University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Connectedness and Distance Learning: A Study of Student, Teacher, and Parent
Perceptions
by
Julie Cellini Parks

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Julie Cellini Parks
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Julie Cellini Parks certifies the approval of this Dissertation

John Nickerson
David Cash
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This mixed method study evaluated the perceptions of school connectedness for students,
teachers, and parents in a California high school district during both traditional school and
distance learning through the application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Instrumentation included surveying of students, parents, and teachers. Survey questions
contained a combination of quantitative and open-ended qualitative responses, including
questions adopted from both the CHKS (WestEd, 2019a) and Use of Connection-Building
Strategies Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011). Completed responses for students (N = 47), parents
(N = 290), and teachers (N = 73) were analyzed to draw findings. Students, parents, and teachers
identified aspects of school connectedness that aligned with the literature, including adult
relationships, school environment, commitment to education, and belonging to a positive peer
group (Allen & Bowles, 2012; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009).
Feedback on strategies during distance learning revealed social presence theory categories of
affective association, community cohesion, interaction intensity, knowledge and experience, and
teacher care as being important to feeling a sense of belonging on a virtual format (Dikkers et al.,
2012; Dikkers et al., 2013; Whiteside, 2015). Lastly, student perceptions of connectedness
during distance learning were significantly lower than perceptions of both parents and teachers.
Overall findings indicate that school organizations must consider all aspects of school
connectedness as described in the Wingspread Declaration (Blum & Libbey, 2004) when
planning programing and implementing initiatives and that the context of the learning
environment is significant in gauging overall connectedness.

v
Dedication
To my late father, Anthony Cellini. While it is doubtful that he would have ever understood why
I chose education (there are so many other options, after all), I know that this accomplishment
would have meant more to him than anyone else. He would have even read this whole paper! Dad,
thank you for showing me what it looks like to work hard and do right.

vi
Acknowledgements
Completing a dissertation in the middle of COVID-19 was a memorable challenge. First, I
want to acknowledge my husband, Sean Parks. He is responsible for motivating me to apply to
this program and persevere through the late nights and long weekends. Without his support, it
would not have been possible for me to achieve this goal. Additionally, I need to thank my
wonderful children, Liam and Lucas Parks, for sharing me with this work. While I still managed
to get to most swim meets and soccer games, I missed many dinners and family game nights as I
attended class.
I would also like to acknowledge my Chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for her incredible
dedication and support for her students. Knowing that I was in such capable hands gave
tremendous relief. Thank you for the many zoom calls! Additionally, I would like to thank my my
committee members, Dr. David Cash and Dr, John Nickerson, for giving their time, energy, and
expertise through this journey.
My wonderful colleagues were invaluable during this process. I am grateful to work for an
organization that values this work and shares my passion for school change. My supportive staff
stood by me throughout this process and I will forever be in their debt.
I could not have navigated the last three years without my favorite outlet: CrossFit. Thank
you to Diablo CrossFit for providing a much-needed sanctuary to keep me centered and healthy
through this dissertation and through COVID-19.
Lastly, I want to thank all my students. They are the true heroes of this pandemic and this
project belongs to them.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
Defining School Connectedness ......................................................................................... 8
Importance of School Connectedness ............................................................................... 10
Strategies to Increase School Connectedness ................................................................... 12
Challenges to Measuring School Connectedness ............................................................. 17
Distance Learning and the Social Presence Model ........................................................... 21
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 25
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 30
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 30
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 31
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 32

viii
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 33
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 34
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 43
Ethics……......................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 45
Research Question 1: How Are Perceptions of School Connectedness Similar and
Different Between Students, Parents, and Teachers? ........................................... 45
Research Question 2: What Strategies Do Students, Parents, and Teachers Feel
Facilitate and Inhibit School Connectedness at Their Site? .................................. 65
Research Question 3: How Did the Distance Educational Plan Affect Student,
Parent, and Teacher Beliefs About School Connectedness? ................................ 93
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 99
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 101
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 101
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 107
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 113
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 114
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 115
References ................................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A: Student Survey ...................................................................................................... 131
Appendix B: Parent Survey ........................................................................................................ 140
Appendix C: Teacher Survey ...................................................................................................... 149
Appendix D: CHKS and CSS Question Comparisons ................................................................ 155

ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 32
Table 2 Comparisons of Student, Parent, and Teacher Mean Connectedness Scale Scores ......... 46
Table 3 ANOVA for Student, Parent, and Teacher Means for Connectedness Scale Questions ... 47
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Student Survey Subscales ............................ 48
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Parent Survey Subscales .............................. 49
Table 6 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Teacher Survey Subscales ............................ 50
Table 7 Quotations with References to Feelings of Community Value ........................................ 55
Table 8 Quotations with References to Feelings of Individual Value ........................................... 57
Table 9 Quotations with References to Caring Relationships with Adults ................................... 58
Table 10 Quotations with References to Caring Relationships with Peers ................................... 60
Table 11 Quotations with References to Extracurricular Engagement ......................................... 61
Table 12 Quotations with References to Academic Engagement ................................................. 63
Table 13 Quotations from Survey Groups with References to Outreach and Communications... 64
Table 14 Frequency of Use of Strategies that Positively Connect Students to School ................. 66
Table 15 Quotations from with References to Peer Collaboration Strategies .............................. 72
Table 16 Quotations with References to Community Building Strategies ................................... 73
Table 17 Quotations with References to Extracurricular Events .................................................. 74
Table 18 Quotations with References to Class Interaction and Communication .......................... 75
Table 19 Quotations with References to Academic Engagement and Support Strategies ............ 77
Table 20 Quotations with References to Teacher Care Strategies ................................................ 78
Table 21 Quotations with References to Isolation from Peers ...................................................... 83
Table 22 Quotations with References to Lack of Community Building Activities ...................... 84

x
Table 23 Quotations with References to Low Engagement or Motivation ................................... 86
Table 24 Quotations with References to Poor Communication .................................................... 88
Table 25 Quotations with References to Lack of Learning and Support Strategies ..................... 90
Table 26 Quotations with References to Low Teacher Care ......................................................... 92
Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for Ratings of Connectedness in Traditional and Distance
Learning ........................................................................................................................................ 93
Table 28 ANOVA for Subgroup Means for Traditional School Connectedness Rating ............... 94
Table 29 ANOVA Subgroup Means for Distance Learning Connectedness Rating ..................... 95
Table 30 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Students .... 96
Table 31 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Parents ...... 97
Table 32 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Parents ...... 98
Table 33 Definition of Connectedness and the Literature .......................................................... 102
Table 34 Strategies for School Connectedness and the Literature .............................................. 104
Table 35 Strategies that Inhibit School Connectedness and the Literature ................................. 106
Appendix D: CHKS and CSS Question Comparisons………………………………………….105

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 2 Comparison of Categories Defining School Connectedness .......................................... 52
Figure 3 Comparison of Categories for Strategies that Increase School Connectedness ............. 70
Figure 4 Comparison of Categories for Strategies that Diminish School Connectedness ............ 80

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Low school connectedness adversely affects student performance and decreases student
well-being. School connectedness negatively correlates with risk factors for students including
peer victimization (La Salle et al., 2016) and suicidal ideation (Arango et al., 2018). Conversely,
school connectedness is a critical factor in ensuring a positive school climate supportive of
student well-being (Lester & Cross, 2015). The transition between primary and secondary school
marks a particularly vulnerable time for students. The evidence highlights that connectedness
declines through middle school years (Lester et al., 2013) at a similar rate for both boys and girls
(Loukas et al., 2016). In the field of distance learning, higher school connectedness, often
referred to as social presence, is correlated with higher learning outcomes and motivation in a
virtual setting (Whiteside, 2015). This study evaluated the perceptions of school connectedness
for students, teachers, and parents in a California high school district during both traditional
school and distance learning through the application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Context and Background of the Problem
The state of California measures school connectedness for students through the California
Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS). The CHKS is a biannual survey given to students in grades 5, 7,
9, and 11 to measure areas for school and student improvement, including student connectedness,
learning engagement/motivation, and attendance; school climate, culture, and conditions; school
safety and victimization/bullying; physical and mental well-being and social-emotional learning;
and student supports (WestEd, 2021a). The framework of the CHKS postulates developmental
supports are necessary to meet youth needs. Meeting youth needs increases connectedness and
yields positive student outcomes such as increased academic achievement, higher emotional
2

health, improved social engagement, behavioral improvement, and better physical health
(WestEd, 2021a). Levels of connectedness remained relatively flat in California between 2013
and 2019. Students indicating school connectedness ratings of strongly agree or agree stayed
consistent at 57% for ninth graders and decreased slightly from 56% to 53% for eleventh graders
(WestEd, 2021b).
The site of the study was Valley High School District (VHSD), a pseudonym for a district
consisting of four comprehensive high schools serving grades 9 through 12. VHSD is located in
an affluent northern California suburb. VHSD has high student achievement, with a graduation
rate of 96.7% for four-year cohorts compared to the California state average of 87.6% (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2020b). Additionally, 83.4% of graduates matriculate to a four-
year college, well above the California state average of 65.8% (CDE, 2018). Despite the high
academic achievement and rates of college matriculation, VHSD experienced a decline in school
connectedness as measured by the CHKS. Between 2013 and 2019, students indicating school
connectedness ratings of strongly agree or agree declined from 73% to 69% for ninth graders
and from 72% to 64% for eleventh graders (WestEd, 2020b).
In March 2020, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of the
VHSD for in-person instruction. As VHSD shifted from traditional schooling to a distance
learning model, the resultant organizational change affected students, teachers, and families.
Direction from the CDE was vague; therefore, individual school districts and communities
determined the specific design for distance learning. Initially, in the spring on of 2020, VHSD
teachers used preexisting platforms for posting assignments that aligned with newly established
guidelines. These guidelines specified that assessment focus on effort and engagement and
3

students should be assigned credit or no credit based on performance in the fourth quarter. These
new guidelines were controversial in the community, with many lobbying for standard grades
over a credit/no credit system.
By fall of 2020, it was evident that COVID-19 rates would require the VHSD to open the
school year in a distance learning format. The guidelines were rewritten to be compliant with
CDE direction, which mandated instructional minutes and daily attendance though virtual
platforms (CDE, 2020). The resultant schedule involved students learning through both
asynchronous content posted on a learning management system and synchronous class meetings
held via zoom.
At the time of this study, the VHSD had been in a distance learning format for almost
three quarters of instruction.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school connectedness for
students, parents, and teachers in the VHSD. Furthermore, in the context of post COVID-19
school restructuring, the study explored differences in perceptions of school connectedness
within a traditional school setting and within a distance learning setting. This study sought to
understand how perceptions of school connectedness influence how students, teachers, and
families feel about school strategies to increase connectedness. Collectively, the study provides a
comprehensive methodology for understanding school connectedness in both traditional and
distance learning settings.

