can be
modeled by the staff to support interactions of adolescent development.
Definition of Key Terms
At-risk student: Students who have a low sense of school connectedness. While
there is overlap in terms of shared characteristics, such as low academic achievement,
high truancy, delinquent behavior, and school involvement issues, factors such as gender
and race were examined as well.
School connectedness: The “belief by students that adults in the school care about
their learning and about them as individuals” (Blum & Libby, 2004, p. 231). While many
constructs have been used to measure this concept, this perspective will serve as the
operational definition of school connectedness.
Chapter Summary
School connectedness is the future of educational reform, not just for preparing
the next generation for the job market but to help students to develop within their

8
environment and strengthen opportunities for access to increase social capital. NCLB was
a starting point for supporting student achievement but it has been shown not to be
enough. Students’ positive sense of connectedness allows for powerful interactions
during a critical developmental period that will keep students engaged in school, address
mental health problems, and develop needed problem-solving skills (Blum & Libbey,
2004). FTF reform is one example of how policy makers can work to support school con-
nectedness. Given the emerging literature and growing research, this topic will continue
to shed light on the pressing question of how to keep students in school. Christensen,
Horn, and Johnson (2010) noted, “If children are motivated to learn and if we enable each
one to learn effectively, we will have an education system with a great performance
record” (p. 1). The assumption in this study, rooted in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model, is the basic need for humans to feel connected (Santrock, 2009). Creating schools
that effectively promote a school environment in which students feel valued and have a
sense of belonging will spark intrinsic motivation during adolescent development. Data
from this perspective support positive outcomes in school achievement and can provide a
solution to problems that are currently faced by schools.

9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Why do some students feel more connected to school than others? How does
student perception of school connectedness impact student achievement? How can edu-
cators and schools increase student engagement and learning to support achievement?
Researchers and practitioners have investigated these questions but have not found
scalable solutions (Christensen et al., 2010). School connectedness has been shown to be
a significant protective factor for several health, academic, and social outcomes that can
contribute to adolescent development and emotional well-being (Rowe, Stewart, & Pat-
terson, 2007). In an era of NCLB, promoting school connectedness among all students is
one path to attaining the goal of student achievement for all.
While many students come to school with the background needed to foster con-
nectedness, some at-risk students are overlooked. Schools should understand the specific
needs of their students, as well as the research surrounding interventions used to espouse
school connectedness, with the goal of ensuring that every student is engaged in the
school community. “Students are more likely to succeed when they feel connected to
school. School connection is the belief by students that adults in the school care about
their learning as well as about them as individuals” (Blum & Libbey, 2004, p. 233).
School is not only a compulsory requirement; it is also a place for students to learn and
understand the world around them and to learn how to interact in the social environment.
Research supports school connectedness as one avenue for supporting student
achievement (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Croninger & Lee, 2001; McNeely & Falci, 2004).
However, the question not yet answered is whether the factors that encourage school

10
connectedness for high-achieving students apply equally for low-achieving students.
While research has tested various constructs of connectedness to demonstrate correlation
to student achievement, little work has been done to compare staff’s perceptions of
school connectedness to those of both high- and low-achieving students.
Do educators actually know what factors of school connectedness are most
important to their high- and low-achieving students? If so, how are schools supporting the
specific school connectedness needs of students to support all levels of student achieve-
ment? It has been demonstrated that positive student perceptions of school connectedness
can support academic achievement (Blum & Libbey, 2004). Schools, as a key social envi-
ronment, can either support or oppose efforts to achieve school connectedness. Schools
are charged with the task of continuing to improve student achievement and school con-
nectedness is one vehicle to encourage outcomes that target this goal.
School connectedness is described herein to show how the concept has been
defined and measured. Libbey’s (2004) work from the 2004 invitational conference
“School Connectedness—Strengthening Health and Educational Outcomes for Teens”
was the guiding work that synthesized core principles of student connectedness. Evidence
of positive student outcomes is abundant in the literature and moves toward the goal of
improving student relationships in schools. Specific constructs that have been identified
as strong factors that increase school connectedness will be explored: school member-
ship, peer attachment, teacher-student relationships, academic engagement, school
climate, extracurricular activities, and athletic participation. Each of these factors has a
significant body of research that demonstrates the importance of a strong sense of school

11
connectedness and its influence in student retention, persistence, and graduation (Dixon,
2007).
The research that addresses school connectedness has tested various influencing
factors, ranging from academic engagement to teacher support. All of these factors repre-
sented efforts to address one construct: the student’s relationship to school (Libbey,
2004). This literature review identifies some of the salient factors that have emerged in
research to contribute to defining school connectedness or related constructs. Research
has shown that school connectedness has decreased rates of involvement in multiple
health risk behaviors such as substance abuse, violence, and delinquency (Blum &
Libbey, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004; Rowe et al., 2007). The focus for this literature
review is the impact of salient factors of student connectedness, such as school member-
ship, peer attachment, teacher-student relationships, and academic engagement, to iden-
tify domains that are most important to students in supporting their belief that adults in
their school care about their learning and about them as individuals.
School Membership
“Students’ classroom engagement, academic effort, and subsequent school
success or failure are influenced not only by individual differences in skills, abilities, and
predispositions, but also by many situational and contextual factors” (Goodenow, 1993,
p. 80). School membership is one construct that has been measured to represent a sense
of connection to school (Libbey, 2004). Wehlage (1989) and Finn (1989) found that an
increased sense of “belongingness” or “school membership” was a critical factor for
retention and participation by at-risk students. Wehlage (1989) defined school member-
ship as more than just enrolling in a school. He argued that membership called for an

12
established social bond between students and the adults in the school, as well as the
norms governing the institution (Goodenow, 1993). Goodenow examined student-teacher
relationships, whether students cared what others thought, and personal investment in
meeting other people’s expectations. She found that psychological membership itself may
be an important contributor to school motivation, effort, participation, and successive
achievement.
In a study by Lessard et al. (2008) regarding why students drop out of school, the
students reported that they felt that they were “living invisibly.” Students in this category
actively withdrew from the social aspects of school and chose avoidance strategies such
as truancy, drug abuse, or “just spacing out.” Reflecting on Goodenow’s (1993) work,
lack of membership is clearly seen when it was reported that no one noticed whether the
identified student was in school. In that case the student’s sense of school membership
led to dropout, thus making this construct of school connectedness valuable not only to
persistence but to matriculation as well.
Similar to school membership is the construct of school attachment. Evola (2004)
reported that the more a student felt attached to school, the greater the school bond.
Mouton, Hawkins, McPherson, and Copley (1996) reported similar descriptors of school
attachment by students, citing the degree to which people at school liked the students. It
is apparent in this domain of school connectedness, when defined as a student’s member-
ship or attachment to school, that interactions with other people on campus play a signifi-
cant role in a personal sense of school connectedness.
Other sources have suggested that connectedness occurs when a person is actively
involved with another person, object, group, or environment that will ultimately promote

13
a sense of comfort and well-being and reduce anxiety (Dixon, 2007; Karcher, 2004). The
interpersonal relationships that are developed and nurtured in the school context have
been shown to be significant for the construct of school membership (Klem & Connell,
2004; Lessard et al., 2008).
Peer Attachment
Building on the work on school membership where the focus appears to highlight
the interactions and relationships that are formed on the school campus, peer attachment
is found. Hargreaves, Earl, and Ryan (1996) said that “one of the most fundamental
reforms needed in secondary or high school education is to make schools into better
communities of caring and support for young people” (p. 77). Using work by McMillan
and Chavis (1986) as the guiding perspective, the term community has a relational unit
that describes the quality and character of human relationships. Motivational research has
identified the need to feel related as one of the student’s basic needs and essential to
human growth and development (Osterman, 2000).
Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991) found that failure to meet student
needs in the educational setting can predict diminished motivation, impaired develop-
ment, alienation, and poor performance. “A substantial body of research demonstrates the
importance of positive interpersonal relationships for healthy human functioning. Rela-
tionships are a major source of happiness and a buffer against stress” (Martin & Dowson,
2009, p. 328). Martin and Dowson proposed that relationships affect achievement moti-
vation by directly influencing motivation’s integral beliefs and emotions, which the
current study proposes can have an impact on school connectedness. Wentzel’s (1999)
work served as a guide for describing high-quality relationships as useful for functioning

14
in particular environments, pointing out that beliefs valued by significant others are actu-
ally internalized to potentially lead to transfer in new settings. Peer attachment, from this
perspective, cannot be overlooked when examining student connectedness. After all,
school is the social environment in which students can develop and maintain interper-
sonal relationships that can impact their sense of connectedness.
Research on peer attachment, both in social science and psychology, has demon-
strated that peer groups can have a significant impact not only on prosocial behavior
choices but also on academic engagement (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Waters et al., 2010).
Isakson and Jarvis (1999) suggested a relationship between social and academic adjust-
ments in high school. Data from their study indicated that maintaining meaningful friend-
ships with peers was more valued than academic adjustment. There is substantial evi-
dence that students who associate with peer groups that have similar goal structures, for
example, going to college, will be supported in making academic choices for future
success (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997; Wentzel, 1994). Osterman (2000), reporting on
the impact of social connection to peers, stated that peer attachment has been repeatedly
demonstrated to be an influential component of academic success and an integral piece of
adolescent development.
Findings reported by Wilson (2004) indicated that social networks also influenced
connectedness. “The larger a student’s network of friends, the stronger his/her connection
to school” (p. 298). Wilson found that racially integrated networks of friends positively
affected school connectedness. Along this line, research also suggests that school size
may be a contributing factor for peer attachment (McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum,
2002). To this end, Wilson (2004) and Hawkins, Herrenkohl, and Farrington (2000)

15
reported that students in schools with enrollment between 300 and 900 students were
more likely to feel connected to school. Both the student’s network of friendships and the
size of school demonstrated importance in supporting school connectedness.
Teacher-Student Relationships
The teacher-student relationship is another domain that research has shown to
improve student connectedness to school (Klem & Connell, 2004). As students progress
through the educational system, teachers are the points of contact for measuring student
learning, providing praise and redirection, and providing experiences that will shape per-
ceptions of relationships with future teachers. Students with caring and supportive inter-
personal relationships in school reported more positive academic values, attitudes, and
satisfaction with school (Klem & Connell, 2004).
From this perspective, schools become social institutions that impact the lives of
children during very critical developmental years (Somen, 1984; Van Acker & Talbott,
1999). Studies have shown that students become more disengaged as they progress from
elementary to middle school to high school (Klem & Connell, 2004). Part of this is
accounted for by the increasing number of teachers with whom students interact as they
progress through their educational experiences (Evola, 2004). Teacher-student relation-
ships contribute to student engagement and can have positive outcomes related to higher
grades and test scores and lower dropout rates (Klem & Connell, 2004). Exposure to
positive relationships and experiences increases a student’s sense of belonging and
engagement in school, leading the student to value relationships with the teacher and the
larger social institution, which in turn strengthens school connectedness.