The research questions that guided this study were:
4

1. How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between
students, parents, and teachers?
2. What strategies do students, parents, and teachers feel facilitate and inhibit school
connectedness at their school site?
3. How did the distance educational plan affect student, parent, and teacher beliefs
about school connectedness?
Importance of the Study
A deep understanding of student connectedness is critical for addressing risk factors in
students. Low student connectedness correlates with a number of risk factors for students in
grades 9 through 12, including peer victimization (La Salle et al., 2016; Morrow et al., 2014;
Wang et al., 2014), depressive symptoms (Loukas et al., 2016; Shochet & Smith, 2014), and
suicidal ideation (Arango et al., 2018; Govender et al., 2013; Marraccini & Brier 2017).
According to a study conducted by Morrow et al. (2014), peer victimization, specifically social
manipulation, negatively correlated with academic achievement. Furthermore, while individual
perceptions of school climate do not moderate the effects of peer victimization on academic
achievement, connectedness to caring adults positively affects school wide measures of school
climate. In a study by Wang et al. (2014), a one-point increase in school wide climate scores
yielded nearly a one-point increase in grade point average (GPA), revealing the tangible benefits
the protective factor of connectedness can provide to vulnerable students. Additionally, amongst
the three domains of connectedness, family, school, and community, school connectedness has
the strongest potential as a protective factor against both depression and suicidal ideation
(Arango et al., 2018).
5

Students reporting higher levels of positive relationships with peers and adults are more
likely to have positive feelings of school connectedness (Cholewa et al., 2012; Coyne-Foresi,
2016; Joyce, 2019; Mahatmya et al., 2016; Neely et al., 2015; Scott & White, 2013). During
adolescence, the development of strong relationships with peers becomes increasingly important
to both well-being and the development of social skills (Oldfield et al., 2016). Survey results
from Oldfield et al. (2016) confirmed that greater peer relationships and increased connectedness
significantly correlated with lower levels of emotional challenges. According to Lester and Cross
(2015), connectedness is one of the five domains of school climate impacting student wellbeing.
In their study of 3,642 students from 21 secondary schools, school connectedness and peer
support were significant predictors of student wellbeing, with connectedness serving as the most
significant protective factor against depression (Lester & Cross, 2015). This study examined how
students, teachers, and parents constructed meaning for school connectedness in VHSD during a
distance learning environment for the purpose of producing school reforms specifically targeting
initiatives to boost these perceptions.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model provided the framework for examining school
connectedness. This model consists of layers of interconnected systems, extending outward from
the individual, in concentric circles, each encompassing a greater field influence
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Building upon this basic model, the socio-cultural framework for school
belonging, derived from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, describes spheres of influences
expanding outward from a student in the center (Allen et al., 2016). The microsystem, closest to
the student, consists of teachers, parents and peer support within the setting of a school. The
6

mesosystem includes the school policies, extracurricular activities, professional development,
rules, and practices that interconnect the teachers, parents, and peers with each other and with the
student. The exosystem comprises the broader influencing factors, such as the school vision and
school board activities and the macrosystem includes history, social climate, and culture.
Collectively, these formal and informal factors contribute to the perception of the school setting
by the student (Allen et al., 2016).
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to discern perceptions on school
connectedness and involved the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data integrated
during analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Specifically, data collection followed an
exploratory sequential methodology (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) with students, parents, and
teachers serving as the subjects. Purposeful sampling (Maxwell, 2013) of survey respondents
allowed for an expanded exploration of the perceptions on school connectedness and
triangulation with the quantitative and qualitative results.
Definitions
The following terms appear throughout the remainder of this study. As such, the
definitions and citations from relevant literature provide an explanation to their meaning as
utilized within this study.
• Belonging is an inference developed by a person regarding his fit in a setting (Walton &
Brady, 2017).
• School Connectedness is defined by the Wingspread Declaration on School Connections
as “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).
7

• Social presence is the operationalization of school connectedness in the context of
distance learning. Social presence, or connectedness, consists of five integrated elements:
affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity,
and knowledge and experience (Whiteside, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study follows a five-chapter format. Chapter One provides a brief overview of the
study to include the problem of practice, conceptual framework, methodology, and definitions.
Chapter Two delivers a review of relevant literature on school connectedness. Chapter Three
discusses the mixed-methods research methodology including sampling techniques and data
collection protocols. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the data. The study concludes in
Chapter Five with a discussion of the findings, recommendations, and implications for future
research on school connectedness.
8

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the construct of school connectedness. The review begins
with a summary of the history of connectedness, including its relationship to the similar terms of
relatedness, climate, and belonging. Next, the review explores the importance of connectedness
with analysis of positive correlates and the function of connectedness as a protective factor. The
literature review continues with strategies for increasing connectedness, including programming,
relationship building, and leadership. Next, the scales used to measure connectedness are
analyzed, with particular attention to gaps in the measurement strategies. Finally, the review
discuses distance learning and introduces the social presence model for assessing connectedness
in a digital platform. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the conceptual framework
stemming from the literature and serving to construct the quantitative and qualitative protocols.
Defining School Connectedness
Early analysis of school connections developed from research on belonging. Goodenow
(1993) identified that belonging, or psychological membership, of students in a school is “the
extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in
the school social environment” (p. 80). The need for acceptance, belonging, and inclusion
becomes increasingly critical as adolescents establish a greater number of significant
relationships outside of their homes (Goodenow, 1993). Building social relationships promotes a
feeling of well-being that can increase overall motivation for students, which can impact
performance (Coyne-Foresi, 2016). Increased perceptions of belonging influence the likelihood
of students achieving success in schools. Osterman’s (2000) review of literature established that
a student's sense of belonging could influence academic performance and participation in school
9

activities. Schools are an important setting for building relationships that are essential to feelings
of belonging (Allen & Bowles, 2012). Belonging in the school setting is a combination of both a
general feeling and more context-specific and person-specific relatedness (Karcher & Lee,
2002). The quality of social relationships are intertwined with feelings of belonging in the school
community and lead to higher levels of school connectedness (Lester et al., 2013; Lester &
Cross, 2015). Feelings of belonging and inclusion are important aspects of school connectedness
that feature prominently in the literature. However, school connectedness is refers to the
relationships that develop within a school setting, particularly with school staff.
The concept of care is prominent in definitions of school connectedness. The most
commonly utilized definition of school connectedness comes from the Wingspread Declaration
for School Connections (Blum & Libbey, 2004). This document is a synthesis of research and
discussions on the topic of school connectedness as determined by a group of interdisciplinary
education leaders. School connectedness is the perception by students that adults in the school
care about their learning and them as individuals (Blum & Libbey, 2004, p. 233). The value of
teacher-student relationships is a frequent theme in connectedness research. The Center for
Disease Control and Prevention (2009) defines school connectedness as a belief by students that
the adults in the school care about them and their outcomes. The literature reveals substantial
evidence of the impact of teacher-student relationships, with positive relationships associated
with higher levels of connectedness (Biag, 2016; Cholewa et al., 2012; García-Moya et al.,
2015). Connectedness is also linked to the overall school climate. Cohen et al. (2009) postulated
that school climate consists of several spheres of school life (safety, relationships, teaching and
learning, and the environment) in conjunction with organizational factors. School connectedness
10

is an aspect of relationships and is a significant protective factor in studies of school climate
(Lester & Cross, 2015). The presence of caring relationships is a prominent feature in the
understanding of school connectedness. While the definition of connectedness lacks consensus
within the literature, its value as a conceptualization remains important in understanding school
experiences and the various benefits and risk factors that emerge as correlates.
Importance of School Connectedness
School connectedness is an important element for academic achievement (Center for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009; McNeely et al., 2002; National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [NCCDPHP], 2009). High levels of school
connectedness correlate with higher levels of academic achievement and motivation (Goodenow,
1993; McNeely et al., 2002, Osterman, 2000). In a longitudinal study of middle school students
administered three surveys over the course of one year, students who experienced less than the
average decline in school connectedness performed higher academically (Niehaus et al., 2012).
Additionally, while connectedness declines through middle school and into high school,
universal and targeted programming in high school can increase connectedness and improve
academic outcomes (Sulkowski et al., 2012). School connectedness remains an important factor
in academic success beyond high school and into post-secondary education. In a study of
university students in Appalachia, students from the region exhibited strong correlations between
academic GPA and connectedness, showing the importance of connectedness in determining
academic outcomes (Wilson & Gore, 2009). Similarly, a qualitative study of African American
students enrolled in a recreation and leisure studies post-secondary program found that
connectedness was a predictor of motivation and persistence toward degree attainment (Waller et
11

al., 2011). Furthermore, the correlation between school connectedness and academic
achievement is particularly significant for students of color. Nasir et al. (2011) conducted a
mixed methods study including surveys and interviews of 120 African American high school
students. In this study, institutional connection to the school correlated significantly with
achievement of African American students. School connectedness correlates with increased
academic performance and motivation in students at all levels. Additionally, school
connectedness can serve as a protective factor against peer victimization, depressive symptoms
and suicidal ideation, and substance abuse.
School connectedness negatively correlates with risk factors in youth (CDC, 2009;
NCCDPHP, 2009; Resnick et. al, 1997). Peer victimization, or bullying, is one risk factor
associated with lower levels of school connectedness (Arango et al., 2018; La Salle et al., 2016;
Morrow & Swift, 2014; Wang et al., 2014). In a comprehensive quantitative study involving the
administration of the Georgia Student Health Survey to over 6,000 middle and high school
students, findings revealed a negative correlation between perceptions of peer victimization and
connectedness (LaSalle et al., 2016). Additionally, Arango et al. (2018) conducted a study of 142
victimized youth with interpersonal issues and found depressive symptoms negatively correlated
with school connectedness. Youth with depressive symptoms consistently exhibit lower levels of
connectedness in the literature (Marraccini & Brier, 2017; Lester et al., 2013).
A study of 241 high school students were administered the Psychological Sense of School
Membership (PSSM) scale and findings revealed high levels of health risk were associated
with lower levels of connectedness, and that the strongest predictor of connectedness was
suicidal ideation (Govender et al., 2013). Loukas et al. (2016) studied trajectories of student-
12

perceived connectedness in the middle school years and findings indicated that early
symptoms of depression played an important role in connectedness. Connectedness also
serves as a protective factor against behaviors maladaptive to student success. In another
study using the PSSM, Oldfield et al. (2016) posited that greater sense of school
connectedness significantly correlated with lower levels of emotional difficulties and higher
levels of prosocial behavior, thus signaling the impact of connectedness as a protective factor.
A qualitative study of at-risk African American students who made positive behavioral
changes revealed that, while family is the most important support for a student, school
support is critical in the absence of positive family support, showing the importance of school
systems in supporting high connectedness (Animosa et al., 2018). Connectedness is a
protective factor that reduces risk of bullying, depressive symptoms, and behaviors that
diminish learning. The capacity of connectedness to serve as a protective factor has led to a
demand for school programming that supports positive connections.
Strategies to Increase School Connectedness
The Wingspread Declaration of School Connections clearly outlines four major
strategies for increasing school connectedness: a commitment to education through
engagement of students in school activities, a supportive staff that hold students to high
expectations and build relationships, positive peer groups, and a school environment that
promotes a vision for connectedness (Blum & Libbey, 2004).
Schools can increase school connectedness through strategic pedagogy and
programming that shows a commitment to educate all students at high levels (CDC, 2009;
NCCDPHP, 2009). Instructional strategies that promote student interaction and decision
13

making in the classroom, like culturally responsive teaching, promote school connectedness
(Rowe et al., 2007). In a small study of African American students, culturally responsive
strategies observed in the classroom produced higher overall levels of connectedness and
achievement (Cholewa et al., 2012). Similarly, in a small STEM program of adolescent girls
of color, focusing on the collective experience rather than the technology increased student
engagement and motivation (Scott & White, 2013). While these techniques can be effective,
teachers' diverse levels of proficiency in connectedness building strategies can affect overall
school connectedness. In a survey of teacher confidence in connectedness strategies,
Vidourek and King (2014) noted teachers were most confident in the strategies of calling by
names and acting as a role model, but less confident in cooperative learning, talking to
parents, and positively engaging the community. Additionally, the use of connectedness
strategies varies between grade levels, with elementary school teachers using connectedness
strategies with more frequency than middle school teachers (Vidourek et al., 2011).
Collectively, these strategies positively influence student perceptions of connectedness by
communicating a school commitment to high expectations. Ultimately, however, successful
implementation of these strategies is dependent on teacher expectations of students.
High standards for student performance coupled with teacher support increases
connectedness (Blum, 2005). In a qualitative study conducted on teacher perceptions of
student connectedness, teachers identified engagement in school as a major theme associated
with student connectedness (Chapman et al., 2014). This study suggests that when students
have responsibilities within school, they develop a greater sense of focus and goal-orientation,
indicating the role that teacher expectations have on connectedness. High expectations must
14