16
The data on teacher-student relationships suggest that teacher support is correlated
to various positive student outcomes and vice versa. Embedded within the framework of
student engagement in school, positive teacher-student relationships can lead to better
attendance and higher test scores (Klem & Connell, 2004). Research by Gambone (2002)
indicated that these two variables strongly predicted whether youth would complete
school and ultimately pursue postsecondary options to achieve financial autonomy. In
contrast, the literature also shows a common high school predictor of dropout is poor
relationships with teachers and not feeling connected (Wilson, 2004). Participants in one
study reported that feeling acknowledged, cared for, and appreciated by their teachers
could have prevented them from dropping out. The positive characteristics of attentive-
ness, open mindedness, patience, availability, and praise supported persistence by
students who were considering dropping out, and vice versa (Lessard et al., 2008).
Support from teachers is a critical feature of the teacher-student relationship and
has the potential to increase a student’s level of confidence and comfort (Murray &
Greenberg, 2000) and lead to even more attention and support from the teachers (Klem &
Connell, 2004). Teachers have reported that students displaying observable behaviors
such as paying attention and appearing interested and demonstrating more persistent in
the face of challenges will, on average, receive more support (Connell & Wellborn,
1991). According to McNeely and Falci (2004), teacher support can be defined as a
student’s belief that teachers are fair and care about him or her. Positive perceptions of
teacher support influence students to be more engaged at school, have increased aca-
demic success, and engage in fewer health risk behaviors. These findings support the link

17
between teacher-student relationships and school adjustment and motivation, as noted by
Lynch and Cicchetti (1997).
A continuum of research demonstrates the power of this construct as related to
school connectedness, as influential for reducing delinquent behaviors and dropout
(Wilson, 2004). Teacher-student relationships contribute to student engagement, resulting
in positive outcomes such as higher grades, higher test scores, and lower dropout rates
(Klem & Connell, 2004). As students progress through the educational system, teachers
are the point of contact for measuring student learning, providing praise and redirection,
and providing experiences that will shape perceptions of relationships with future teach-
ers (Klem & Connell, 2004). Data suggest that students who have success in developing
meaningful relationships with teachers experience academic achievement.
Bowlby’s (1973) early conclusion that people are able to fulfill their full potential
when they experience a trusted relationship that “stands behind them” (Ryan, R., Stiller,
& Lynch, 1994) further demonstrates the power of teacher-student relationships.
Research has shown this domain to be a powerful predictor of student success (Klem &
Connell, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004; Nichols, 2006; Ryan, R., et al., 1994). Studies
have shown that teachers form both academic and affective beliefs about students.
Nichols (2006) found that teachers were more likely to engage in relationships and have a
more positive affective regard for students who asked for more help often, participated,
and had fewer behavior problems. High-achieving students generally portray these types
of behaviors, supporting positive teacher-student relationships.

18
Academic Engagement
Research has shown that positive teacher-student relationships can lead to better
interactions that support student achievement, thereby increasing student academic
engagement. According to Libbey (2004), the academic engagement construct addresses
the extent to which students are motivated to learn and do well in school. While research-
ers such as Manlove (1998) and A. Ryan and Patrick (2001) and others have defined aca-
demic engagement in terms of school engagement, the construct of student learning and
the behaviors associated with learning were measured. Previous work in this domain has
shown that lack of school engagement among adolescents can contribute to increased risk
for dropout, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and criminal activity. The cognitive
indices of student engagement include student use of cognitive strategies, attention, task
mastery, and preference for challenging tasks (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003).
This has been explained in terms of three types of student engagement: (a) behavioral
engagement, in which a student actually participates in academic, social, or extracurricu-
lar activities; (b) emotional engagement, which focuses on students’ positive and negative
reactions to teachers, peers, academics, and school (this type of engagement is assumed
to support school attachment and influence willingness to complete work); and (c) cogni-
tive engagement, or investment, which includes the initiative and purposeful mental
effort needed to understand and master complex tasks (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
2004). The combinations of all three types of engagement define the construct of aca-
demic engagement.
Academic engagement has close ties to motivational processes that can range
from the interest in or value assigned to a task for behavioral engagement choices to
intrinsic motivation of mastery, in the cognitive engagement domain (Fredricks et al.,

19
2004). Knowing that, as students progress to the secondary setting, they may not have
been given explicit instruction to be prepared for increased demands and level of rigor
that will ensue, student belief in self-efficacy can be decreased (Cleary & Zimmerman,
2004). This can also affect academic engagement if the students do not feel that they can
be successful. Not only could there be a lack of self-efficacy; there could also be a “poor
knowledge base of effective strategies but also do not understand how to select, evaluate,
and adjust faulty strategies when they are not working effectively” (Cleary & Zimmer-
man, 2004, p. 573). This example highlights the need for teachers and staff to identify
students’ needs in order to increase academic engagement and support school connected-
ness.
School Climate
School connectedness has been considered a component of reduced incidence of
victimization from bullying, a current concern in schools nationwide. These findings can
be attributed to the sense of safety and well-being that the student perceives in the aca-
demic setting, often referred to as school climate (Wilson, 2004). The National Longitu-
dinal Study of Adolescent Health and other studies have measured this construct of
school connectedness by asking students to respond to statements such as, “I feel close to
people at this school” (Wilson, 2004). Student desire to develop positive attachment to
peers and commitment to prosocial behaviors should increase a student’s sense of school
connectedness.
Rowe et al. (2007) asserted that there are two fundamental mechanisms that can
support an increase in school connectedness: processes and structures in the school envi-
ronment. School processes that support an inclusive environment (Rowe et al., 2007)

20
have been suggested as ways to promote a normative pluralism in schools (Bishop et al.,
2004). Both of these works were attempts to find balance for all students so they feel that
they are part of their school environment, which was presumed to increase school con-
nectedness.
Martin and Dowson (2009) also found the idea of relatedness to be necessary in
support of interpersonal relationships in the school environment to enhance student
achievement. Their framework consisted of a trilevel approach that addressed the school
climate, first by incorporating universal programs for all students, targeting at-risk popu-
lations, and offering extracurricular activity, cooperative learning, and mentoring. The
second level called for teacher and classroom-level practices to support student motiva-
tion by calling for connective instruction, professional development, teacher retention and
training, and classroom composition. The third level was aimed directly at the school and
called for a cooperative climate to enhance the sense of community and belonging on
campus. The researchers found that student achievement was supported, with integrated
emphasis on social cohesion and the academic mission. They pointed out that effective
leadership can serve as a visual model to broaden energy in a school and enhance student
motivation. They theorized that allowing the sense of relatedness to develop in the school
environment would support a positive sense of school climate and lead to improved
student achievement (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
The literature includes numerous reports of school climate as another vehicle for
providing social capital (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Rowe et al., 2007; Waters et al., 2010).
Encouraging an environment in which student-teacher and peer interactions take place
can produce strong bonds that are said to maintain high levels of interpersonal trust and

21
norms of reciprocity (Rowe et al., 2007). This approach is similar to Stanton-Salazar’s
(2010) belief that adolescents have the ability to gain access to critical resources from the
social networks in which they are embedded, typically in the school site, that become
paramount to success.
Extracurricular Activities
Extracurricular activities are student-selected activities in which students partici-
pate at school or in classrooms (Libbey, 2004). As Martin and Dowson (2009) found, the
idea of getting involved within the school community should be a priority by offering
universal programs for all students. Acknowledging the diversity of students’ interests,
various extracurricular activities offer both the opportunity to get involved and establish
the importance of supportive adult relationships within the school. This type of active
choice commitment to nonacademic school involvement has been identified as a measure
of student connectedness. School involvement was described by Goodenow (1993) as
part of school membership, which is derived from Wehlage’s theory of social member-
ship (Libby, 2004). Clearly, a student’s active choices to be involved with or participate
in school or classroom activities constitute valid evidence of student interest. Policies at
schools that maintain GPA and citizenship requirements have also shown to be effective
for maintaining prosocial choice behaviors for team play (Bishop et al., 2004). Activities
in which students choose to engage can range from club membership to participation in
musical or vocal programs that call for additional commitment in both time and personal
investment.
Martin and Dowson (2009) defined extracurricular activities as involvements both
in and out of school, including activities such as sports, music, dance, clubs, and church-

22
related activities. They argued that extracurricular activities offer adolescents safe and
caring environments where prosocial adults support and model self-efficacy and behav-
iors that are associated with positive development. Brown and Evans (2002) concurred
with the notion that extracurricular activities can espouse a sense among adolescents of
belonging to a personally valued group. Martin and Dowson (2009) asserted that the
extent of connections and modeling has the potential to encourage academic motivation.
This research is clear in presenting that students who actively choose to be involved in
extracurricular activities can realize positive effects (Brown & Evans, 2002; Libbey,
2004; Martin & Dowson, 2009).
Researchers who investigated specific outcomes of the intervention program
Check & Connect found that student participation in extracurricular activities was related
to decreases in student dropout (Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003). “This
association can be attributed to an increase in structured, supervised out-of-school time as
well as to an alternative opportunity for youth to develop a sense of belonging and shared
values with school” (Sinclair et al., 2003, p. 35). This program not only attempts to facil-
itate affiliation with school and learning; it also calls for strong student interaction at the
school level through use of monitors who serve as a consistent point of contact to support
problem solving and to increase family support. Providing students with consistency and
a personal resource to increase social capital is the key to this program and its success.
The role of the monitor is to support extracurricular activity and to help the student
explore options based on personal interests that will support school connection. Not only
does this intervention support the development of staff-student interactions; it also

23
engages the student in another personal connection to the school environment that data
suggest can increase school completion rates (Sinclair et al., 2003).
Athletic Participation
Another body of research that has explored the construct of school connectedness
that continues the student-selected participation and offers additional, specific, and posi-
tive outcomes is athletic participation. Marsh and Kleitman (2003) found that student
impact was consistent across subgroups of students, which can have the most impact for
an at-risk population. School grades, course selection, homework, and future aspirations
have been identified as products of participation in sports (Marsh & Kleitman, 2003). For
the at-risk population, athletic participation offers a peer group with similar goal struc-
tures and access to social capital that might otherwise not have been available. Similarly,
Finn (1989) concluded that involvement in school predicts positive outcomes if the
student maintains multiple, expanding forms of participation in school-relevant activities.
Knowing that participation in sports calls for the balance of academic and athletic com-
mitments, there is another perspective of athletic participation to consider. Coleman
(1961) was the first to look at the adolescent status system and found that athletes were
consistently ranked in the upper echelon. Superior peer status or general approval by
peers can increase involvement with a peer group that will support the value of school
and plans to attend college (Marsh & Kleitman, 2003). Not only does previous research
support positive academic outcomes, as Marsh and Kleitman (2003) have indicated; the
student athlete is likely to be given higher status in the school (Coleman, 1961).
In addition to these findings, there is evidence of reduced rates of school dropout
and higher rates of postsecondary attendance after high school by students who partici-

24
pated in athletic programs (Eccles & Barber, 1999). Whitley (1999) noted that, regardless
of race, socioeconomic status, or gender, students who participated in athletics had higher
grades, fewer absences, and fewer discipline referrals. Reflecting on the work by Cata-
lano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, and Hawkins (2004) and recalling that student con-
nectedness can buffer effects of risk, previous work has supported that athletic participa-
tion can reduce mental and general health problems (Steiner, McQuivery, Pavelski, Pitts,
& Kramer, 2000). Marsh and Kleitman (2003) noted that playing sports calls for
enrolling in a more rigorous academic track, as well as pursuing higher education, all of
which can increase a student’s sense of identification with school and its values, thus
increasing the student’s sense of school connectedness.
Chapter Summary
School connectedness, while defined and measured in many terms, has become a
focal point in the study of student achievement and specific outcomes such as dropout
prevention and school completion (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Sinclair et al., 2003). Whether
the construct is viewed in terms of school climate, teacher-student relationships, or peer
attachment, it is clear that the more positive a student’s sense of connectedness, the more
likely the student will persist, matriculate, and avoid health-risk behaviors (Blum &
Libbey, 2004; Dixon, 2007, Finn, 1993; McNeely & Falci, 2004). Researchers in educa-
tion, the social sciences, and psychology have agreed that the student’s need to belong is
a part of healthy development. The compulsory school environment is the ideal setting in
which to offer a blend of student connectedness constructs that will give lead to improved
student achievement.

25
Research has showed that it is no longer possible to overlook the student’s basic
need to feel a sense of belonging to the school context. Just as Maslow (1968) found in
his early research, basic needs must be met in order to achieve competence or mastery of
skills. According to Maslow (1968), three basic levels of need must be fulfilled first.
Educators and the school environment should recognize the daily factors in the school
context that can result in student competence and personal achievement.
In the current study, school connectedness is measured by these identified con-
structs in order to understand differences in perceptions of school connectedness between
high- and low-achieving students, as well as between staff’s and students’ perceptions at
one school. Understanding staff’s and students’ perceptions could be one way to improve
students’ sense of connectedness and their relationship to school (Libby, 2004). Compari-
son results can identify possible solutions for supporting at-risk students by understand-
ing how staff are facilitating or hindering improved student relationships on one campus.
Previous research has explained how each of the defined factors independently
contributes to increasing student connectedness. The current study goes beyond by testing
various factors at once, resulting in a forced ranking of the domains that students and
staff deemed most significant in positive perceptions of school connectedness. Further-
more, results gave insight regarding differences between staff and high- and low-
achieving students. This information can be used to guide practices and priorities that
support student connectedness and academic achievement.

26
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This study investigated differences in perceptions of school connectedness among
students in Grade 10 in a southern California high school. Based on the literature review,
the case for school connectedness has been well established by previous research that
demonstrated a positive impact of school connectedness on student achievement
(Croninger & Lee, 2001; Goodenow, 1993; Libbey, 2004). However, the literature does
not explain differences in perceptions of school connectedness held by low-achieving and
high-achieving students. Further, none of the literature compares students’ perceptions of
school connectedness to staff’s perceptions of the construct to determine whether there is
misalignment between their conceptions and those held by high- and low-achieving
students. If positive school connectedness impacts can range from reducing health risk
behaviors (McNeely & Falci, 2004) to increasing student engagement, attendance, and
motivation (Blum & Libby, 2004), interventions to support students’ relationship to
school should be part of a comprehensive approach to improvement of student achieve-
ment. Previous research on the construct of school connectedness supports the inference
that a student’s positive relationship with the school environment can support increased
student achievement. Schools should ensure equity for all students and address students
who may feel alienated or disenfranchised.
The comparison of staff’s perceptions of students’ sense of connectedness and
students’ perceptions of the construct in light of achievement has yet to be explored.
Understanding students’ responses regarding their relationship to school and comparing
those responses to student achievement will allow educators to implement programs that

27
strengthen students’ sense of school connectedness. To this end, targeting constructs that
support school connectedness may positively affect student persistence, graduation rates,
and academic engagement (Blum & Libby, 2004; Goodenow, 1993).
Three research questions guided this study:
1. Which factors of school connectedness will be rated most prevalent by students
and staff?
2. How are student perceptions related to their GPA?
3. How do staff perceptions of school connectedness differ from those of
students?
The goal of the first question was to identify the factor(s) of school connectedness
that students perceived as most prevalent within the school environment. As these data
were analyzed and tested for statistical significance, the most prevalent factors emerged.
Next, staff responses were analyzed to gain insight into staff’s perceptions of student
connectedness to shed light on statistical variations or differences from student percep-
tions. The data comparison results for students’ and staff’s perceptions were expected to
contribute the most valuable information of this study.
Student achievement levels and correlations between most prevalent factors were
determined by statistical testing. Pearson correlations determined whether there was a
statistically significant relationship between student achievement level and each of the
seven factors. A one-sample t test measured differences between staff and student per-
ceptions of school connectedness. These results can be used by school staff to enhance
and support student perceptions of school connectedness for both low- and high-
achieving students.

28
The hypotheses generated from the research questions were as follows:
For Research Question 1:
Hypothesis 1: Students will give peer attachment a significantly higher preva-
lence rating than any of the other six Student Connectedness Scale (SCS) items. While all
of the described factors are influential, the research on peer attachment was regarded
most significant based on researcher experience. Witnessing firsthand the influence that
peers can exert on each other, both outside strong family influence and most dramatically
in at-risk scenarios where family support is limited, supported this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Staff will give academic attachment a significantly higher preva-
lence rating than any of the other six SCS items. Previous research in the field of teacher-
student relationships found that teachers had an increased positive affect for and engaged
and interacted with students who asked for help, participated, and had fewer discipline
problems (Nichols, 2006). This hypothesis recognizes the importance of staff perspective
regarding the magnitude of academic achievement and student behaviors that correspond
with positive outcomes.
For Research Question 2:
Hypothesis 3: At least one of the correlations between the seven SCS items and
GPA will be statistically significant. Given that the measurement tool combined seven
factors that describe the overall construct of school connectedness, the data were
expected to determine SCS means that would identify variations between the two groups.
It was reasonable to assume that high- and low-achieving populations would offer differ-
ent perceptions regarding school connectedness.
For Research Question 3:

29
Hypothesis 4: The low-achieving subsample of students will rate at least one of
the seven SCS items significantly differently from the related staff perception rating.
Similar to the previous hypothesis, the measurement was designed to force the SCS mean
ratings to determine variance. In this comparison, it was assumed that staff and at-risk
students would not have similar perceptions regarding student connectedness.
Hypothesis 5: The high-achieving subsample of students will not rate any of the
seven SCS items significantly differently from the related staff perception ratings. It was
assumed staff and high-achieving students would share identical perceptions about school
connectedness and similar value expectations with regard to school success.
Table 1 provides a summary of the research questions with related hypotheses, as
well as the data elements that will be gathered for the statistical approach to determine
the results of the study.
Population and Sample
The participants in this study were students and staff from a high school located in
Orange County, California. The entire 10th-grade class was invited to participate in the
study during the first quarter of their sophomore year. All 10th-grade students were con-
sidered participants via waiver, with parents’ right to opt out. The waiver was distributed
1 week prior to the students’ completion of the survey to meet parent notification
requirements of prescribed by the Internal Review Board (IRB). Students and parents
were given copies of the assent form (Appendix A) and students with parent permission
to participate in the study provided final consent to participate in the online survey.

30

Table 1

Summary of Statistical Approach to Address the Research Questions

Research Related Data Statistical Results
question hypothesis elements approach output

1. Which factors of
school connected-
ness will be rated
most prevalent by
students and staff?

2. How are student
perceptions related
to their GPA?

3. How do staff’s
perceptions of
school connected-
ness differ from
those of students?

H1. Students will give
peer attachment a sig-
nificantly higher prev-
alence rating than any
of the other six SCS
factors.

H2. Staff will give
academic engagement
a slightly higher pre-
valence rating than any
other of the six SCS
factors.

H3. At least one of the
correlations between
the 7 SCS and GPA
will be statistically
significant.

H4. The low- achieving
subsample of students
will have at least one
of the 7 SCS ratings
that will be signifi-
cantly different from
the related staff per-
ception ratings.

H5. The high-achiev-
ing subsample of
students will have no
difference among the 7
related staff SCS
scales.
The 7 student
SCS ratings

The 7 staff SCS
ratings

The 7 student
SCS ratings and
student GPA

Low-achieving
subsample of
students 7 SCS
scores

7 staff ratings

High-achieving
subsample of
students 7 SCS
scores

7 staff ratings
Repeated measures
ANOVA

Repeated measures
ANOVA

Pearson correla-
tions

One-sample t test
with the test value
being the related
staff rating

One-sample t test
with the test value
being the related
staff rating

7 students SCS
mean rating

7 staff SCS mean
rating

7 correlation coef-
ficients

7 SCS mean scores
and 7 SCS mean
staff ratings.

7 SCS mean scores
and 7 SCS mean
staff ratings.

31
Table 2 displays the frequency counts of participating students (N = 712). This
represents students who completed the online survey with fewer than five missing
answers. All participating students were members of the sophomore class. The gender
distribution was 45.9% male and 54.1% female. Student GPA for the first 6 weeks ranged
from 0.83 to 4.50, with an average of 3.38 or a B average (M = 3.38, SD = 0.56). The
largest category was 3.50–3.99, with 279 students (39.2%). Student race was distributed
as 55.9% Caucasian, 4.5% African American, 12.6% Hispanic, 17.4% Asian/Pacific
Islander, and 9.6% other.

Table 2

Frequency Counts for Selected Student Variables (N = 712)
________________________________________________________________________

Variable Category n %
________________________________________________________________________

Grade level Sophomore 712 100.0

Gender Male 327 45.9
Female 385 54.1

Most recent GPA 0.83-1.99 15 2.1
2.00-2.99 115 16.2
3.00-3.49 178 25.0
3.50-3.99 279 39.2
4.00-4.50 125 17.6

Race Caucasian 398 55.9
African American 32 4.5
Hispanic 90 12.6
Asian/Pacific Islander 124 17.4
Other 68 9.6
________________________________________________________________________

a
GPA = grade point average: M = 3.38, SD = 0.56.

32
The study school was a comprehensive secondary school with a high proportion
of students from elevated socioeconomic status. Data from the attendance area for this
high school reveal a median household income of $110,350 for an average household of
2.8 people (City-Data.com, 2011). This is about $40,000 more than the Orange county
median household income of $71,785, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Unique to
the surrounding area is the size of the district, which is relatively small. The district
contains 10 schools, with all students matriculating to one comprehensive high school.
This allows for a succinct perspective to capture the perspectives of the population in its
entirety. While the data will also includes 25% of the population of interdistrict students,
the majority of the data will be from students in the residence attendance boundaries.
Overall, the families in this district come from three neighboring cities that are within
attendance boundaries; the interdistrict students come from out-of-district cities in the
Orange County and Los Angeles County area. The high academic performance index
(API), as well as athletic and arts programs, attract parents and students to this district.
Another unique element of this population is the proportion of students from
divorced or split families (in which students report living part time with either biological
parent, generally with one parent residing within district boundaries). According to the
school’s database, 37% of students currently live in divorced households. While this
aspect of the population is not central to previous research for school connectedness, it
represents a significant population that may be worthy of future research.
In addition to the students who were surveyed, staff members who interacted with
the 10th-grade course were invited asked to participate by completing the same survey
that the students completed. Table 3 displays the frequency counts of all staff who

33
Table 3

Frequency Counts for Selected Staff Variables (N = 62)
________________________________________________________________________

Variable Category n %
________________________________________________________________________

Gender Male 19 30.6
Female 43 69.4

Job type Administration 6 9.7
Teachers 50 80.6
Other school staff 6 9.7

Level of education Bachelor’s 3 4.8
Some graduate training 10 16.1
Master’s 44 71.0
Some doctoral training 4 6.5
Doctorate 1 1.6

Years in education
a
0-4 5 8.1
5-9 11 17.7
10-19 26 41.9
20-29 16 25.8
30-38 4 6.5

Age (years)
b
24-29 3 4.8
30-39 28 45.2
40-49 14 22.6
50-59 13 21.0
60-62 4 6.5
________________________________________________________________________

a
Years of experience: M = 14.73, SD = 8.74.
b
Age (years): M = 42.14, SD = 10.00.

participated in the study. Thirty percent were male and 70% were female. Staff job types
represented in the study were administrators (n = 6, 9.7%), teachers (n = 50, 80.6%), and
other school staff (n = 6, 9.7%). The levels of education completed by staff were as fol-

34
lows: bachelor’s degree (n = 3, 4.8%), some graduate training (n = 10, 16.1%), master’s
degree (n = 44, 71.0%), some doctoral training (n = 4, 6.5%), and doctorate (n = 1,
1.6%). Years of experience ranged from 0 to 38 years, with the largest percentage of staff
in the 10–19 years range (n = 26, 41.9%). The staff population at this campus ranged in
age from 24 to 62 years, with an average age of 42.14 years; the largest category was 30–
39 years (n = 28, 45.2%).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Student Connectedness Scale
Data collection from two specific populations was examined, including partici-
pating staff and 10th-grade students. The main format for gathering student connected-
ness perspectives from staff and students was the SCS, developed by the researcher
(Appendices B and C). The SCS self-reporting scale contains 35 items using a Likert-
type scale format that asks students and staff to rate the importance of constructs: 1=
Never Happens (0% of the time), 2 = Very Uncommon (1-10% of the time), 3 = Quite
Uncommon (10-30% of the time), 4 = Uncommon (30-50% of the time), 5 = Common (50-
70% of the time), 6 = Quite Common (70-90% of the time), 7 = Very Common (90-100%
of the time). The scale design of 35 items includes seven subscale divisions designed to
reflect students’ and staff’s perspectives of the constructs that are most salient to creating
a sense of connectedness: (a) teacher-student relationships, (b) school climate, (c) peer
attachment, (d) school membership, (e) academic engagement, (f) student involvement
extracurricular activities, and (g) student participation in athletics. Each subscale contains
five questions. A total connectedness score was generated by aggregating the 35 individ-
ual ratings. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure reliability of the subscales.