be present in both artifacts and values to facilitate engagement and connectedness.
Observations from a qualitative study conducted by Biag (2016) indicate that value and
teacher support can unintentionally lead to lowered expectations. When teachers are
supporting students with a variety of needs, this can perpetuate a deficit perception of students
and their families that can adversely affect student connectedness (Biag, 2016). Teacher
demonstration of high standards promotes school connectedness by communicating care.
Fostering meaningful student-teacher relationships can further communicate care.
Strong relationships between teachers and students are important factors in building
school connectedness (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Goodenow, 1993). Strong school relationships
contribute to overall well-being of students (García-Moya et al., 2015; Lester & Cross, 2015).
Over 9,000 school-aged children responded to a World Health Organization (WHO) survey
about perceived performance at school, teacher connectedness, and emotional well-being
(García-Moya et al., 2015). In this study, teacher connectedness had a significant positive impact
on emotional well-being. A combination of teacher support and teacher-student relationships is
necessary to increase school connectedness (Blum, 2005). The top two factors that Blum (2005)
listed for improving school connections included teachers sustaining high academic standards
with strong support and an environment with positive and respectful adult-student relationships.
Strategies for doing this include creating smaller learning environments, forming teams of
teachers to work with students, and ensuring mentoring and counseling access for students
(Blum, 2005). Mentoring and counseling, in particular, can affect students' connections. A school
mentoring program analyzed by Lemberger and Clemens (2012) showed positive results in the
intended outcome of raising metacognition and self-regulation, in addition to increasing school
15

connectedness for the participants. In a small qualitative study, student-teacher lunches led to
increased connectedness, with participants identifying common themes such as experiencing
common humanity, creating an informal environment, encouraging sharing, inclusive
participation, sacrificing time and effort, and experiencing diversity (Neely et al., 2015).
Interaction that teachers and students have both within the classroom during instruction and
outside of the classroom during programmed events can foster teacher-student relationships.
Additionally, relationship building with peers is also of notable significance for increasing
connectedness at schools.
While connectedness to peers was not a specific focus of this study, it is important to
acknowledge the strong role peer relationships play in perceptions of connectedness. The social
bonds between students influence feelings of school membership (Goodenow, 1993). Peer
interaction is an important aspect of academic connectedness (Karcher & Lee, 2002). Interaction
with positive peer groups can serve as a protective factor for students and result in increased
engagement and performance (Animosa et al., 2018; Chapman et al., 2014; Coyne-Foresi, 2018).
Peer support positively correlates with school connectedness, particularly during times of
transition and for at-risk students (Lester & Cross, 2015; Loukas et al., 2016). Findings from a
study of middle school students over a two-year transition period to secondary school indicated
that peer support is the most important factor in mental well-being (Lester & Cross, 2015). For
at-risk groups, such as gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, connectedness to peers is the most
significant protective factor against depressive symptoms (McLaren et al., 2015). Conversely,
negative interactions with peers can have a detrimental impact on school connectedness. Peer
victimization refers to aggressive behaviors that are intentional and repeated over time.
16

Additionally, there is a power imbalance between the victim and the perpetrator (La Salle et al.,
2016). In a large quantitative study of middle and high school students, La Salle et al. (2016)
reported a negative correlation between peer victimization and school connectedness. The
literature establishes the positive impact of relationships with both peers and teachers as a
component of connectedness. Therefore, the school organization must purposefully incorporate
relationship building into the school environment.
Leadership can play an important role in developing a positive school environment by
assuring physical and emotional safety for students (Blum, 2005). School leaders can develop
this type of school environment by incorporating an ethic of connectedness into the school vision
(Frick & Frick, 2010). The ethic of connectedness involves five areas of focus: justice, care,
critique, community, and virtue (Frick & Frick, 2010). The climate of the school can improve
and build connectedness for students as these areas integrate into school culture. According to
Cohen et al. (2009), school climate involves the quality of school life and “includes norms,
values, and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally, and physically safe”
(p. 182). School leaders should work with school staff to develop a shared vision for a positive
climate that involves programming to support strategies and interventions that specifically build
a safe environment for students (Cohen et al., 2009). Intervention programming is one example
of how school leadership develops organizational goals that increase connectedness. In a review
of programs aimed at targeting school connectedness, Chapman et al. (2013) suggested most
programs focused on making wide scale, whole-school change. According to the findings,
schools are in a position to make organizational changes that build connectedness (Chapman et
al., 2013). School connectedness leadership and programming can also extend outside of the
17

school day. In a review of 21 after school programs, Anderson-Butcher (2010) found that leaders
promoting values such as fostering belonging and connections to teachers were most effective in
increasing connectedness for their programs. Additionally, there is evidence that these successful
programs translated to greater school connectedness (Anderson-Butcher, 2010). Organizational
leadership is necessary to build strong school connections for students. Following the creation of
such programming, it is critical for schools to establish measurable goals to assess progress.
Challenges to Measuring School Connectedness
Measurement of school connectedness is complicated in part because of the variety of
tools utilized by researchers. The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM),
consisting of an 18-item survey designed to measure student perceptions of belonging and
psychological membership in a school, was one of the first scales developed (Goodenow, 1993).
Internally reliable, this scale measures connectedness in a variety of contexts, including with
secondary students (Hagborg, 1994; Meloro, 2006), with students with disabilities (Hagborg,
1998; Kohlhagen, 2016), and with students of color (Thijs et al., 2019; Warren, 2012).
Particularly, this scale examines correlates with school connectedness, including risk factors like
depressive symptoms (Govender et al., 2013; Shochet & Smith, 2014) and protective factors like
peer attachment (Oldfield et al., 2016).
Similar to the PSSM, the shorter 6-Item Connectedness Scale developed by Resnick et al.
(1997) measures a student’s sense of belonging in addition to closeness to classmates. The 6-
Item Connectedness Scale contains six questions regarding school connectedness originally
embedded within the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Arango et
al. (2018) utilized this instrument in conjunction with scales for family and community
18

connectedness to examine the correlation between connectedness and suicidal ideation and
depressive symptoms across various domains. The shorter length of this scale made it more
accessible for studies that combine various surveys.
The Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness (MAC) is a tool for specifically
measuring adolescent connectedness (Karcher, 2001). Adolescent connectedness is distinct from
adult connectedness in that it is not a permanent personality trait or a generalized feeling, but
rather situational and context specific (Karcher, 2001). The tool consists of 74 questions
measuring connectedness across four domains: family, friends, school and self. Its application in
a variety of settings generated low invariance (Karcher & Lee, 2002; Karcher & Sass, 2010). The
variety of tools available for researchers makes the literature on school connectedness
challenging to synthesize. Since the construct of school connectedness is not universally defined,
different instruments have evolved to measure varying aspects of connectedness. This has
contributed to specific gaps in the research for particular subgroups of students.
Inconsistencies exist in the assessment of connectedness across race, gender, and
ethnicity, suggesting that there may be gaps in the literature for particular subgroups of students
(Sulkowski et al., 2012). Karcher & Sass (2010) asserted that the operational definition of school
connectedness differs across race. Teacher-student relationships are a fundamental aspect of
school connectedness and these relationships may influence student perceptions of
connectedness. A quantitative study of student and teacher perceptions of connectedness
indicated that White teachers had lower expectations and quality relationships with students of
color and that these perceptions negatively affected interactions that influence student
perceptions of connectedness (Mahatmya et al., 2016). While teacher-student relationships are
19

key to institutional connectedness, evidence suggests that there is more fluidity to these
relationships in low resourced schools than suburban schools. In a mixed methods study of
African American high school students in a high poverty school, Nasir et al. (2011) established
that connection and disconnection consist of both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions.
Furthermore, in contrast to suburban white schools, these networks are more complex and
changeable given the transitory nature of staffing and the uncertainty of resources, affecting how
African American students connected with teachers and how connection correlated with
academic achievement (Nasir et al., 2011). Teacher perception and relationship building capacity
influence connectedness for students of color. This variation in connectedness influences
academic outcomes for students of color.
The challenges facing students of color in forming meaningful connections with their
teachers influences academic performance. The findings from Nasir et al. (2011) suggest that
relationships between students and teachers look different for African American students than
their White peers and are less likely to result in higher levels of academic achievement. The
literature implies that positive relationships alone are not a significant factor in academic
success; instructional strategies that communicate high expectations must accompany these
relationships. A small qualitative study of African American and Latina girls in a computer
science program demonstrated the importance of collective, interactive relationships in learning
and efficacy (Scott & White, 2013). Similarly, the use of culturally responsive instructional
strategies that promoted community building and trust elicited higher academic outcomes for
African American students in a math classroom (Cholewa et al., 2012). This is important because
it reveals that current measurements may not capture perceptions of connectedness for all
20

subgroups equitably, therefore, affecting the meaning of the findings. Connectedness data
disaggregated by gender and ethnicity has similar inconsistencies.
Statistically significant differences in connectedness by gender exist in schools, with
females demonstrating higher levels of connectedness than males (Karcher & Sass, 2010; Loukas
et al., 2016; Niehaus et al., 2012). The difference in conceptualizations of connectedness
between boys and girls can account for this difference. In a study by LaSalle et al. (2016) males
and females reporting at least three close friends indicated similar levels of connectedness, but
only females demonstrated a substantial increase in connectedness with reports of three or more
friends (LaSalle et al., 2016). Additionally, although connectedness for both boys and girls
declines during middle school, females maintain higher overall levels of connectedness than
males (Niehaus et al., 2012). While this is significant in understanding overall patterns, Niehaus
et al. (2012) conducted a longitudinal study that indicated that initial perceptions of school
support could change given sustained efforts to intervene. In terms of gender, these student
support efforts had a higher impact on performance than the number of adults with whom
students reported positive relationships, indicating the importance of communicating support
programs for both males and females (Niehaus et al., 2012). Finally, ethnic differences, and the
corresponding variation in cultural norms, may affect measurements of connectedness. In a study
of Taiwanese middle school students using the MAC, Karcher & Lee (2002) hypothesized that
students with more interdependent self-concepts would experience a more significant impact
from family connectedness as compared to students in the United States. While results of this
study supported the validity and reliability of the MAC, differences between students in Taiwan
and in the United States in connectedness to friends and connectedness to self in the present were
21

evidence of varying cultural values. The variations between subgroups are important to
understand because they have implications for the types of practices that may be most effective
in building connectedness within specific settings. Additionally, there are gaps in the research
concerning analysis of non-traditional settings, particularly distance learning.
Distance Learning and the Social Presence Model
Distance learning is an emerging area of research with both benefits and challenges with
regard to connectedness. The model for distance learning has evolved over time. Saba (2003)
summarized that distance education includes certain system characteristics, including
complexity, a hierarchical structure, dynamism, nonlinearity, a self-organizing tendency, and a
balance between chaos and order. Stokes (2000) further explained that success in e-learning
programs depends on collaboration between schools, parents, students, and the private sector to
connect learners. This collaboration involves continuous communication between the instructor
and student, with the student situated in the center (Saba, 2003). Moore (1983) described the
relational aspect of distance learning, imagining feedback loops as determining the degree of
structure and autonomy for the learner. This system is, therefore, dependent on dialogue between
the instructor and the student to ensure that there is constant adjustment to meet individual needs
(Saba, 2003). The potential of distance learning to be responsive to learner needs can bring many
benefits, such as increased accessibility for students who may be regionally diverse or
economically disadvantaged (Granger & Bowman, 2003; Shearer, 2003; Stone & Springer,
2019). The ability of distance learners to be both together and apart, unbound by time, place or
situation has profound implications for transformation in education (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).
Additionally, Saba (2003) proposed that the dynamism of distance learning allows instruction to
22