35
Teacher-student relationships subscale. This subscale has five questions
addressing teacher-student relationships, which Libbey (2004) found to be the most
common variable in her review. An example item from this subscale is “Teachers at this
school care about my academic performance.”
School climate subscale. Simons-Morton and Crump (2002) examined this
construct to measure how students perceive school rules. Similarly Coker and Borders
(2001) examined this construct to measure school spirit. A blend of prior work generated
questions for this scale, such as “It is apparent that students at this school show respect to
each other.”
Peer attachment subscale. Literature has demonstrated the significance of peer
relationships not only as a part of school but also as critical to adolescent development
(Osterman, 2000). It is agreed that developing and maintaining successful relationships
with peers is a priority for adolescents, rated higher than academics (Isakson & Jarvis,
1999). Work by Moody and Bearman (2002, as cited in Libbey, 2004) guided develop-
ment of this subscale to measure the relationship of peer interactions to school attach-
ment. An example item from this subscale is “I feel close to people at this school.”
School membership subscale. Goodenow (1993) investigated the idea of school
membership through the Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSMM). Students
were surveyed in four areas of school membership: attachment, commitment, involve-
ment, and belief. For the current study, only the area of belief will be considered. An
example item from this subscale is “I value and trust this school.”
Academic engagement subscale. A. Ryan and Patrick (2001) tested the construct
of student engagement as related to the motivational process of self-regulation. Literature

36
has demonstrated the correlation of self-regulation to academic success in students with
high levels of success (Zimmerman, 2002). Questions in this subscale follow the work by
A. Ryan and Patrick (2001). An example item from this subscale is “I feel it is important
for me to understand what I am doing when working on school assignments.”
Student involvement in extracurricular activities subscale. Various researchers
have explored participation in activities outside of academics (Goodenow, 1993, Jenkins,
1997; Voelkl, 1996) to measure school connectedness or related constructs. Each study
was an attempt to identify the vehicles in which students chose to feel bonded to school.
An example item from this subscale is “It is important to me to attend school sponsored
functions such as dances, pep rallies, arts productions, or athletic events.”
Student participation in athletics subscale. Student participation in athletics has
long been recognized as a deterrent to dropout and may increase student achievement
through GPA guidelines for eligibility for participation (Libbey, 2004). This subscale
asks students to rate the importance of participation on athletic teams. An example item
from this subscale is “It is important for me to play a sport for my high school.”
To collect staff perspectives of the most salient constructs of student connected-
ness, the same SCS survey will be given to staff. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to
measure reliability of the scale. The subscales were used to determine which factors in
which staff considered students’ sense of connectedness to be most powerful.
Student Data Collection
In order to gather student data, support from the school personnel will be utilized
to collect basic information regarding student gender, ethnicity, and GPA. All of this
information was provided voluntarily by the student, anonymously to protect student

37
privacy. SCS survey results were completely anonymous and no identifying information
was collected. All of this information was stored on a personal flash drive and remained
in a locked file at the researcher’s home to protect student confidentiality.
Staff Data Collection
Demographic data on staff was collected via the SCS survey. A slightly altered
version of the SCS survey that was administered to the students (Appendix B) was
administered to the staff (Appendix C). Participating staff met the minimum requirement
of interacting in some capacity with the 10th-grade students ; they were protected by
anonymous and voluntary completion of the survey. Administrative staff at the high
school administered the survey to staff. The survey also collected the following infor-
mation: gender, job type, level of education completed, years of experience. Data were
analyzed for unique correlations and perceptions of student constructs that are most pow-
erful in a sense of school connectedness.
The student and staff survey items are a blend of previously tested items and
researcher-created items to address the various factors of school connectedness. Appen-
dix D displays the source of each item and how it was adapted or used in the current
study.
Data Analysis
Data generated from responses to the SCS addressed Research Question 1, Which
factors of school connectedness will be rated most prevalent by students and staff?
Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the ratings of the seven SCS items
by staff and teachers was expected to reveal the most statistically significant factor(s).
Resulting data generated the mean ratings of SCS items for students and staff.

38
Research Question 2 asked, How are student perceptions related to their GPA?
To address this question, the students were first identified as part of the high-achieving or
low-achieving group. Students self-reported their GPA for the first grading cycle during
which the SCS survey was administered. The researcher used a median split of the GPA
range to determine the high-achieving and low-achieving groups. A self reported GPA of
3.49 or higher represented the high-achieving group (n = 408) and a GPA of 3.48 or less
represented the low-achieving group (n = 304). Seven Pearson correlations were calcu-
lated to measure differences between results for high- and low-achieving students.
Research Question 3 asked, How do staff perceptions of school connectedness
differ from those of students? A one-sample t test compared the seven SCS scores of low-
achieving students to the seven ratings given by staff, with the related staff rating used as
the test value. The same process was followed for high-achieving students. Results from
this analysis provided valuable information regarding the constructs of school connected-
ness that the students perceived to be most powerful in increasing student achievement by
both low- and high-achieving students. Resulting data produced seven SCS mean student
scores and seven SCS mean staff ratings.
Limitations of the Study
The first limitation of this study was the study population. With the large majority
of students from upper socioeconomic levels, the data are not generalizable to other pop-
ulations. Grade distribution across the student sample may also reflect elevated socioeco-
nomic status. Another limitation might be the comparison of staff data to student data,
since the staff sample may not have been representative of the staff population. While
this disconnect exists on many campuses, this may not serve as an accurate finding for all

39
schools. The last limitation was that this district is unique in having only one high school
for matriculation from all feeder middle schools. Data from this study provided insight
for this setting, but not many districts in the state are similar in this respect. The unique
population and setting alone yielded results that were specific to this setting.

40
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The present study was designed to measure variance of perspectives regarding
school connectedness for high- and low-achieving students and compare perspectives of
students and staff at one comprehensive high school. All survey participants voluntarily
completed an online survey measuring seven previously identified constructs of school
connectedness: (a) school membership, (b) peer attachment, (c) teacher-student relation-
ships, (d) academic engagement, (e) school climate, (f) extracurricular activities, and (g)
athletic participation. A “total connectedness” score was calculated by aggregating all 35
individual ratings. The theoretical framework for the study was Brofenbrenner’s eco-
logical model (1979) that demonstrated school as an influential environment for the
healthy development of adolescents where school connectedness can be fostered. In this
chapter, results of analyses are reported according to research question and hypothesis in
terms of reliability coefficients and descriptive statistics.
The study sample of students was described in Table 2. By criteria, all 712
students were sophomores. By gender, 327 (45.9%) were male and 385 (54.1%) were
female. Self-reported GPA ranged from 0.83 to 4.50 (M = 3.38) for the first 6-week
report card. Race was distributed as follows: 55.9% Caucasian, 4.5% African American,
12.6 Hispanic, 17.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 9.6% other.
The study sample of staff was described in Table 3. Of the 62 staff members who
participated, 43 were women and 19 were men. The job types held by participating staff
were 6 administrators, 50 teachers, and 6 other school staff. Their levels of education
ranged from completion of a bachelor’s degree to doctoral degree, with the majority

41
(44%) having a master’s degree. Years of experience ranged from 0–4 years to 34–38
years, with the majority (41.9%) reporting 10–19 years of experience in education. Age
of the staff participants ranged from 24 to 62 years (M = 42.14).
Tables 4 and 5 display the psychometric characteristics for staff’s and students’
respective eight summated scale scores. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for
staff responses ranged from r = .76 to r = .97, with a median alpha of r = .84 (Table 4).
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for students’ responses ranged from r = .75
to r = .94, with a median alpha of r = .84. This suggested that the combination of all 16
staff and student scales had adequate levels of internal reliability.
Table 6 displays the highest and lowest individual ratings from the staff survey.
The highest-rated item was “Teachers at this school care about student academic per-
formance” (M = 6.63) and the lowest-rated item was “Students try to find ways to learn
more about the topic that interests them, even when not assigned” (M = 4.58).
Table 7 displays the highest and lowest individual ratings from the student survey.
The highest-rated item was “It is important to me to understand what I am doing when
working on school assignments” (M = 6.14) and the lowest-rated item was “I try to find
ways to learn more about the topic that interests them, even when not assigned”
(M = 4.60).
Research Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that “students will give peer attachment a significantly
higher prevalence rating than any of the other six SCS items.” To test this, a repeated
measures test was performed. The overall test was significant (p = .001). Bonferroni post
hoc tests found Peer Attachment ratings (M = 5.57), School Membership ratings

42
Table 4

Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores: Staff (N = 62)

Number
Scale of items M SD Low High α

Teacher-Student Relationships 5 6.20 0.55 4.80 7.00 .83
School Climate 5 6.23 0.60 4.80 7.00 .86
Peer Attachment 5 6.11 0.62 4.40 7.00 .89
School Membership 5 5.99 0.65 4.60 7.00 .91
Academic Engagement 5 5.37 0.68 3.80 7.00 .83
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities 5 6.12 0.67 4.60 7.00 .87
Participation in Athletics 5 5.90 0.60 4.40 7.00 .76
Total Connectedness 35 5.99 0.54 4.74 7.00 .97

Table 5

Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores: Students (N = 712)

Number
Scale of items M SD Low High α

Teacher-Student Relationships 5 5.33 0.97 1.00 7.00 .75
School Climate 5 5.26 0.92 1.00 7.00 .78
Peer Attachment 5 5.57 0.98 1.00 7.00 .82
School Membership 5 5.53 1.12 1.00 7.00 .84
Academic Engagement 5 5.19 1.09 1.00 7.00 .79
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities 5 5.16 1.12 1.40 7.00 .78
Participation in Athletics 5 5.49 1.40 1.00 7.00 .87
Total Connectedness 35 5.36 0.85 1.66 7.00 .94

43

Table 6

Highest and Lowest Mean Ratings by Staff on the School Connectedness Scale (N = 62)

Survey item Factor M SD

Highest Ratings

1. Teachers at this school care about
student academic performance. Teacher-Student Relationships 6.63 0.52

13. The students at this school are
supportive of going to college. Peer Attachment 6.56 0.62

9. Students feel safe at this school. School Climate 6.48 0.70

Lowest Ratings

23. Students participate in class
discussions and ask questions when
they do not understand something. Academic Engagement 5.35 0.77

22. When students complete an
assignment, they review it to be sure
it is correct. Academic Engagement 5.10 0.99

25. Students try to find ways to learn
more about a topic that interests them,
even when not assigned. Academic Engagement 4.58 0.97

44
Table 7

Highest and Lowest Mean Ratings by Students on the School Connectedness Scale (N =
712)

Survey item Factor M SD

Highest Ratings

21. It is important to me to understand
what I am doing when working on
school assignments. Academic Engagement 6.14 1.05

18. I follow and abide by school rules
and expectations. School Membership 6.12 1.18

15. I have friends that I turn to when
I have personal or school related
problems. Peer Attachment 6.04 1.40

Lowest Ratings

22. When I complete an assignment,
I review it to sure it is correct. Academic Engagement 4.67 1.63

7. Students at this school show
respect to each other. School Climate 4.63 1.26

25. I try to find ways to learn more
about a topic that interests me, even
when not assigned. Academic Engagement 4.60 1.71

(M = 5.53) and Student Participation in Athletics (M = 5.49) to have significantly higher
ratings than the other four SCS items. Teacher-Student Relationships ratings (M = 5.33)
were significantly higher (p < .05) than Academic Engagement ratings (M = 5.19) and
Student Involvement in Extracurricular Activities ratings (M = 5.16). Given that the Peer

45
Attachment rating was significantly higher than four of the six other ratings, this combi-
nation of findings provided partial support for Hypothesis 1 (Table 8).

Table 8

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Student School Connectedness Scale
Ratings: Students (N = 712)

Scale
a
M SD

1. Teacher-student relationships 5.33 0.97
2. School Climate 5.26 0.92
3. Peer Attachment 5.57 0.98
4. School Membership 5.53 1.12
5. Academic Engagement 5.19 1.09
6. Student Involvement in Extracurricular Activities 5.16 1.12
7. Student Participation in Athletics 5.49 1.40

Note. ANOVA: F (6, 4266) = 34.83, p = .001.

a
Bonferroni post hoc test: 3, 4, 7 > 1, 2, 5, 6 (p < .05); 1 > 5, 6 (p < .05); all other pairs
were not significantly different at p < .05.

Research Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 predicted that “staff will give academic engagement a significantly
higher prevalence rating than any of the other six SCS items.” To test this, a repeated
measures test was performed. The overall test was significant (p = .001).

46
Bonferroni post hoc tests found Academic Engagement ratings (M = 5.37) to be
significantly lower (p < .05) than ratings for any of the other six SCS items. School
Climate ratings (M = 6.23) and Teacher-Student Relationship ratings (M = 6.20) were
significantly higher (p < .05) than School Membership ratings (M = 5.99) and Student
Participation in Athletics (M = 5.90). Student Involvement in Extracurricular Activities
ratings (M = 6.12) and Peer Attachment ratings (M = 6.11) were significantly higher
(p < .05) than School Participation in Athletics ratings (M = 5.90). Given that the Aca-
demic Engagement rating was significantly lower than all six of the other ratings but
hypothesized to be significantly higher, this combination of findings provided no support
for Hypothesis 2 (Table 9).
Research Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 predicted that “at least one of the correlations between the eight
SCS and GPA will be statistically significant.” To test this, Pearson correlations with
eight measures of school connectedness were compared to student GPA. All eight corre-
lations were significant, with seven of them significant at the p < .001 level. These
findings provided support for Hypothesis 3 (Table 10).
Research Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 predicted that “the low-achieving subsample of students will rate at
least one of the eight SCS items significantly differently from the related staff’s percep-
tion rating.” A series of t tests was used to test this hypothesis. For all eight
ratings, the low-achieving students gave significantly lower ratings. These findings pro-
vided support for Hypothesis 4 (Table 11).

47
Table 9

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Student School Connectedness Scale
Ratings: Staff (N = 62)

Scale
a
M SD

1. Teacher-student relationships 6.20 0.55
2. School Climate 6.23 0.60
3. Peer Attachment 6.11 0.62
4. School Membership 5.99 0.65
5. Academic Engagement 5.37 0.68
6. Student Involvement in Extracurricular Activities 6.12 0.67
7. Student Participation in Athletics 5.90 0.60

Note. ANOVA: F (6, 366) = 43.97, p = .001.

a
Bonferroni post hoc test: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 > 5 (p < .05); 2, 1 > 4, 7 (p < .05); 6, 3 > 7 (p <
.05); all other pairs were not significantly different at p < .05.

Table 10

Correlations for School Connectedness Scale Scores and Student Grade Point Average
(GPA) (N= 712)

Variable GPA

Teacher-Student Relationships .15****
School Climate .25****
Peer Attachment .20****
School Membership .22****
Academic Engagement .26****
Student Involvement in Extracurricular Activities .16****
Student Involvement in Athletics .08*
Total Connectedness .24****

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p < .001.

48
Table 11

Comparison of Student Connected Scale (SCS) Ratings for Subsample of Low-Achieving
Students and Staff SCS Ratings

Student Staff
SCS scale score M SD M Difference t p

1. Teacher-student relationships 5.19 0.97 6.20 -1.01 18.31 .001
2. School Climate 5.05 0.93 6.23 -1.18 22.37 .001
3. Peer Attachment 5.39 1.07 6.11 -0.72 11.73 .001
4. School Membership 5.31 1.20 5.99 -0.68 9.88 .001
5. Academic Engagement 4.92 1.11 5.37 -0.45 7.07 .001
6. Student Involvement in
Extracurricular Activities 5.03 1.17 6.12 -1.09 16.44 .001
7. Student Participation in Athletics 5.43 1.38 5.90 -0.47 6.02 .001
8. Total Connectedness 5.19 0.87 5.99 -0.80 16.07 .001

Research Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 5 predicted that “the high-achieving subsample of students will not
rate any of the eight SCS items significantly differently from the related staff perception
ratings.” A series of t tests was used to test this hypothesis. For seven of eight ratings (all
except Academic Engagement), the high-achieving students gave significantly lower
ratings. These findings did not provide support for Hypothesis 5 (Table 12).
Research Questions
Research Question 1 asked, Which factors of school connectedness will be rated
most prevalent by students and staff? This question was addressed by student responses

49
Table 12

Comparison of Student Connected Scale (SCS) Ratings for Subsample of High-Achieving
Students and Staff SCS Ratings

Student Staff
SCS scale score M SD M Difference t p

1. Teacher-student relationships 5.44 0.96 6.20 -0.76 15.95 .001
2. School Climate 5.41 0.89 6.23 -0.82 18.50 .001
3. Peer Attachment 5.70 0.89 6.11 -0.41 9.26 .001
4. School Membership 5.70 1.03 5.99 -0.29 5.69 .001
5. Academic Engagement 5.40 1.03 5.37 0.03 0.54 .59
6. Student Involvement in
Extracurricular Activities 5.27 1.08 6.12 -0.85 15.82 .001
7. Student Participation in Athletics 5.54 1.42 5.90 -0.36 5.13 .001
8. Total Connectedness 5.49 0.80 5.99 -0.50 12.49 .001

to the survey, which identified peer attachment (M = 5.57) as the most prevalent factor
and participation in extracurricular activities as the least prevalent factor. Simple ranking
for the student-generated means produced the following order: peer attachment, school
membership, participation in athletics, teacher-student relationships, school climate, aca-
demic engagement, and participation in extracurricular activities (Table 5). The staff
responses indicated school climate (M = 6.23) as the most prevalent factor for student
school connectedness and academic engagement (M = 5.37) as the least prevalent factor.
For staff, a simple mean ranking of the seven connectedness factors generated the

50
following order: school climate, teacher-student relationships, peer attachment, school
membership, athletic participation, and academic engagement (Table 4).
Research Question 2 asked, How are student perceptions related to their GPA?
Each factor was tested and did not produce strong correlations for relationship to student
GPA. Both academic engagement and school climate were responsible for only 6% of the
variation independently. The factor with the weakest correlation was student involvement
in athletics.
Research Question 3 asked, How do staff perceptions of school connectedness
differ from those of students? The t-test results of difference between perceptions held by
low-achieving and high-achieving students were very informative and offered insights.
The low-achieving subsample produced independent factor means much lower than the
those produced by staff. The greatest difference was in school climate, reflecting percep-
tions of safety and well-being in the school environment (Wilson, 2004). The least differ-
ence was in academic engagement, which was the lowest rating by staff.
The high-achieving subsample showed differences in perception from staff, with
one surprising result. In the area of academic engagement, students rated this factor
within .03 points of staff perceptions. On the whole, there were differences between all
students and staff in perceptions of connectedness but the differences were not as great as
those between low-achieving students and staff.

51
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
School connectedness is known to contribute to positive student achievement but
it has no scalable solutions (Christensen et al., 2010) or, as Libby (2004) found, any con-
sistent use of concepts and measurement tools. The current study was designed to
examine student perceptions of the factors that contribute to school connectedness and
how student perceptions compare to staff perceptions regarding school connectedness.
The study was also designed to measure differences between perceptions held by high-
and low-achieving students.
This chapter presents a comparison of the findings with previous research and
recommendations for future research. Each of the research questions explored was
addressed by hypotheses grounded in the literature; analysis of the data tested the
hypotheses. Key findings are summarized and conclusions and recommendations are
offered.
Previous research has reported positive correlations between student perceptions
of school connectedness and student achievement (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Croninger &
Lee, 2001; Libbey, 2004; Goodenow, 1963). The current study formulated three research
questions to determine the variance in perceptions within one urban high school.
First, the SCS was designed to produce a forced ranking of seven factors to
determine which of the previously tested factors was most important for staff and
students. The hypotheses were related to academic engagement and peer attachment for
staff and students.

52
Second, the differences in perceptions held by low- and high-achieving students
were analyzed by most recent GPA. Here, the hypotheses were general, predicting that at
least one of the seven factors would indicate statistically significant differences. The
results provided statistically significant data; however, the data were not educationally
relevant. It is clear that high-achieving students had higher overall connectedness scores,
as previous research has also found.
Third and most interesting, this study was designed to measure differences
between students’ and staff perceptions. Overall, staff rated each of the seven connected-
ness scales higher than did the students and produced higher overall connectedness scores
than the students. The staff perceived teacher-student relationships (M = 6.20) to be the
key factor for students’ sense of school connectedness. Conversely, the students per-
ceived peer attachment (M = 5.57) to be the most influential of the seven factors that
contribute to their sense of school connectedness. Examining these types of differences
between staff and students points to areas of future research.
Results of this study, consistent with findings from previous research, offer
insight about what is known know about factors that contribute to the larger construct of
school connectedness. Some of the key findings come from data generated by both
groups in the sample to show how student connectedness is defined by this study. By
combining survey items from previous tests done independently, the resulting data shed
light on which of the factors positively influenced students’ perceptions of school con-
nectedness. This identification of differences and similarities of perceptions suggests new
areas of research. In light of the factors that were explored, the data for staff show inde-
pendently how the factors explained each mean score but, offered in conjunction with

53
student data, a richer picture is found. Students and staff appeared to have a linked
expectation value in the data. Yet, it is interesting that the academic engagement factor
produced similar lowest mean ratings by students and staff. Overall, the data demon-
strated a positive sense of school connectedness by both staff and students, which coin-
cides with the perceptions of the high-achieving students.
One of the key findings supported by previous literature is the importance of pos-
itive relationships between teachers and students. The first research question asked which
of the seven factors contributed most to staff and students’ perceptions of school con-
nectedness. Research has shown consistently that this is the most valuable factor that
contributes to a student’s relationship to school. Just as Waters et al. (2009) found in their
research grounded in Brofenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, the relationships that
students have at school are influential in academic outcomes. While the hypothesis gen-
erated for this question predicted academic engagement as the expected outcome, the
staff at this school rated the teacher-student relationship factor as the most influential for
student connectedness. In addition they rated the item, “Teachers at this school care
student academic performance” with the highest overall scale score (M = 6.20) and
highest staff mean rating for SCS individual items (M = 6.63). The power of affective
relationships that adolescents have with members of the school community has been said
to define school connectedness (Rowe et al., 2007). This can reasonably lead to the infer-
ence that the staff feels that relationships on campus are a vital component of a student’s
positive relationship with school; thus, this is where staff contributes most. Expanding
this idea, Reio, Marcus, and Sanders-Reio (2009) noted that, as students progress and
develop, relationships with teachers become generalized to include peers, which leads to