be diverse and individual, rather than the transactional model typically found in traditional
classroom settings. While distance learning has grown in use and frequency, there are still many
gaps in the literature with regard to understanding distance learning in a K-12 setting.
Furthermore, distance learning also comes with a variety of challenges exacerbated by
difficulties in building strong student connections.
The social presence model provides a framework for assessing connectedness in a
distance learning environment. Early research on online platforms identified social presence as a
factor in engagement (Whiteside, 2015). While this definition began with very early
telecommunication and evolved as media became increasingly interactive, the clarity in the
terminology did not improve. As the focus of distance learning shifted to a blended learning
model with a combination of in-person and electronic interaction, findings suggested that social
presence is correlated with higher levels of interaction (Whiteside, 2015). The social presence
model involves five elements: affective association, community cohesion, instructor
involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience (Dikkers et al., 2012;
Whiteside, 2015). While knowledge and experience refers to prior skills that participants in an
online learning community may bring, the other areas of social presence develop within the
distance learning setting (Whiteside, 2015). Instructors can target the remaining four aspects of
social presence to develop within the online classroom. The social presence framework is helpful
for understanding perceptions of students in a distance learning setting. Specifically, social
presence in an online environment fosters the two important aspects of connectedness, belonging
and a perception of care.
23

The construct of social presence has similarities to the concept of belonging, the
psychological membership to a community (Goodenow, 1997). Affective association refers to
the emotional bonds that occur within a group (Whiteside, 2015). These bonds develop through
interaction and face-to-face conversation that occurs during synchronous components of distance
learning when the participants are involved in real-time or near real-time interaction (Winiecki,
2003). In these distance learning settings, aspects of live communication, including turn-taking,
overlap, and repair, can occur, helping to build trust and a feeling of affective association
(Winiecki, 2003). Community cohesion, or a willingness to view the blended learning
participants as a collective, enhances through use of video and audio technology (Cleugh, 2013;
Dikkers et al., 2012). The purpose of group discussions is to ensure achievement of goals and to
provide member satisfaction that will keep the group together (Carabajal et al., 2003). Like
affective association, synchronous opportunities are better suited to developing community
cohesion. Huang & Wei (2000) cited that task-focused interactions only account for 40% of a
group process, implying that the majority of the group communication is social (Huang & Wei,
2000). Instructors explicitly building opportunities for socializing within the online setting can
increase affective association and community cohesion (Whiteside, 2015). Belonging in a
distance learning environment emerges, in part, from the level of affective association and
community cohesion felt in an online classroom. Perceptions of care by adults is another aspect
of connectedness fostered through social presence.
Social presence in an online setting also incorporates aspects of care that emerge in the
connectedness research. The social presence model indicates that instructor involvement in the
online setting will increase social presence (Sharp, 2014; Whiteside, 2015). Stone and Springer
24

(2019) examined the crucial role of the teacher in online engagement in a qualitative study of 70
participants selected through purposeful sampling. Findings indicated that the level of instructor
involvement through feedback, regular interaction, and online presence was important to
distance learners and had a positive impact on attrition (Stone & Springer, 2019). Additionally,
strategies that promoted greater interaction intensity between the students, other students, and the
instructor communicated greater feelings of care (Sharp, 2014; Whiteside, 2015). On an online
platform, modification of strategies is necessary to be effective, as the online platform is
fundamentally different from in-person learning. Distance learners emphasized the importance of
activities designed for engaging students in communication and collaboration, synchronously
and asynchronously, as critical for maintaining engagement and communicating care by the
instructor (Stone & Springer, 2019). Both instructor involvement and interaction intensity
increased through reducing transactional distance (Shearer, 2003). The concept of transactional
distance refers to psychological separation rather than geographical separation; it is an
interaction between communication and structure in distance learning (Shearer, 2003).
Timeliness of interaction, frequency of occurrence, and the type of interaction can influence
transactional distance and, as a result, social presence. The concepts of instructor involvement
and interaction intensity mirror definitions of connectedness that identify perceptions of caring
by adults as key to developing connection (Blum & Libbey, 2004). For students transitioning
into an online distance learning environment, maintaining connectedness requires shifting to
strategies to increase social presence.
25

Conceptual Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) was the basis for the
conceptual framework of this study. While definitions of school connectedness vary, the
Wingspread Declaration describes belonging in the school setting as the beliefs by the student
that the adults within the school community care about their learning (Blum & Libbey, 2004).
School connectedness, therefore, is a local and personal construct. Understanding this construct
begins with understanding variation within individual students. According to Allen et al. (2016),
three aspects of the individual student correlate with school connectedness. These include
academic motivation, emotional stability, and personal characteristics. However, there is fluidity
between these characteristics and school connectedness, as the relationship is likely bidirectional.
The focus of this study was specific to the first two layers of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
system: the microsystem and the mesosystem. The broader aspects of policy and culture that
exist within the macrosystem and exosystem undoubtedly influence school organizations.
However, perceptions of school connectedness are specific to individual students. With the
student placed within the center, the microsystem consists of the teachers and families existing in
the settings of schools and homes that primarily influence student perceptions of school
connectedness (Allen et al., 2016). Thus, the students, families, and teachers construct
perceptions of school connectedness and these perceptions exist within the local context. This
study did not directly measure the impact of peers on connectedness.
The mesosystem serves as the space through which the entities in the microsystem are
interconnected. The major factors that influence belonging within schools interact and
operationalize in the mesosystem. These factors consist of adult support, belonging to a positive
26

peer group, commitment to education, and the school environment (Allen & Bowles, 2012;
CDC, 2009). The mesosystem is the space through which school policies, extracurricular
activities, professional development, and rules and practices are established and where they
interact with the microsystem (Allen et al., 2016). This study did not address the broader
exosystem or macrosystem; however, these layers do influence interaction within the
mesosystem.
The conceptual framework for this study also included the social presence model. With
the Valley High School District (VHSD) school year interrupted by the impact of COVID-19 and
the subsequent establishment of distance learning, a conceptual model for this study must include
aspects of the social presence model. This model establishes five elements, affective association,
community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and
experience, as significant to fostering a sense of belonging in an online environment (Dikkers et
al., 2012; Dikkers et al., 2013; Whiteside, 2015). These elements operationalize within the
mesosphere.
In the conceptual framework for this study, use of effective strategies in the mesosphere
interacted fluidly with the main stakeholders, teachers and families, in the microsphere to impact
individual student perceptions of connectedness. With the impact of distance learning, the
strategies shifted between the two settings, traditional school and distance learning, creating a
divided, yet porous, mesosphere. Figure 1 illustrates this relationship.

27

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Note. The student is at the center of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1979) with the
microsystem consisting of teachers and families immediately surrounding. While peers also
make up the microsystem, this group will not be included in this study. The mesosystem is
comprised of aspects of both school connectedness as defined by the Wingspread Declaration
(Blum & Libbey, 2004) and the social distance model (Whiteside, 2015). These constructs are
interconnected and interact fluidly with each other and with the microsystem. They ultimately
influence beliefs and perceptions of the student. Dotted lines represent areas of integration and
influence.
28

Summary
School connectedness is challenging to define. It appears in the literature primarily as a
feeling of belonging or acceptance (Goodenow, 1993). Blum & Libbey (2004) further define
school connectedness as a perception of care by adults at the school. School connectedness is
important mainly because of its capacity to serve as a protective factor (Goodenow, 1993;
McNeely et al., 2002, Osterman, 2000). School connectedness negatively correlates with risk
factors such as peer victimization (Arango et al., 2018; La Salle et al., 2016; Morrow & Swift,
2014; Wang et al., 2014), depressive symptoms (Lester et al., 2013; Marraccini & Brier, 2017),
and suicidal ideation (Govender et al., 2013; Resnick, 1997). Conversely, high school
connectedness is associated with higher academic outcomes across all subgroups of students
(Niehaus et al., 2012; Sulkowski et al., 2012; Wilson & Gore, 2009). Connectedness can be
improved through strategies aimed at showing a commitment to education (Cholewa et al., 2012;
Scott & White, 2013; Vidourek & King, 2014; Vidourek et al., 2011), demonstrating high
expectations for student achievement (Biag 2016; Blum, 2005; Chapman et al., 2014), fostering
strong teacher relationships (Blum & Libbey, 2004; García-Moya et al., 2015; Goodenow, 1993;
Lester & Cross, 2015), and developing positive peer groups (Animosa et al., 2018; Chapman et
al., 2014; Coyne-Foresi, 2018). Strong school leadership that holds these principles central to the
school vision are most effective in building connected schools (Anderson-Butcher, 2010).
Comparing studies of school connectedness is challenging due to differences in the
various scales used to measure school connectedness in students (Karcher, 2001; Goodenow,
1993; Resnick et al., 1997). The use of diverse instrumentation makes the comparison of data
challenging and inconsistent. Additionally, the scales are not consistent in validity and reliability
29

between different subgroups of students. This hampers researcher understanding of the
implications of school connectedness within and across populations (Karcher & Lee, 2002).
Measuring school connectedness in nontraditional settings, such as online schooling, is
an emerging area of research. The social presence model outlines key aspects to building
connections within a virtual setting (Whiteside, 2015). These concepts merge within
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to develop a conceptual framework
that incorporates aspects of both traditional school and distance learning.

30

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to understand student, parent, and teacher perceptions of
school connectedness. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, this study focused on the
interactions between these stakeholders in the mesosystem. The conceptual framework for this
study drew from the construct of school connectedness, the belief by students that the adults in
the school care for them (Blum & Libbey, 2004), and the social presence model, the
operationalization of school connectedness in a distance learning context (Whiteside, 2015). This
chapter begins with a review of the research questions and provides an overview of the design of
this study, including a description of the setting, the role of the researcher, and an explanation of
the mixed methods instrumentation. The chapter outlines data collection procedures, with
particular attention to addressing validity and reliability. Chapter three concludes with a
discussion of ethics and the potential limitations of the study.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between
students, parents, and teachers?
2. What strategies do students, parents, and teachers feel facilitate and inhibit school
connectedness at their school site?
3. How did the distance educational plan affect student, parent, and teacher beliefs
about school connectedness?
31

Overview of Design
This mixed methods study addressed student, parent, and teacher perceptions of school
connectedness (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). Mixed methods research uses both quantitative
and qualitative data, “integrating the two forms of data, and using distinct designs that may
involve philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks” (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018, p.
4). The integration of two forms of data provides additional insight into the research questions.
In the case of this study, understanding of school connectedness required both assessment
through valid and reliable closed-ended questions and open-ended narratives that allowed
freedom of expression about beliefs.
This study employed a convergent design. Surveys of three stakeholder groups, students,
parents, and teachers, collected quantitative data through closed-ended questions and qualitative
data through open-ended questions. Connectedness between subgroups was determined using the
merged results.

32

Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey
RQ1:
How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between
students, teachers, and families?

X
RQ2:
What strategies do students, teachers, and families feel facilitate and inhibit
school connectedness at their school site?

X
RQ3:
How did the distance educational plan affect student, teacher, and family
beliefs about school connectedness?
X

Research Setting
The VHSD is located in Northern California and consists of four comprehensive high
schools and one center for independent study serving approximately 5,600 students in grades
nine through twelve (CDE, 2020a). Demographically, 64.2% of students identify as White,
13.5% identify as Asian, 10.4% identify as Hispanic or Latino, 6.8% identify as two or more
races, 2.3% identify as Filipino, 1.7% identify as African American, 0.2% identify as Pacific
Islander, and 0.1% identify as American Indian or Alaska Native (CDE, 2020a). VHSD employs
346 certificated staff members consisting of teachers, counselors, and administrators (CDE,
2019a). Student performance is high in VHSD, with 89% of students meeting or exceeding the
standard in English Language Arts on the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) and 71.9% of students meeting or exceeding the standard in mathematics on
the CAASPP (CDE, 2019b).
33

Over the last six years, VHSD prioritized student connectedness in the Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP). Each of the four comprehensive high schools set specific targets
for growth in student connectedness in the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) in
alignment with the VHSD LCAP. This led to initiatives to change the bell schedule, add
embedded intervention into the school day, and develop Wellness Centers at each of the school
sites. The focus on student connectedness in the VHSD established this as an ideal setting for
this study. Given that school connectedness was operationalized within VHSD for students,
parents, and teachers, a mixed methods study of their perceptions within the changing
environment post COVID-19 deepened understanding of how these perceptions integrate in the
mesosystem.
The Researcher
The researcher was an administrator within the VHSD. Given the close relationship
within the setting of this study, research methods included an analysis of secondary data and
anonymous surveys. These methods minimized direct contact with research participants and the
impact of positionality on responses. There was particular care to recognize bias and assumptions
during the data collection and analysis phases of the study. This included the use of a neutral
email account for providing information regarding the study to the VHSD. Additionally, the
Superintendent’s office and Human Resources distributed the surveys. This further removed the
researcher. Previous work in the VHSD on the LCAP and SPSAs was both an asset for
understanding strategies utilized by the VHSD to address school connectedness and a potential
area for bias in the analysis of survey data. These experiences could shape interpretation of the
survey data. The researcher exercised reflexivity through the data collection and analysis phases
34

to help ensure awareness of how personal experiences may have shaped interpretation (Cresswell
& Cresswell, 2018).
Data Sources
Data in this study came from closed-ended and open-ended survey questions. Open-ended
responses were included in the survey protocols to incorporate more qualitative data to answer
the research questions. Parents of tenth and twelfth grade students were administered questions
adopted from the CHKS and open-ended questions explored parent perceptions of school
connectedness. Teachers were also administered questions adopted from the CHKS and the
California School Staff Survey (CSSS) and open-ended questions explored teacher perceptions
of school connectedness. Questions from these surveys aligned to allow for comparison across
stakeholder groups (WestEd, 2019a; WestEd, 2019b). Alignment between survey protocols
allowed for triangulation between participants in the three stakeholder groups (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The primary purpose of this study is to understand student, family, and teacher
perceptions of connectedness and connectedness strategies in a distance learning setting. The
survey design provided a quantitative description of the opinions of these populations and
allowed for comparison between stakeholder group perceptions (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018).
Additionally, open-ended questions coded for common themes gathered qualitative responses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey was the preferred methodology because it permitted timely
turnaround of data of a large group of participants. Additionally, given the positionality of the
researcher, surveys increased the validity and reliability of responses by allowing participants to
35

maintain anonymity. The surveys were cross-sectional and administered simultaneously. Data
collection occurred through an online survey using Qualtrics.
Participants
The purposefully selected participants consisted of three separate groups: students,
parents, and teachers.
In November of 2020, the total population of students in VHSD was 5,573. Of these
students, 1,430 were tenth graders and 1,337 were twelfth graders. For this study, a survey was
available for all students in tenth and twelfth grades contingent on parental approval. The study
employed a single-stage sampling procedure to sample students directly (Cresswell & Cresswell,
2018). Demographic questions determined stratification at the conclusion of the survey. The
target sample size of tenth and twelfth graders in the student group was 400 for a 95%
confidence for a population of infinite size. After survey implementation, there were 86 total
responses from students. Of these responses, 39 were incomplete and not included in the final
data set. The final data set for students included 47 responses (N = 47).
In November of 2020, the total population of parents or guardians in the VHSD was
approximately 10,000. For this study, a survey was available to all parents and guardians of
students in the VHSD. The study employed a single-stage sampling procedure to sample parents
directly (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). Demographic questions determined stratification at the
conclusion of the survey. The target sample size of parents and guardians in the parent group is
167 for a 95% confidence level. After survey implementation, there were 622 total responses
from parents. Of these responses, 332 were incomplete and not included in the final data set. The
final data set for parents included 290 responses (N = 290).
36

In November of 2020, the total population of permanent teachers in the VHSD was 280.
For this study, a survey was available to all teachers in the VHSD. The study employed a single-
stage sampling procedure to sample teachers directly (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018).
Demographic questions determined stratification at the conclusion of the survey. The target
sample size of teachers was 70 for a 95% confidence level. After survey implementation, there
were 126 total responses from teachers. Of these responses, 53 were incomplete and not included
in the final data set. The final data set for teachers included 73 responses (N = 73).
Instrumentation
Surveys were the instrumentation for this study. Surveys capture self-reported
information on the beliefs of the students, families, and teachers on school connectedness
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Three surveys were adapted for the purpose of this study: the Use
of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011), the CHKS (WestEd, 2019a),
and the CSSS (WestEd, 2019b). The 2019 CalSCHLS Item Crosswalk determined alignment
between the CHKS and CSSS questionnaires for item selection (WestEd, 2019c). The surveys
included open-ended questions to assess perceptions of school connectedness strategies and the
impact of the distance learning plan on student connectedness. The use of open-ended questions
provided more detailed responses specific to the research questions of this study. Open-ended
questions established an opportunity for participants to give reflections that are more intricate
and allowed the researcher insight into beliefs around school connectedness (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Additionally, since this study sought to understand how school connectedness is
operationalized within the setting of distance learning, open-ended responses provided the
37

opportunity for participants to use their own words rather than responding to potentially leading
closed-ended questions (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Surveys allowed comparisons between subgroups and the collection of data across
multiple sites (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Additionally, surveys allowed for anonymous
responses and minimized the impact of positionality in responses from students, parents, and
teachers.
The researcher conducted pilots of the surveys with small groups of fifteen students,
parents, and teachers to obtain feedback on clarity of questions and the timing of the protocol.
The researcher utilized feedback to adjust the surveys prior to implementation.
Student Survey
The student survey contained 16 questions adopted from the CHKS High School
Questionnaire Core Module (WestEd, 2019a) and one matrix-style question with 28 parts
adopted from the Use of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011). The
CHKS is part of the CalSCHLS system created by the CDE to provide schools with quality local
data (WestEd, 2019a). It consists of five areas for guiding school improvement: school
connectedness, learning engagement/motivation, and attendance; school climate, culture, and
conditions; school safety, physical, and mental well-being, and social-emotional learning; and
student supports. The questions adopted for this study were from the core module of the CHKS
High School Questionnaire, specifically the caring relationships scale, the high expectations
scale, the meaningful participation scale, and the school connectedness scale (WestEd, 2019a).
The school connectedness scale included five items such as “I feel close to people at this school”
and “I feel like I am a part of this school.” Response options for these questions were on an
38

ordinal scale with responses including strongly agree (5), somewhat agree (4), neither agree or
disagree (3), somewhat disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). The caring relationships scale
included three questions, the high expectations scale included three questions, and the
meaningful participation scale included five questions. The questions on the caring relationships,
high expectations, and meaningful participation scales had response options including not at all
true (1), a little true (2), pretty much true (3), and very much true (4).
The Use of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale was used to ask students to rate the
effectiveness of different strategies utilized during distance learning (Vidourek et al., 2011).
Students rated 28 statements regarding instructional strategies on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 =
less than once a month; 3 = once a month; 4 = once a week or more; 5 = everyday). Questions
included items such as “At my school during distance learning, teachers call students by their
first name” and “At my school during distance learning, teacher offer praise to their students.”
Two questions asked students to rate their overall perceptions of the school effort to build
connectedness in both a traditional setting and a distance learning setting. Students used a sliding
scale (1 – 10) to establish a rating.
Three open-ended questions were included in the student survey. These questions
allowed students to construct a definition of school connectedness and comment on school
connectedness strategies. Demographic questions were included at the end of the survey. A table
including survey questions, responses, and research question alignment is included in Appendix
A.
39

Parent Survey
The parent survey contained 16 questions adopted from the CHKS High School
Questionnaire Core Module (WestEd, 2019a) and one matrix-style question with 28 parts
adopted from the Use of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011). Some
questions adopted for this study were from the core module of the CHKS High School
Questionnaire, specifically the caring relationships scale, the high expectations scale, the
meaningful participation scale, and the school connectedness scale (WestEd, 2019a). The school
connectedness scale included five items such as “My student feels close to people at this school”
and “My student feels like they are a part of this school.” Response options for these questions
were on an ordinal scale with responses including strongly agree (5), somewhat agree (4), neither
agree or disagree (3), somewhat disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). The caring relationships
scale included three questions, the high expectations scale included three questions, and the
meaningful participation scale included five questions. The questions on the caring relationships,
high expectations, and meaningful participation scales had response options including not at all
true (1), a little true (2), pretty much true (3), and very much true (4).
The Use of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale was used to ask parents to rate the
effectiveness of different strategies utilized during distance learning (Vidourek et al., 2011).
Parents rated 28 statements regarding instructional strategies on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 =
less than once a month; 3 = once a month; 4 = once a week or more; 5 = everyday). Questions
included items such as “At my school during distance learning, teachers call students by their
first name” and “At my school during distance learning, teacher offer praise to their students.”
40

Two questions asked parents to rate their overall perceptions of the school effort to build
connectedness in both a traditional setting and a distance learning setting. Parents used a sliding
scale (1 – 10) to establish a rating.
Three open-ended questions were included in the parent survey. These questions allowed
parents to construct a definition of school connectedness and comment on school connectedness
strategies. Demographic questions were included at the end of the survey. A table including
survey questions, responses, and research question alignment is included in Appendix B.
Teacher Survey
The teacher survey contained five questions adopted from the CHKS (WestEd, 2019a)
and 12 questions adopted from the CSSS (WestEd, 2019b). ). Five questions adopted for this
study were from the core module of the CHKS High School Questionnaire, specifically the
school connectedness scale (WestEd, 2019a). These five questions included items such as “My
students feel close to people at this school” and “My students feel like they are a part of this
school.” Response options for these questions were on an ordinal scale with responses including
strongly agree (5), somewhat agree (4), neither agree or disagree (3), somewhat disagree (2), and
strongly disagree (1).
The CSSS is part of the CalSCHLS system created by the CDE to provide schools with
quality local data, including teacher perceptions of the learning and working environment and the
scope of student supports (WestEd, 2019b). The study survey adopted twelve questions from the
CSSS, consisting of three questions from the caring adult relationship scale, three questions from
the high expectations scale, three questions from the meaningful participation scale, and three
questions from the teacher support scale. Questions included items such as “In this school, adults
41

really care about students” and “This school promotes academic success for all students.”
Response options for these questions were on an ordinal scale with responses including strongly
agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). For the CSSS questions, teachers
rated perceptions based on both a traditional school setting and a distance learning setting
(WestEd, 2019b). This provided data to draw comparisons between the two instructional modes.
Two questions asked teachers to rate their overall perceptions of school effort to build
connectedness in both a traditional setting and a distance learning setting. Teachers used a
sliding scale (1 – 10) to establish a rating.
Three open-ended questions were included in the teacher survey. These questions
allowed teachers to construct a definition of school connectedness and comment on school
connectedness strategies. Demographic questions were included at the end of the survey. A table
including survey questions, responses, and research question alignment is included in Appendix
C.
Data Collection Procedures
Surveys deployed to the parent and teacher participant groups simultaneously on
December 7, 2020. The Superintendent’s Office sent the researcher’s cover letter with a link to
the parent survey via Constant Contact to all parents of tenth and twelfth grade students. The link
took parents to an electronic survey developed through Qualtrics. The first page of the survey
provided consent information and requested affirmative consent from the respondent prior to
navigating to the survey questions. Surveys terminated for respondents who declined consent.
Human Resources sent the researcher’s cover letter with a link to the teacher survey through an
email to all permanent teachers. The link took teachers to an electronic survey developed through
42