54
the data regarding student perceptions. It has been shown in the literature that positive
teacher-student relationships can make the difference for minority and at-risk students
(Reio et al., 2009), yet in this higher-socioeconomic sample, there was still evidence of
the power of teacher-student relationship.
Results for student perceptions was also a key to clarifying what is currently
known about school connectedness. Here the data indicated the factor of peer attachment
(M = 5.57) which agreed with research by Hargreaves et al. (1996) that “one of the most
fundamental reforms needed in secondary or high school education is to make schools
into better communities of caring and support for young people” (p. 77). Wentzel (1999)
also made this clear in reporting results that indicated that beliefs valued by significant
others can be internalized and offer the possibility of transfer in a new setting. Results
were clear that a majority of the surveyed students had similar beliefs. Data from Item 15
of the survey related to the factor of peer attachment; Brown and Evans (2002) revealed
that the idea of peer attachment, discussed as social attachment for adolescents, can rein-
force socially acceptable behaviors and protect youth from at-risk behaviors such as
school failure. Reio et al. (2009) contributed further agreement that students who leave
school or drop out tend to be loners, with few school friends. Data for this survey item
produced the third-highest-ranked single item and indicated that these students had strong
peer attachments that could partially account for their high-achieving status. Recalling
that the student sample generated a GPA median split at 3.48 to distinguish the low- and
high-achieving groups, it is clear that students at this urban high school were developing
peer relationships that supported the concept that peer attachment is important to student
achievement. Both high- and low-achieving students (M = 5.70 and 5.39, respectively)

55
ranked establishing strong student relationships high, which would encourage prosocial
choices and behaviors. Osterman (2000) found this as well, stating that students with a
stronger sense of belonging to the group can satisfy basic needs that will allow commit-
ment toward a common goal. It is this sense of belonging that creates strong peer attach-
ments that make it safe to discuss problems and take risks in a socially acceptable manner
that has prosocial motivations. Peer attachment data supported the hypothesis that estab-
lishing positive peer relationships at school would increase achievement and would be
present in this high school.
The second research question was designed to determine how school connected-
ness perceptions differed between high- and low-achieving students. Table 10 presents
the correlations between GPA and each of the seven factors tested. While all of the
factors, as well as the overall connectedness score, showed statistically significant differ-
ences, there are some concerns about the sample. The data were not educationally
relevant or conclusive due to the median split of the sample. Students were grouped by a
median GPA of 3.48 for the first 6-weeks progress report. Of the 308 low-achieving
students, only students had a GPA at or below 2.99. While this is still not acceptable for
student achievement measures, only 15 students reported a GPA less than 2.00 (C aver-
age). Student GPA results challenged the comparison of perceptions about school con-
nectedness of high- and low-achieving students. With mean results differing by no more
than 0.48 in the area of academic engagement, the results were otherwise not statistically
relevant for the differences in perception regarding school connectedness. While the
hypotheses for this question remained vague, previous research has shown that students
with high achievement (measured by GPA) tended to have a more positive sense of

56
school connectedness (Libbey, 2004). This study confirmed this finding but did not iden-
tify differences between the high- and low-achieving groups because the total sample
average GPA was 3.49.
The third research question explored the difference in perceptions of school con-
nectedness between staff and students. This produced some interesting results that indi-
cate areas for future research. The relevant hypothesis predicted at least one significant
difference between scores by the low-achieving students and the staff. The hypothesis
was not supported (Table 11). The area of largest difference between low-achieving
students and staff was school climate; staff rated this factor significantly higher than did
students. Recalling that school climate was defined as the sense of safety and well-being
that a student feels at school, the staff clearly perceived the students to feel safe on
campus, based on responses in the 70%-90% range. This was also the staff’s highest-
rated factor for contributing to student connectedness. Research can point to explanations
for the low-achieving students. For example, Croninger and Lee (2001) found that
students with low academic achievement tended not to engage in school activities and
had weaker social networks that limited their resources. This could partially explain dif-
ferences between scores of the low-achieving students and the staff. One area that yielded
a significant difference was the academic engagement factor; staff did not rate this as an
integral contributor to students’ sense of connectedness. Neither did the low-achieving
students, which is not surprising; however, even with this overall student sample, there
was evidence of appropriate student achievement.
Scores for the high-achieving students were compared to those for staff. Hypothe-
ses generated for this question predicted no statistical difference between scores for high-

57
achieving students and staff. While there were differences, the one area that was in
alignment was academic engagement. This is not surprising in light of the overall results
for students and staff. Staff reported this to be the lowest-contributing to student sense of
school connectedness, as did the students. The high-achieving students also shared this
perception with staff. It makes sense that staff and high-achieving students would share
the perception that they are motivated to learn and do well in school (Libbey, 2004). The
student responses to the item “It is important to me to understand what I am doing when
working on school assignments” generated a mean score of 6.14 for all students. With
408 students in the high-achieving group (GPA 3.49 or higher), it is clear that these
students cared about their academic performance and that the staff was aware of this per-
ception.
Overall, the results indicated differences between staff and student perceptions of
school connectedness. While there was evidence of positive perceptions by both students
and staff, more can be done to improve the overall sense of connectedness.
Implications and Recommendations
Key findings shed light on practical means for improving school connectedness
perceptions related to each of the research questions. First, the more connected a student
is to school, the more positive the student’s outcomes are likely to be (Blum & Libbey,
2004). Students face the daunting challenge of the transition to high school, finding a
social group that allows them to fit in, and most important, a record of academic success
that will lead to matriculation. Postsecondary options should allow students to become
productive adult members of society. Research has reported concerns about dropout,
health-risk behaviors, delinquency, and limited access to resources that can provide the

58
tools to navigate public schools (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Waters
et al., 2009).
Unless it recognizes the power that schools play in shaping the future and creating
the environment that allows students to feel that they belong to the community and have a
safe place to establish relationships that recognize human developmental needs, educa-
tion as a whole will miss the opportunity to influence students in a manner that will allow
them to become motivated and enabled learners (Christensen et al., 2010) and serve as
the platform that creates a sense of school connectedness that will support student
achievement. Hargreaves et al. (1996) started this discussion over a decade ago when
they called for education to rethink the practices and strategies for teaching and ensure
delivery of services based on students’ personal and social needs. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
suggested, through his ecological theory, the idea of supporting adolescents with appro-
priate delivery of services to ensure that all students feel a connection to the school com-
munity.
In the present study, the staff demonstrated use and implementation of recom-
mendations that the previous literature supports based on the data gathered in the current
survey. The three factors ranked highest by staff to contribute to students’ relationship to
school were school climate, teacher-student relationships, and peer attachment. Together,
these three factors embody the beginning of relatedness that was found so important in
work by Martin and Dowson (2009). In concert with these thoughts, relatedness lends the
opportunity for quality teacher-student interactions that can model norms of reciprocity
and interpersonal trust. For staff, it was also clear to see continued relatedness percep-
tions with peer attachment, again offering the suggestion that relationships within the

59
systems have an effect on adolescent development, recognizing the importance of peers.
All of these factors are necessary in larger systems that young adults will have to negoti-
ate in settings in which human interaction is essential. The staff understood that ideas for
creating a safe environment for students will allow relationship building and foster
student connectedness and ultimately achievement. The study sample validated recom-
mendations that other urban schools should ensure that students feel safe in the school
setting and have the opportunity to develop prosocial skills and attitudes with staff and
peers to promote a feeling of belonging.
Schools have the daunting task of supporting a future economy and finding the
key to engaging youth to become motivated by standards and test scores. Research shows
a better way. Schools are a developmental place where students start as young children
and are hoped to matriculate to young adults with opportunities to develop skills to think
critically and solve problems. Focusing on the human side of students and their basic
need to feel safe and develop human relationships to gain access to social capital gives
students the beginnings of how to remain engaged and connected to school.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study investigated perceptions of school connectedness among students and
staff in one urban comprehensive high school. The school was in an affluent community;
students demonstrated a fairly high level of academic achievement. One of the contribu-
tions of this study was the mixture of factors tested under the larger construct of school
connectedness. Most of the studies done previously in this field have looked at one factor
independently to address how a student’s relationship to school can affect achievement.

60
While the test offered a method to find which factors were in effect, more research is
needed to explore the construct of school connectedness.
It is recommended that future research use a more diverse sample and demo-
graphic setting to understand differences in impacted urban areas where the literature
suggests this construct is most powerful (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Stanton-Salazar, 2010;
Waters et al., 2010). It would be of benefit to make generalizations across populations
with more in-depth analysis with respect to race and gender. The current data pertained to
variance in one school but those data cannot be generalized to all schools. However, the
useful and specific information for this site address the areas of school connectedness that
are supporting students. Further research could collect data from a sample of high schools
to allow for categorization of school type (e.g., public versus private, brick and mortar
versus online or distance learning). Another way to gain a richer picture would to add a
qualitative component by interviewing staff and students. These data would allow for
comparisons to the online survey and in-depth explanation of how they participants
define a students’ relationship to school. Using a more diverse sample would help to gain
the full picture of how educators can affect this human side of schools.
The work done by Libbey (2004) at the Wingspread conference served as the
current reminder that in a time of technology and globalization, the human side of
schools and relationships will generate a collective spirit of connectedness. Policies such
as FTF that concentrate time, focus leadership, and shape the mission of schools across
the nation can help to reduce the challenges that education faces with NCLB, dropout
rates, and labor readiness skills. This may also call for changes in course programming
for school staff to reflect the importance of relatedness and how schools persuade

61
students to accept what educators are offering in a K–12 education. Continued work in
this area of research can bring to light the best practices and comprehensive approaches
for solving the problem of student disengagement.
It is also recommended to include all grade levels and extend the study length to
generate longitudinal data to allow schools to identify trends and changes within the
student population and to adjust programmatic services for the needs of the students.
Incorporating each of the seven tested factors will give administrators and staff the data
to support student development and have meaningful impact on student achievement.
This study made it clear that each of the seven factors plays a role in student perceptions
of school connectedness, but more research could be done to tease out the subtle differ-
ences by testing fewer factors, varied combinations of factors, and factors that were not
explored in the current study. All of these recommendations would allow for more infor-
mation and understanding regarding how educators can interest students in a positive
relationship with school.
Conclusion
The problem that schools face today is maintaining student engagement as devel-
opmental needs change and so students feel that they belong to the school community.
The risk of dropout, engaging in risky health behaviors, and low academic achievement
(Blum & Libbey, 2004; Libbey, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004) are just some of the
problems demonstrated by previous research. School connectedness, or the student’s
relationship to school (Libbey, 2004) can be a conduit for supporting student achieve-
ment and healthy development, allowing access to increased social capital and prosocial

62
goals. Currently, schools are not addressing the relatedness needs of students and equity
for all students is not present.
It is known that the more positively a student is connected to school, the more
likely the student will engage in prosocial behaviors that can include high academic
expectations, participation in sports or extracurricular activities, or other means to
strengthen a student’s relationship to school. Research has shown that the outcomes for
students who disengage from the school community can range from dropout to early drug
use or other delinquent behaviors (McNeely & Falci, 2004). This presents an additional
problem as students are then ill prepared for the workforce and do not have the basic
skills to become productive contributing members of society (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
While some reforms such as FTF have attempted to address this problem, there is much
work to be done to support students and their membership in the school community.
The present study examined student perceptions of school connectedness at one
local high school and compared those results with staff perceptions of school connected-
ness. Using seven of the more common themes that have been previously tested, the SCS
was developed to measure all of these factors under the umbrella of school connectedness
and produce a forced ranking of the factors to be able to compare perceptions. Data
offered insights as to the differences in perception between students and staff that can
allow for more attention and understanding of what this specific population needs to
increase a sense of connectedness.
Data identified the most prevalent factors for respondent students and staff. Dif-
ferences in perception between students and staff were examined in light of academic
achievement. The high-achieving students perceptions similar to those to staff and the

63
students highlighted the importance of peer attachment in high school. This reminds edu-
cators to support development of healthy relatedness and the notion of connectedness that
is so powerful. Data showed differences between perceptions reported by low-achieving
students and staff. Overall, the students were already high achieving and the findings
were consistent with previous research that suggests that a positive sense of school con-
nectedness was found.
School connectedness is an integral component in schools and should be a focus
for administrators, staff, and the families of students. Building relationships and a sense
of community in schools not only can support student achievement but can also remind
educators that school is part of a larger developmental system that will garner personal
success. Supporting reform that brings the dimension of the basic interactions that occur
in schools to the forefront can improve graduation rates, diminish delinquent behaviors,
and offer sustainability of skills to contribute to society beyond matriculation. More
research in this field is needed and will continue to offer insights regarding the dynamic
need to offer students something that will maintain engagement while accessing educa-
tion. There is accountability in place for academic achievement and it clearly shows the
gap in achievement among at-risk students who have disengaged. Supporting school con-
nectedness is a vehicle to support all students, and schools should be accountable for this
as well.

64
REFERENCES
Bear, G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction and long-
term social development. Educational and Child Psychology, 15(1), 15-39.
Bishop, J., Bishop, M., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S., Peterson, E., . . . Zucker-
man, A. (2004). Why we harass nerds and freaks: A formal theory of student
culture and norms. Journal of School Health, 74, 235-251.
Blum, R., & Libbey, H. (2004). Executive summary. Journal of School Health, 74, 231-
234.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, R., & Evans, W. (2002). Extracurricular activity and ethnicity: Creating greater
school connection among diverse student populations. Urban Education, 37,41-
58.
Caraway, K., Tucker, C., Reinke, W., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation,
and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students.
Psychology in the Schools, 40, 417-426.
Catalano, R., Haggerty, K., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C., & Hawkins, J. (2004). The import-
ance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the social de-
velopment research group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252-261.
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2010). Rethinking student motivation: Why
understanding the “job” is crucial for improving education. Retrieved from
http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/Rethinking-Student-Motivation.pdf
City-Data.com. (2011). [Name of target city of the study]. Retrieved from
http://www.city-data.com/city/[city name]-California.html
Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-
based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student
learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Coker, J., & Borders, L. (2001). An analysis of environmental and social factors affecting
adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Counseling and Development, 37(1), 41-
58.
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Connell, J., & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motiva-
tional analysis of self-system processes. Self-processes in development: Minne-
sota Symposium on Child Psychology, 23, 43-77.

65
Croninger, R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits
to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record,
103, 548-581.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36, 318-334.
Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The
self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.
Dixon, J. (2007). Predicting student perceptions of school connectedness: The contribu-
tions of parent attachment and peer attachment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching
band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent
Research, 14, 10-13.
Evola, M. (2004). An investigation of relationships among teacher attitudes, student
behaviors, and school connectedness (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu.
Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Finn, J. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Gambone, M. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth: Testing key links in a com-
munity action framework for youth development. Philadelphia, PA: Youth Devel-
opment Strategies, Inc. and Institute for Research and Reform in Education.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adoles-
cents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in Schools, 30,
79-90.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: Reinventing education
for early adolescents. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Hawkins, J., Guo, J., Hill, K., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. (1996). Long-term effects
of the Seattle Social Development Intervention on school bonding trajectories.
Applied Developmental Sciences 5(4), 225-236.
Hawkins, J., Herrenkohl, T., & Farrington, D. (2000). Predictors of youth violence
(OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion.

66
Isakson, K., & Jarvis, P. (1999). The adjustment of adolescents during the transition into
high school: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
28, 1-26.
Jenkins, P. (1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research
on Crime & Delinquency, 34, 337-367.
Kagen, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419-469.
Karcher, M. J. (2004). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for develop-
mental interventions. In E. R. Gerier, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp.
7-42). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273.
Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2006). First things first: A framework for successful secondary
school reform. New Directions for Youth Development, 111, 53-66.
Lessard, A., Butler-Kisber, L., Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., & Royer, E. (2008).
Shades of disengagement: High school dropouts speak out. Social Psychology
Education, 11, 25-42.
Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, con-
nectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274-283.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationship with adults and peers: An ex-
amination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 35, 88-99.
Manlove, J. (1998). The influence of high school dropout and school disengagement on
the risk of school-age pregnancy. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 8, 187-
220.
Marsh, H., & Kleitman, S. (2003). School athletic participation: Mostly gain with little
pain. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 205-228.
Martin, A., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice.
Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of
health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and
teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74, 284-292.

67
McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J., & Blum, R. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evi-
dence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of
School Health, 72, 138-145.
Moody, J., & Bearman, P. S. (1997). Shaping school climate: School context, adolescent
social networks, and attachment to schools. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Chapel Hill, Department of Sociology.
Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mouton, S., Hawkins, J., McPherson, R., & Copley, J. (1996). School attachment: Per-
spectives of low-attached high school students. Educational Psychology, 16, 297-
304.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds
with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 423-445.
Nichols, S. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about student belonging in one middle
school. Elementary School Journal, 106, 255-271.
Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323-367.
Patrick, H., Hicks, L., & Ryan, A. (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and
social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 17(2), 109-128.
Reio, T., Marcus, R., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2009). Contribution of student and instructor
relationships and attachment style to school completion. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 170(1), 53-71.
Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., . . . Udry, R.
(1997) Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longi-
tudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion,278, 823-832.
Rowe, F., Stewart, D., & Patterson, C. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through
whole school approaches. Health Education, 107, 524-542.
Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adoles-
cents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 437-460.
Ryan, R., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. (1994). Representations of relationships to parents,
teachers, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Jour-
nal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Santrock, J. (2009). Life span development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

68
Simons-Morton, B., & Crump, A. (2002). The association of parental involvement and
social competence with school adjustment and engagement among sixth graders.
Journal of School Health, 73, 121-126.
Sinclair, M., Christenson, S., Lehr, C., & Anderson, A. (2003). Facilitating student
engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect Longitudinal Studies. Cali-
fornia School Psychologist, 8, 29-41.
Somen, S. (1984). Behavioral problems of school children as viewed and handled by
teachers: An empirical study. Child Psychology Quarterly, 17, 113-126.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth.
Retrieved from http://cue.usc.edu/tools/Social_Capital,_Institutional_Agents_%
2526_the_Empowerment_of_Low-status_Youth,_by_RD_Stanton-Salazar.pdf
Steiner, H., McQuivery, R., Pavelski, R., Pitts, T., & Kramer, H. (2000). Adolescents and
sports: Risk or benefit? Clinical Pediatrics, 39, 161-166.
Van Acker, R., & Talbott, E. (1999). The school context and risk for aggression: Impli-
cations for school-based prevention and intervention efforts. Preventing School
Failure, 44, 12-20.
Voelkl, K. (1996). Measuring students’ identification with school. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 56, 760-770.
Waters, S., Cross, D., & Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structures supporting
adolescent connectedness to school: A theoretical model. Journal of School
Health, 79, 517-524.
Waters, S., Cross, D., & Shaw, T. (2010). Does the nature of schools matter? An explora-
tion of selected school ecology factors on adolescent perceptions of school con-
nectedness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 381-402.
Wehlage, G. (1989). Dropping out: Can schools be expected to prevent it? In L. Weis, E.
Farrar, & H. Petrie (Eds.), Dropouts from school (pp. #). Albany, NY: State Uni-
versity of New York Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom
behavior and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
173-182.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:
Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 84, 76-97.
Whitley, R. (1999). Those “dumb jocks” are at it again: A comparison of the educational
performances of athletes and nonathletes in North Carolina high schools from
1993 through 1996. High School Journal, 82, 223-233.

69
Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and rela-
tionships with aggression and victimization. Journal of School Health, 74, 293-
303.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence.
In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (Vol. 2,
pp. 1-27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

70
APPENDIX A
STUDENT/PARENT ASSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION

SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS: A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ AND STAFF
SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS PERCEPTIONS

Student version

Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Toni Brown a doc-
toral candidate under the supervision of Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, from the University of
Southern California. Yur child’s participation is voluntary. You should read the infor-
mation below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand before deciding
whether to allow your child to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read
the consent form. Your child will also be asked his/her permission and given a form to
read, which is called an assent form. Your child can decline to participate, even if you
agree to allow him/her. Your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or
friends. If your child decides to participate, you will be asked to sign this form, and your
child will confirm during the online survey by reading the assent form prior to complet-
ing the survey. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
As part of this study your child will be asked to answer some questions about your child’s
opinions related to their feeling of belonging to Los Alamitos HS. This study is inter-
ested in understanding what connects them to Los Al or what makes them a Griffin.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, you will be asked to complete an online
survey of 35 questions in total and will ask about seven different ways that you could be
connected to school. All of your answers will remain confidential and you will not be
asked to identify yourself. In addition, you may leave items blank or stop participating at
any time. This survey should take no longer than 35 minutes.

71

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks or discomforts associated with this survey.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits for participants in this study are the school data that will be gener-
ated indicating first, student and staff perceptions of school connectedness and second,
offer insight as to how to increase student connectedness as a means for improving
student achievement.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Once data has been collected and the survey window of participation has been closed
your student will be entered into a drawing for iTunes and Subway gift cards.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will be disclosed only
with your permission or as required by law.

The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

Neither you nor anyone in the school will have access to your child’s responses or to the
audio/video-recordings.

The data will be stored with the named researcher on a password protected computer at
researcher’s private residence. Data will be kept for a minimum of three years and will
remain in custody of the researcher on the password protected computer.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be included.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child’s participation is/are voluntary. Your child’s refusal to participate will involve
no penalty or loss of benefits to which your child are otherwise entitled. You may with-
draw your consent, and your child may draw his/her assent, at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty. You, or your child, are not waiving any legal claims, rights
or remedies because of your/your child’s participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
If your child decides not to participate in the online survey at the time he/she is allowed
to participate, he/she will be redirected to the school’s website and may resume normal
activities within school guidelines.