Qualtrics. The first page of the survey provided consent information and requested affirmative
consent from the respondent prior to navigating to the survey questions. Surveys terminated for
respondents who declined consent. The researcher utilized a two-phase administration process to
ensure a high response rate for parents and teachers (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). On
December 15, 2020, the researcher sent a follow-up email. Pilot testing of parent and teacher
surveys indicated that surveys took approximately fifteen minutes to complete.
Under IRB direction, students were required to obtain parental consent prior to taking the
survey. To ensure compliance, at the end of the parent survey there was an option to provide
affirmative consent for students to participate. Parents read consent information for their child
and had the option to provide consent. If parents provided consent, parents received a link for
their child to participate in the survey. Instructions requested parents to provide students with the
link so that students could take the survey. If parents declined consent, the survey terminated.
Students who received the link to the student survey from their parents had the option to
consent or decline consent to take the survey. The first page of the student survey included
consent information. If students provided consent, they accessed the student survey. If they
declined consent, the survey terminated.
Data Analysis
Survey administration and subsequent data analysis was conducted using Qualtrics.
Question scales aggregates generated means and standard deviations for descriptive statistics of
quantitative questions. The researcher conducted descriptive statistical analysis after the surveys
closed. Appendix D provides a description of the alignment of questions.
43

For qualitative survey questions, the researcher documented thoughts, concerns, and
initial conclusions about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
In the first phase, the researcher employed open coding during analysis of responses.
Subsequently, the research aggregated empirical codes into analytic codes. A third phase of data
analysis included identification of pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the
conceptual framework and research questions.
Validity and Reliability
The surveys utilized in this study were adapted from the CHKS and CSSS. Adaptation of
these tools increased validity and reliability of the close-ended questions in this study. According
to the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) at WestEd, the CHKS is an appropriate
epidemiological tool, but not reliable for assessing student-level changes over time or individual
differences across students (Hanson & Kim, 2007). The tool has low-retest reliability. This
suggests that the responses are temporally specific. However, the CHKS is still valuable for
tracking school and District assets, as the aggregate of responses will cancel out student-level
errors.
According to Hanson & Kim (2007), there are eight internally consistent and valid
measures of environmental resilience assets: three representing supportive relationships, three
measuring meaningful participation, and two measuring environmental assets in the context of
peers. Internal consistency estimates of reliability were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for
each grade, gender, and ethnic group with a criterion of 0.70 used as the cutoff for determining
acceptable internal consistency reliability (Hanson & Kim, 2007). Recommendations from the
findings of this study affirmed the use of questions on the school connectedness, caring
44

relationships, high expectations, and meaningful participation scales as being reliable measures
of environmental resilience among secondary students.
For the qualitative aspects of this study, triangulation of the student, parent, and teacher
responses increased the validity of the open-ended questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher coded open-ended questions and triangulated responses from the three data sources.
With the qualitative aspects of this study, clarifying researcher bias and presenting information
transparently and honestly lent credibility to the study (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). Consistent
coding of information by a single researcher addressed reliability (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018).
Ethics
The VHSD provided consent for this study. The Superintendent and Governing Board
received a presentation from the researcher outlining the purpose of the study and safeguards for
confidentiality. The researched submitted protocols and obtained IRB approval prior to gathering
data.
The researcher ascribed to a relational ethic of assuming reflexivity while conducting this
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher was aware of their positionality and chose
survey methods to minimize the impact of their role in conducting this research. Participants
included youth and these minors required consent from parents to participate in the survey. All
participants received an information sheet outlining the study and participant rights. Participants
did not provide any identifying information on the anonymous surveys other than optional
responses to demographic questions. Data will remain confidential in the possession of the
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher utilized the Ethical Issues Checklist during
this study to consider ethical implications, communication, and boundaries (Patton, 2015).
45

Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter four reviews findings from the mixed methods study. This includes analysis of
both quantitative survey questions and coding of qualitative responses. For each research question,
the discussion of findings begins with quantitative analysis, followed by qualitative analysis of
open-ended survey questions.
Research Question 1: How Are Perceptions of School Connectedness Similar and Different
Between Students, Parents, and Teachers?
Quantitative Analysis
Students, parents, and teachers answered questions adopted from the CHKS and CSSS to
measure school connectedness, caring relationships, high expectations, and meaningful
participation. The teacher survey also measured teacher support. Overall responses were cleaned
to ensure that respondents answered all close-ended questions to arrive at the sample sets for this
analysis for students (N = 47), parents (N = 290), and teachers (N = 73).
Summary of Connectedness Scale Responses
Students, parents, and teachers rated perceptions of student connectedness on five
questions adopted from the CHKS. Responses options for these questions included strongly
agree (5), somewhat agree (4), neither agree or disagree (3), somewhat disagree (2), and
strongly disagree (1). Cross comparisons of questions across the three subgroups are included in
Appendix D. For the connectedness scale, the teacher group had the highest overall rating for
student connectedness (M = 3.6; SD = 0.6). This was followed by parent ratings of student
connectedness (M = 3.4, SD = 0.9) and student ratings of connectedness (M = 3.3, SD = 0.9).
46

While all subgroups rated overall connectedness as moderate, teachers had the highest
perceptions of student connectedness overall. Table 2 includes these comparisons.

Table 2
Comparisons of Student, Parent, and Teacher Mean Connectedness Scale Scores
Survey Group n M SD
Student 47 3.3 0.9
Parent 286 3.4 0.9
Teacher 72 3.6 0.6

47

Comparisons between means were calculated based on an ANOVA. The ANOVA for
student, parent and teacher connectedness scale responses revealed that there was no significant
different between subgroup means (p = 0.33). The results of the ANOVA are included on Table
3.

Table 3
ANOVA for Student, Parent, and Teacher Means for Connectedness Scale Questions
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 1.66 2 0.83 1.12 0.33 3.02
Within Groups 297.79 400 0.74

Total 299.45 402

48

Summary of Correlations with Connectedness
The connectedness scale means were compared with means from the caring relationships,
high expectations, and meaningful participation scales adopted from the CHKS survey for
students and parents and from the CSSS for teachers. Table 4 summarizes the relationships
between subscales on the student survey.

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Student Survey Subscales
Subscale n M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Connectedness 47 3.3 0.9 --
2. Caring Relationships 47 2.9 0.8 0.57* --
3. High Expectations 45 3.1 0.8 0.50* 0.72** --
4. Meaningful Participation 47 1.8 0.7 0.70** 0.72** 0.63** --

*p < 0.0005 **p < 0.00001

49

Student responses positively correlated across all subscales. The strongest positive
correlations occurred between caring relationships and high expectations and between caring
relationships and meaningful participation. The connectedness subscale most strongly correlated
with meaningful participation.
Parent responses also showed strong positive correlations across subscales. Descriptive
statistics for the parent survey are included in Table 5.

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Parent Survey Subscales
Subscale n M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Connectedness 286 3.4 0.9 --
2. Caring Relationships 278 3.0 0.8 0.57* --
3. High Expectations 280 2.9 0.8 0.59* 0.81* --
4. Meaningful Participation 276 1.8 0.6 0.52* 0.59* 0.63* --

*p < 0.00001

50

Parent responses positively correlated across all subscales. Parent responses correlated
most strongly between caring relationships and high expectations. The connectedness subscale
most strongly correlated with high expectations.
Teacher correlations were weaker overall than student and parent correlations, with the
strongest correlation existing between connectedness and caring relationships. A summary is
included in Table 6.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Teacher Survey Subscales
Subscale n M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Connectedness 72 3.6 0.6 --
2. Caring Relationships 69 3.2 0.6 0.53* --
3. High Expectations 68 3.2 0.6 0.50** 0.70** --
4. Meaningful Participation 69 2.8 0.6 0.44* 0.45* 0.68** --
5. Teacher Support 68 3.3 0.5 0.49* 0.48* 0.51** 0.51** --

*p < 0.0005
**p < 0.00001

51

The strongest correlation for teachers existed between caring relationships and high
expectations. The connectedness subscale correlated most strongly with caring relationships.
Additionally, teachers responded to questions related to teacher support. Correlation between
connectedness and teacher support was positive.
Qualitative Analysis for Definitions of School Connectedness
Students, parents, and teachers to defined school connectedness in their own words in
open-ended survey questions. The researched excluded responses left blank and responses that
included non-relevant information from the data set. This reduced the number of responses used
in this analysis for students, (N = 37), parents (N = 219), and teachers (N = 69). Several
categories common to all three subgroups emerged during open coding of these responses:
feelings of community value, feelings of individual value, caring relationships with adults, caring
relationships with peers, extracurricular engagement, academic engagement, and outreach and
communications.
Differences in perceptions emerged in the frequency of responses in these categories.
Findings indicated that students perceive feelings of community value and caring relationships
with peers as most important in connectedness. Parents similarly indicated feelings of
community value as a primary factor in connectedness, but were more inclined to mention caring
relationships with adults. Teachers rated caring relationships with adults most highly, with
feelings of community value and caring relationships with peers following closely behind. A
summary of the findings compared across subgroups is included in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Comparison of Categories Defining School Connectedness

Note. Includes responses from students (N = 37), parents (N = 219), and teachers (N = 69).
52
53

Feelings of community value were strong in all three groups, but represented the top
response category for students (46.0%) and parents (50.5%). While teacher responses were still
highly identified feelings of community value with school connectedness (47.8%), caring
relationships with adults was the most frequently referenced category for teachers (53.6%).
Student and parent responses varied in this category also, with students identifying caring
relationships with adults at the lowest level of the three groups (32.4%) and parent frequency of
responses represented in the middle at 42.1%. Therefore, while students and parents place the
greatest significance on feelings of community value in defining connectedness, teachers were
more likely to define connectedness in relation to the presence of caring relationships with
adults.
Outreach and communication was a smaller category overall in this study, but there were
emergent differences in value between groups. Parents rated this area most highly at 18.2%,
while students (10.8%) and teachers (1.5%) did not mention outreach and communications with
as high a frequency. For teachers, academic engagement far surpassed the other subgroups with
40.6% of respondents identifying academic engagement as a factor in connectedness as
compared to 13.5% of students and 14.5% of parents. There is a much higher value on academic
engagement as a defining factor in connectedness as perceived by teachers in comparison with
students and parents.
Another area of divergence existed in the area of feelings of individual value. Teachers
were more likely to identify this area as important to connectedness, with 37.7% of responses
mentioning the value of individual contributions and diversity. Students responded with this area
as much lower at 18.9%. Comparatively, students were much more likely to indicate that feelings
of community value and caring relationships with peers as instrumental in connectedness.
54

Caring relationships with peers appeared at similar levels for both students (43.2%) and
teachers (44.9%). Parent mentions of caring peer relationships lagged behind at 36.5%. Parents
were more likely than students to mention feelings of individual value (27.1%), indicating that
parents may not see peer relationships as important as their child’s individual value within the
school environment.
Extracurricular engagement was an area of comparative similarity across the three groups
with 29.7% of student responses, 33.6% of parent responses, and 30.4% of teacher responses
mentioning engagement in athletics, events, and clubs as critical to school connectedness.
Feelings of Community Value
Feelings of community value encompassed a variety of experiences and sentiments
shared in survey responses. Overall, this category captured a range of feelings that described a
sense of the school as a collective to which respondents belonged. This category had strong
threads around the value of the community as a place of shared values, shared goals, common
interests, and enjoyment. Responses in this category also referenced feelings of pride and school
spirit; respondents shared a sense of collective identity as part of the school community as being
important in feeling connected. Additionally, some respondents communicated community value
by describing the environment as being welcoming or comfortable. Students and parents both
rated feelings of community value as the most important factor in defining school connectedness.
Quotes from respondents are included in Table 7.