72
INVESTIGATORS CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Toni Brown,
principal investigator at [email address] or Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, dissertation commit-
tee chair at ghentsch@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have ques-
tions, concerns, complaints about the research and are unable to contact the research
team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact
the University Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)

I/we have read the information provided above. I/we have been given a chance to ask
questions. My/our questions have been answered to my/our satisfaction, and I/we agree
to have our child(ren) participate in this study. I/we have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Name of Parent (1)

Signature of Parent (1) Date

Signature of Parent (2) Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s), and answered all of
their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the information described in this
document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

73
APPENDIX B
STUDENT CONNECTEDNESS SCALE,
STUDENT VERSION
Please answer the following questions according to the scale provided. Please answer
each question based on personal perceptions and experiences. Please know there are no
wrong answers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

0% 1-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-70% 70-90% 90-100%
of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time

Teacher-Student Relationships

1. Teachers at this school care about my academic performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

2. Teachers at this school care about me as an individual.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

3. If I had a problem, there is at least one teacher on campus I feel like I could talk to.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

4. Teachers respect student opinion and welcome conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

74
5. Teachers are available if I need additional support with homework or understanding
content.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

School Climate

6. Students at this school get along well with school staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

7. Students at this school show respect to each other.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

8. The discipline policy at this school is fair and consistent for all students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

9. I feel safe at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

10. Students are proud to attend this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Peer Attachment

11. I feel close to people at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

75
12. Other students at this school like me the way I am.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

13. The students at this school are supportive of going to college.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

14. Students at this school care about each other.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

15. I have friends that I turn to when I have personal or school related problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

School Membership

16. I feel proud to be a part of this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

17. I value and trust this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

18. I follow and abide by school rules and expectations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

76
19. I enjoy and often get involved in the activities offered at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

20. I support school wide spirit activities at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Academic Engagement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

22. When I complete an assignment, I review it to be sure it is correct.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

23. I participate in class discussions and ask questions when I do not understand
something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

24. When I have trouble with an assignment, I attempt to get help from peers or an adult.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

77
25. I try to find ways to learn more about a topic that interests me, even when not
assigned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Extracurricular Activities

26. It is important for me to participate in activities such as clubs, music groups, or
school related programs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

27. It is important for me to attend school sponsored functions such as dances, pep
rallies, art productions, or athletic events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

28. There is something for everyone to be involved with at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

29. Students are encouraged to get involved with school activities by staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

30. Students are encouraged to start new activities or clubs if there student passion or
interest is growing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

78
Athletic Participation

31. It is important for me to play a sport for my high school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

32. Playing a sport in high school is a great way to meet people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

33. I am proud of the sports program at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

34. I am encouraged to participate in the athletic program by staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

35. Participating in or attending athletic functions is important at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

79
APPENDIX C
STUDENT CONNECTEDNESS SCALE,
STAFF VERSION
Please answer the following questions according to the scale provided. Please answer
each question based on personal perceptions and experiences. Please know there are no
wrong answers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

0% 1-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-70% 70-90% 90-100%
of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time of the time

Teacher-Student Relationships

1. Teachers at this school care about student academic performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

2. Teachers at this school care about students as individuals.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

3. If a student had a problem, there is at least one teacher on campus they feel like they
could talk to.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

4. Teachers at this school respect student opinion and welcome conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

80
5. Teachers are available if students need additional support with homework or
understanding content.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

School Climate

6. Students at this school get along well with school staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

7. Students at this school show respect to each other.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

8. The discipline policy at this school is fair and consistent for all students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

9. Students feel safe at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

10. Students are proud to attend this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Peer Attachment

11. Students feel close to people at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

81
12. Students at this school are accepting of others that may be different.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

13. The students at this school are supportive of going to college.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

14. Students at this school care about each other.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

15. Students have friends that they turn to when they have personal or school related
problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

School Membership

16. Students feel proud to be a part of this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

17. Students value and trust this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

18. Students follow and abide by school rules and expectations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

82
19. Students enjoy and often get involved in the activities offered at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

20. Students support school wide spirit activities at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Academic Engagement

21. It is important for students to understand what they are doing when working on
school assignments.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

22. When students complete an assignment, they review it to be sure it is correct.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

23. Students participate in class discussions and ask questions when they do not
understand something.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

24. When students have trouble with an assignment, they attempt to get help from peers
or an adult.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

83
25. Students try to find ways to learn more about a topic that interests me, even when not
assigned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

Extracurricular Activities

26. It is important for students to participate in activities such as clubs, music groups, or
school related programs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

27. It is important for students to attend school sponsored functions such as dances, pep
rallies, art productions, or athletic events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

28. There is something for everyone to be involved with at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

29. Students are encouraged to get involved with school activities by staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

30. Students are encouraged to start new activities or clubs if there student passion or
interest is growing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

84
Athletic Participation

31. It is important for students to play a sport for this high school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

32. Playing a sport in high school is a great way to meet people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

33. Students are proud of the sports program at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

34. Students are encouraged to participate in the athletic program by staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

35. Participating in or attending athletic functions is important at this school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Very Quite Quite Very
happens uncommon uncommon Uncommon Common common uncommon

85
APPENDIX D
SOURCES OF ITEMS ON THE STUDENT
CONNECTEDNESS SCALE
Student Version Staff Version Source
1. Teachers at this school care
about my academic
performance.
1. Teachers at this school care
about student academic
performance.
Adapted from Resnick et al.
(1997)
2. Teachers at this school care
about me as an individual.
2. Teachers at this school care
about students as individuals.
Adapted from Finn (1993)
3. If I had a problem, there is
at least one teacher on campus
I feel like I could talk to.
3. If a student had a problem,
there is at least one staff on
campus they feel like they
could talk to.
Simons-Morton and Crump
(2002) and Goodenow (1993)
4. Teachers respect student
opinion and welcome
conversation
4. Teachers at this school
respect student opinion and
welcome conversation.
Adapted from Ryan and
Patrick (2001)
5. Teachers are available if I
need additional support with
homework or understanding
content.
5. Teachers are available if
students need additional
support with homework or
understanding content.
Adapted from Ryan and
Patrick (2001)
6. Students at this school get
along well with school staff.
6. Students at this school get
along well with school staff.
Adapted from Finn (1993)
7. Students at this school
show respect to each other.
7. Students at this school
show respect to each other.
Simons-Morton and Crump
(2002)
8. The discipline policy at this
school is fair and consistent
for all students.
8. The discipline policy at this
school is fair and consistent
for all students.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
9. I feel safe at this school. 9. Students feel safe at this
school.
Resnick et al. (1997)
10. Students are proud to
attend this school.
10. Students are proud to
attend this school.
Goodenow (1993)
11. I feel close to people at
this school.
11. Students feel close to
people at this school.
Moody and Bearman (1997)

86

12. Other students at this
school like me the way I am.
12. Students at this school are
accepting of others that may
be different.
Goodenow (1993)
13. The students at this school
are supportive of going to
college.
13. The students at this school
are supportive of going to
college.
Adapted from Goodenow
(1993)
14. Students at this school
care about each other.
14. Students at this school
care about each other.
Adapted from Brown and
Evans (2002)
15. I have friends that I can
turn to when I have personal
or school related problems.
15. Students have friends that
they turn to when they have
personal or school related
problems.
Adapted from Brown and
Evans (2002)
16. I feel proud to be a part of
this school.
16. Students feel proud to be a
part of this school.
Goodenow (1993)
17. I value and trust this
school.
17. Students value and trust
this school.
Adapted from Goodenow
(1993)
18. I follow and abide by
school rules and expectations.
18. Students follow and abide
by school rules and
expectations.
Adapted from Brown and
Evans (2002)
19. I enjoy and often get
involved in the activities
offered at this school.
19. Students enjoy and often
get involved in the activities
offered at this school.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
20. I support school wide
spirit activities at this school.
20. Students support school
wide spirit activities at this
school.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
21. It is important to me to
understand what I am doing
when working on school
assignments.
21. It is important for students
to understand what they are
doing when working on school
assignments.
Adapted from Ryan and
Patrick (2001)
22. When I complete an
assignment, I review it to be
sure it is correct.
22. When students complete
an assignment, they review it
to be sure it is correct.
Adapted from Ryan and
Patrick (2001)
23. I participate in class
discussions and ask questions
when I do not understand
something.
23. Students participate in
class discussions and ask
questions when they do not
understand something.
Adapted from Goodenow
(1993)

87
24. When I have trouble with
an assignment, I attempt to get
help from peers or an adult.
24. When students have
trouble with an assignment,
they attempt to get help from
peers or an adult.
Adapted from Ryan and
Patrick (2001)
25. I try to find ways to learn
more about a topic that
interests me, even when not
assigned.
25. Students try to find ways
to learn more about a topic
that interests me, even when
not assigned.
Adapted from Hawkins, Gho,
Hill, Battin-Pearson, and
Abbott (1996)
26. It is important for me to
participate in activities such as
clubs, music groups, or school
related programs.
26. It is important for students
to participate in activities such
as clubs, music groups, or
school related programs.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
27. It is important for me to
attend school sponsored
functions such as dances, pep
rallies, art productions, or
athletic events.
27. It is important for students
to attend school sponsored
functions such as dances, pep
rallies, art productions, or
athletic events.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
and Coker and Borders
(2001)
28. There is something for
everyone to be involved with
at this school.
28. There is something for
everyone to be involved with
at this school.
Researcher
29. Students are encouraged
to get involved with school
activities by staff.
29. Students are encouraged
to get involved with school
activities by staff.
Adapted from Coker and
Borders (2001)
30. Students are encouraged
to start new activities or clubs
if there student passion or
interest is growing.
30. Students are encouraged
to start new activities or clubs
if there student passion or
interest is growing.
Adapted from Brown and
Evans (2002)
31. It is important for me to
play a sport for my high
school.
31. It is important for students
to play a sport for this high
school.
Researcher
32. Playing a sport in high
school is a great way to meet
people.
32. Playing a sport in high
school is a great way to meet
people.
Researcher
33. I am proud of the sports
program at this school.
33. Students are proud of the
sports program at this school.
Adapted from Jenkins (1997)
34. I am encouraged to
participate in the athletic
program by staff.
34. Students are encouraged
to participate in the athletic
program by staff.
Adapted from Brown and
Evans (2002)

88
35. Participating in or
attending athletic functions is
important at this school.
35. Participating in or
attending athletic functions is
important at this school.

Researcher

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the most prevalent factors of school connectedness in 1 southern California comprehensive high school by examining the variance between high- and low-achieving students and between student and teachers. Seven factors have been identified and tested as measures of the construct of school connectedness: school membership, peer attachment, teacher-student relationships, academic engagement, school climate, extracurricular activities, and athletic participation. Data were collected via a school connectedness scale that utilized both standardized and researcher-developed survey questions. Data were analyzed using repeated measures, analysis of variance, Pearson correlations, and one-sample t tests to address the 3 research questions. ❧ The data showed similarities and differences of perception for students and staff with the population surveyed. As expected, students identified peer attachment as the most essential factor for establishing a relationship to school. Staff identified the teacher-student relationship factor as the most needed to support school connectedness. Staff and the high-achieving population of students had similar perceptions about the academic engagement factor. Overall, findings were consistent with previous research that demonstrated a direct correlation between positive sense of school connectedness and academic achievement. Findings support the need to continue research in this overall construct to ensure that students basic developmental needs are met. In addition, this study produced a reliable and valid tool for identifying areas of priority that a school should consider when addressing school connectedness concerns. Increasing school connectedness by addressing the factors that mean most to students offers not only healthy individual development but a positive school social ecology that maintains the human connection needed by all.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

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

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Connectedness and distance learning: a study of student, teacher, and parent perceptions

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

The role of student engagement in a certified Linked Learning school

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Student perceptions at middle college high schools

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Multiple perceptions of teachers who use data

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

Use of accountability indicators to evaluate elementary school principal performance

PDF

Why should they stay? a social network analysis of teacher retention

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

Asset Metadata

Creator Brown, Tonatzin Elisa (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/11/2012

Defense Date 05/09/2012

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,peer attachment,school connectedness,school membership,student engagement

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member)

Creator Email tonatzib@usc.edu,toni.chavez10@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-45377

Unique identifier UC11288361

Identifier usctheses-c3-45377 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BrownTonat-885.pdf

Dmrecord 45377

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brown, Tonatzin Elisa

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