55

Table 7
Quotations with References to Feelings of Community Value
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 17 (46.0%) “Having a feeling of inclusion where you can feel
comfortable to ask questions and interact. When you
feel like you are a part of something is what I would
describe school connectedness.”

“Feeling proud to be a student at the school and feeling
proud to be affiliated with the institution.”

Parent 108 (50.5%) “Being a part of a community, actively engaging with
others with similar interests, aspirations and shared
activities.”

“Community - when I am in a group of people with
common goals, common beliefs around being the good
in this world I feel connected.”

Teacher 33 (47.8%) “The feeling that a student is a part of a larger
community. A student feels connectedness when they
know that school is a place more than a location to
learn, but a destination they feel welcome, wanted and
cared for as individuals, before as a student.”

“For an individual student, I think of this as how much
they think of school as part of their personal identity.”

“Student connectedness is when student behavior
exhibits a sense of pride and belonging to school
community.”

Feelings of Individual V alue
While feelings of community value had strong representation in the survey responses,
some survey responses indicated that connectedness developed through feelings of individual
56

value. These responses emphasized the importance of students feeling that they mattered, that
their perspectives as individuals were valued, and that they felt accepted and included in the
school community. While feelings of community value discussed the importance of the
collective, feelings of individual value represented an honoring of diversity and individual
opinions and needs. For example, where responses coded as collective value emphasized feelings
of belonging to the group, responses of individual value emphasized the group respecting the
diverse perspectives and opinions of its members. Feelings of individual value were lowest in
student responses, higher in parent responses, and most highly represented in teacher responses.
Quotes from respondents are included in Table 8.

57

Table 8
Quotations with References to Feelings of Individual Value
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 7 (18.9%) “I would define school connectedness as everyone having a
role and feeling important in our community and at school.”

“School connectedness, or belonging to your school, is a
feeling that everyone has a place at school and nobody feels
left out. This is achieved by many [inclusive] events, school
spirit, and a friendly community.”

Parent 58 (27.1%) “It’s when my child feels like their presence matters - When
they feel seen and respected as an individual by teachers,
other staff and friends.”

“I define a sense of belonging as believing that you are able to
be yourself in a given setting and that people want you there.”

Teacher 26 (37.7%) “…school connectedness mean the space and safety to show
up as one's authentic self and be recognized and valued.”

“Student connectedness or feelings of belonging to your
school… means that they have and deserve the independence
to be their own person, and they have the freedom and
permission to explore and experiment and learn who they are.
They're able to be vulnerable and they're able to be
supportive.”

Caring Relationships with Adults
All three survey groups included strong references to caring relationships with adults.
This category included responses discussing interactions, communications, and support from
teachers, administrators, school staff, or other adults in the school environment. Teacher
58

responses included the most references to caring relationships with adults. Quotes from
respondents are included in Table 9.

Table 9
Quotations with References to Caring Relationships with Adults
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 12 (34.4%) “School connectedness is a sense of camaraderie or closeness
shared between a student and the students/teachers at their
school.”

Parent 90 (42.1%) “Having relationships with peers and adults at the school.”

“That students have an individual relationships with and
valued by their teachers/counselors/coaches and they want to
attend and participate in learning and social activities.”

Teacher 37 (53.6%) “Student connectedness includes…fostering relationships
between the teachers, admin, and coaches.”

“Student connectedness or feelings of belonging to your
school is when students perceive that someone at school cares
about them, their presence, their well-being, their opinions,
that they're considered part of the team.”

59

Caring Relationships with Peers
Responses coded in this category mentioned friendship, interaction, or communication
with other students, groups of peers, and classmates. Caring relationships with peers included
feelings of closeness or affinity with other students in the school community. This category was
most prevalent in the student and teacher responses. In parent and teacher responses, caring
relationships with peers was frequently mentioned in tandem with caring relationships with
adults. Quotes from respondents are included in Table 10.

60

Table 10
Quotations with References to Caring Relationships with Peers
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 16 (43.2%) I define school connectedness as…being able to have a fun
conversation with your peers during school hours.”

“In person, I think people feel really close to a certain group.
Not the whole school, but everyone has their own little
group.”

Parent 78 (36.5%) “[Being] engaged in classes, clubs, and or sports. Having
friends and or mentors in one or all those areas.”

“Opportunities to connect with peers in both academic and
non-academic environments.”

Teacher 31 (44.9%) They show both social and academic engagement at some
point. They…mention students who are their friends or with
whom they'd like to work on a class project, participate in
clubs and extracurricular activities, go to events to support
others, eat with others at lunch, etc.”

“I think that student connectedness is the feelings of students
that they have [meaningful] relationships with other students
and with some of the faculty and staff at the school. These
relationships help them to feel good about coming to school
each day.”

Extracurricular Engagement
Many responses throughout all survey groups referenced the importance of
extracurricular engagement in athletics, clubs, activities, and other school events as being
important in defining school connectedness. These responses referenced both the actual
participation in extracurricular offerings and the availability of extracurricular offerings as
61

important to connectedness. While response rates for any of the three subgroups was moderate
(students = 29.7%, parents = 33.6%, teacher = 30.4%), extracurricular engagement was the most
consistent across all groups. Quotes from respondents are included in Table 11.

Table 11
Quotations with References to Extracurricular Engagement
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 11 (29.7%) “I feel extremely disconnected from my peers and school
during this pandemic. Before the pandemic I was able to
participate in social activities such as band and a student-
led a capella group on campus. Unfortunately these
activities can’t be replicated over zoom so I have lost
contact with most of the peers that I used to do these
activities with.”

“The school keeps everyone together by having many virtual
events, even though it isn't the same as being in-person.”

Parent 72 (33.6%) “I am an athlete so in my world I feel connected and belong
to my school through sports. Being part of a high school
sports team is empowering, fun, confidence building,
relationship building, growth, leadership, strength and
commitment.”

“Certainly those who participate in activities and volunteer
will feel more connected, however, the school and it's
leaders also has a responsibility to engage and reach out to
everyone in an active manner.”

Teacher 21 (30.4%) “The feeling that they are connected to the social fabric
beyond classwork. The desire to increase their connection.
A desire to pass on the organizations that will connect
future students.”

“They are comfortable to participate in school wide activities
like rally's, leadership events and extracurricular
activities.”
62

Academic Engagement
Academic engagement less frequently cited than extracurricular engagement as a
determining factor in school connectedness for students (13.5%) and parents (14.5%). Teachers,
however, indicated that academic engagement was a more significant factor in connectedness
with citations of academic engagement in 40.6% of responses. Survey respondents described
academic engagement as the level of learning, motivation, and engagement in classes at the
school. Some respondents cited examples of curricular accessibility, academic intervention, or
teacher flexibility as a factor in the level of academic engagement. Elective classes, like
leadership and the arts, were as examples of academic settings with high connectedness. Student
responses including references to academic engagement included other aspects of connectedness
and no student responses cited academic engagement as the sole description of connectedness.
Quotes from respondents are included in Table 12.

63

Table 12
Quotations with References to Academic Engagement
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 5 (13.5%) “Being part of your school community, and have pride for
belonging to your school. This can manifest itself in
different ways: sports games, events, or generally just
feeling engaged socially and intellectually at school.”

Parent 31 (14.5%) “Belonging is demonstrated by my student's participation and
recognition in learning and activities at our school. By
extension this needs to include the groupings within those
classes or activities.”

“If a student feels that the school is a comfortable and
supportive place to be and is there to support them in their
learning.”

Teacher (69) 28 (40.6%) “Also to feel connected is to also see themselves in the
curriculum or feel that it is accessible to them and find
importance in what they do. In the classroom, they feel that
their voice matters and their input is well received.”

“Students feel connected when they…feel school is a safe
place where they get the education they seek.”

“Students who feel connected are more upbeat, happy to
learn. They are more willing to participate in various
activities in classes, in school and join in community
events.”

Outreach and Communications
Outreach and communications encompassed responses that included statements about the
frequency and quality of school communications, efforts by the school to reach out to families,
frequency of interaction, and expressions of school supportiveness on an organizational level.
64

These questions also included references of trust of the organization as demonstrated by the
degree of proactive engagement taken by schools to connect with individuals. This category was
present in all three data sets, but most prevalent in the parent survey responses. Quotes from
respondents are included in Table 13.

Table 13
Quotations from Survey Groups with References to Outreach and Communications
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 4 (10.8%) “School connectedness is frequent communication and school
activities.”

Parent 39 (18.2%) “That the staff and teachers show respect to parents and
students; that communications from the school to parents
and teachers is consistent, clear, respectful and caring; that
the school offers support and empathy to students.”

“I feel like the connectedness It’s fine it hasn’t been a problem
there’s been constant letters via email from the district and
from the school itself all is appreciated.”

Teacher 1 (1.5%) “Student connectedness increases with regular and meaningful
meetings either online or in person when common interests
are shared and goals are made with a sense of gratitude and
forward motion.”

65

Research Question 2: What Strategies Do Students, Parents, and Teachers Feel Facilitate
and Inhibit School Connectedness at Their Site?
Quantitative Analysis of Student and Parent Responses for Frequency of Using Strategies
to Positively Connect Students to School
Students and parents answered questions adopted from The Use of Connection-Building
Strategies Subscale to rate the frequency of use of different strategies during distance learning
(Vidourek et al., 2011). Overall responses were cleaned to ensure that respondents answered all
close-ended questions to arrive at the sample sets for this analysis for students (N = 47) and
parents (N = 290).
The more frequent three strategies reported by students were calling students by their first
name (M = 4.83, SD = 0.6), actively listening to students when students were speaking (M =
4.53, SD = 0.9), and dividing students into small groups in class (M = 4.47, SD = 0.6). The three
least utilized strategies were use of icebreakers (M = 2.64, SD = 1.2), encouraging students to
talk to their parents (M = 2.29, SD = 1.3), and involving parents in student activities (M = 1.64,
SD = 0.9). The ranked responses from students are included in Table 14.
The top three strategies reported by parents were calling students by their first name (M =
4.74, SD = 0.9), actively listening to students when students were speaking (M = 4.53, SD = 0.8),
and enforcing the rules of student respect (M = 4.29, SD = 0.9). The three least utilized strategies
were encouraging students to talk to their parents (M = 2.87, SD = 1.3), encouraging students to
get positively connected to their community (M = 2.70, SD = 1.3), and involving parents in
student activities (M = 1.77, SD = 1.1). The ranked responses from students are included in Table
14.
66

Table 14
Frequency of Use of Strategies that Positively Connect Students to School
Student Responses Parent Responses
At my school during distance learning… N M SD N M SD
Call students by their first name. 47 4.83 0.6 208 4.74 0.9
Actively listen to their students when
students are speaking. 47 4.53 0.9 203 4.53 0.8
Divide students into small groups in
class. 45 4.47 0.6 246 4.17 0.8
Encourage student discussion in class. 45 4.36 0.9 226 4.26 0.9
Set high expectations for their students. 46 4.20 1.0 228 4.24 0.9
Smile when they are teaching the class. 47 4.17 1.0 122 4.28 0.8
Encourage and motivate their students
to do their best in class. 46 4.00 1.1 217 4.10 1.0
Enforce rules of student respect. 47 3.96 1.3 184 4.47 0.9
Offer praise to their students. 47 3.91 1.1 177 4.06 0.9
Use humor when interacting with
students. 45 3.87 1.0 184 4.00 0.9
Try to act as positive role models. 47 3.83 1.1 210 4.28 0.6
Try to show students that they respect
them. 47 3.77 1.2 204 4.29 1.0
Show their students that they care about
them. 47 3.64 1.3 193 4.00 1.0
Set rules for students to show respect for
one another. 45 3.60 1.5 178 4.16 1.1
Make small talk with students
before/after class. 45 3.56 1.2 159 3.48 1.3
67

Student Responses Parent Responses
At my school during distance learning… N M SD N M SD
Use cooperative learning in class. 45 3.56 1.2 183 3.95 1.0
Share personal stories or experiences
during class to reach students. 44 3.55 1.1 172 3.78 1.0
Use strategies to get their students
positively connected in their class. 45 3.49 1.3 182 3.77 1.1
Try to relate to their students to get to
know them better. 44 3.39 1.2 181 3.51 1.2
Provide students with opportunities to
show responsibility in the classroom. 45 3.13 1.3 162 3.58 1.3
Spend time engaging students in
conversations about their daily lives. 45 3.13 1.2 165 3.35 1.2
Allow students to make low-level
decisions in class. 45 2.93 1.2 140 3.23 1.2
Tell students that they care about them. 45 2.93 1.2 156 3.21 1.2
Encourage students to share their
feelings. 45 2.82 1.3 158 3.41 1.2
Encourage students to get positively
connected to their community. 45 2.64 1.1 151 2.70 1.3
Use icebreakers to get students to know
one another. 45 2.56 1.2 142 2.94 1.1
Encourage students to talk to their
parents. 45 2.29 1.3 125 2.87 1.3
Involve parents in student activities. 45 1.64 0.9 247 1.77 1.1

68

Overall, students and parents described the most frequently utilized strategies for
connectedness in the classroom as calling students by their first names and actively listening to
students while they were talking. Students identified strategies that involved peer interaction
more frequently than parents. These strategies include dividing students into small groups in
class (students M = 4.47, SD = 0.6; parents M = 4.26, SD = 0.8) and encouraging student
discussion in class (students M = 4.36, SD = 0.9; parents M = 4.17, SD = 0.9). Both subgroups
rated strategies that involved outreach to parents and the community at low levels, with
involving parents in student activities as the least utilized strategy for both students (M = 1.64,
SD = 0.9) and parents (M = 1.77, SD = 1.1)
Qualitative Analysis for Strategies that increase School Connectedness
Students, parents, and teachers described strategies that supported school connectedness
in their own words. Prior to coding, the researcher reviewed responses for inclusion in the
sample set. Responses left blank or including non-relevant information were excluded from the
data set for students. This reduced the number of responses used in this analysis for students, (N
= 31), parents (N = 190), and teachers (N = 70). Several categories common to all three
subgroups emerged during open coding of these responses: peer collaboration strategies,
community building strategies, extracurricular events, class interaction and communication
opportunities, academic engagement and support strategies, and teacher care behaviors.
Differences in perceptions emerged in the frequency of responses in these categories.
Findings indicate that both students and teachers perceived peer collaboration strategies and
teacher care behaviors as most important in establishing connectedness in schools. Parents,
however, rated teacher care behaviors and community building strategies most highly. Parents
69

had the highest percentage of responses around the category of extracurricular events; however,
overall this category had low responses across all subgroups. A summary of the findings
compared across subgroups is included in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Comparison of Categories for Strategies that Increase School Connectedness

Note. Includes responses from students (N = 31), parents (N = 190), and teachers (N = 70).
70
71

Students had the highest percentage of responses in peer collaboration strategies (54.8%)
followed closely by teachers (50%). Parent responses for peer collaboration trailed behind
significantly at 22.63%. Parent responses were highest in the category of teacher care behaviors
(32.3%), but both teachers and students responded with higher percentages in this category at
50% and 38.7%, respectively.
The only category with more parent responses was extracurricular events. Overall, the
response rates were low for all subgroups in this category, but parent responses were the highest
at 13.7% as compared to teachers (8.6%) and students (3.2%).
The categories of community building strategies and of academic engagement and
student support strategies revealed common patterns, with the most responses from teachers,
followed by parents and students, respectively. Community building strategies was the third most
common response category from teachers (34.3%), the second most common for parents
(24.2%), and a distant third most common category for students (16.1%). Academic engagement
and support strategies were comparable for teachers at 31.4%, but much lower for parents
(17.4%) and students (12.9%).
Class interaction and communication opportunities were infrequent for students (6.5%),
parents (11.6%), and teachers (14.3%).
Peer Collaboration Strategies
Peer collaboration strategies encompassed responses noting opportunities in the
classroom for students to talk with peers. Respondents often cited the use of breakout rooms in
distance learning. Additionally, there were references to opportunities for class discussion and
dialog and opportunities to work with groups in labs or on assignments. Students referenced this
category most frequently. Quotes from respondents are included in Table 15.
72

Table 15
Quotations from with References to Peer Collaboration Strategies
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 17 (54.8%) “We have had chances to work in small groups with the
teacher present and that has allowed us to get to know
each other and the teacher better than we would have
otherwise.”

“My lab groups in my science class. We get sent into
breakout rooms, and while we work we can talk about
things.”

Parent 43 (22.6%) “I think that the small break-out groups in class
encourage my daughter to connect to other students
and not just sit there and listen to a teacher.”

Teacher 33 (47.8%) “I hold quite a few classroom discussions where
students have the opportunity to voice their thoughts,
but before they whole class discusses, they almost
always speak in small groups first.”

73

Community Building Strategies
Community building strategies included a range of icebreakers and classroom activities
employed by teachers to build community in the classroom. This category also included clubs
and activities developed by the school to engage students online. A specific trend mentioned was
the presence of Cohort Academy. Cohort Academy is a weekly, 45-minute homeroom attended
by students developed in the VHSD to ensure daily attendance and engagement. Furthermore,
the VHSD used Cohort Academy as a place for school-wide lessons on equity and inclusion.
Teachers responded most frequently with discussions of community building strategies. Quotes
regarding community building strategies are included in Table 16.

Table 16
Quotations with References to Community Building Strategies
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 5 (16.1%) “Things that supported my feelings of school
connectedness are clubs I go to at lunch.”

Parent 46 (24.2%) “Teachers are very engaged. The school's Academy
Cohort class is very effective in fostering a sense of
belonging for all students.”

Teacher 33 (34.3%) “We do shout outs and play some sort of a game at the
last [two] minutes and deep into passing time daily. I
try to give praise to at least new students a day in
class. I have 50 students so I have to really keep track
of who I am recognizing.”

“With cohort, after equity lesson I meet privately with
difference students to check in on how they are doing.
I rotate through so that I talked to everyone privately
twice this semester.”

74

Extracurricular Events
Respondents in all three surveys mentioned the presence and availability of
extracurricular events. The most frequently mentioned extracurricular activity was athletics.
Other references of in-person opportunities were present in this category, including materials
pick up and school events. Overall, this was as small category with low responses in all three
groups. Table 17 contains quotes for extracurricular events.

Table 17
Quotations with References to Extracurricular Events
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 1 (3.2%) “Leadership provided events, bondings, and student
events both virtually and in-person that made school
feel more real, and also created opportunities to
connect with peers.”

Parent 26 (13.7%) “Small cohorts on campus have been the only thing to
help my son feel connected.”

Teacher 6 (8.6%) “I have had to fight tooth and nail to be able to do
things on campus with students adhering to all safety
protocols. The school and union have made it nearly
impossible to give students the on-campus
experiences they crave. These on campus events
would absolutely boost connectedness, particularly
for freshman.”

75

Class Interaction and Communication
The responses coded in this category discussed synchronous learning on zoom as an
important strategy for building connectedness. These responses referenced the importance of
face-to-face interaction in a virtual setting and communication strategies that maintained close
correspondence. This was a small category in all groups, but slightly larger in the teacher survey
responses where references to communicating class and school events was emphasized.
Responses are included in Table 18.

Table 18
Quotations with References to Class Interaction and Communication
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 2 (6.5%) “Attending live zooms.”

Parent 26 (13.7%) “Zoom video and live discussion is as good as it gets
for what we’re working with. My son feels
accountable to attend. I don’t think there’s the same
motivation to get up, get dressed and ready to leave
the house for school.”

Teacher 10 (14.3%) “I always field individual questions from students at
the end of class. I try to provide information about
my class and about some school functions for my
students regularly.”

76

Academic Engagement and Support Strategies
Academic engagement and support strategies were visible in all three surveys. This
category encompassed a range of responses from specific mentions of classes, instructional
technology, instructional design and planning, and intervention. Students frequently referenced
specific classes with high engagement, while teachers provided more specific responses
regarding the design of gradebooks and lessons to support student learning in a distance learning
environment. Another common feature across all groups was mention of Academy, embedded
intervention accessible to all VHSD students. A summary of quotes is included in Table 19.

77

Table 19
Quotations with References to Academic Engagement and Support Strategies
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 4 (12.9%) “I am a staff member of my school's journalism
publication. It makes me feel like I have a space I
belong.”

Parent 28 (14.7%) “Her choir class keeps the kids involved with each
other, as does her drama class. Her other classes
break into small groups and I think that helps them
feel connected.”

“Academy is a great vehicle…but the regular academy
sessions teachers hold for their classes. I've heard my
daughter talk about leveraging them frequently.”
Teacher 22 (31.4%) “Creating literature circle groups (with some requests
and some teacher constructed) to create relationships
between classmates in breakout rooms, providing
opportunities for student choice and creativity.”

“Relating course content with contemporary and local
issues/events. Offering opportunity for students to
explore the relationship between personal experience
and course content. Start school year with personal
identity project.”

Teacher Care Strategies
Responses that mentioned teacher relationships, efforts by teachers to care for students,
teacher flexibility and understanding, and feedback from teachers grouped under teacher care
strategies. This was a large category in all three subgroups. Quotations are included in Table 20.

78

Table 20
Quotations with References to Teacher Care Strategies
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 12 (38.7%) “I think that people have made more of an effort to
come together because of our distance and that
teachers and students are making more of an effort to
understand each other.”

“A few of my teachers were very accepting and
understanding, and helped me personally to get
through some of their material and assignments.”

Parent 68 (35.8%) “Teachers that have been engaging and really try to
connect with their students individually. Checking in
on their progress and making the environment
comfortable for my student to ask questions. Teachers
who are sympathetic with the given circumstances
and able to be flexible to work with my student.”

“Some of my child's teachers tell personal stories about
themselves, and engage the students in group
activities. I think this helps make the teachers more
approachable.”

Teacher 35 (50.0%) “Asking them to chat me how they're doing, something
about their weekend or break, having full class fun
talks as people enter the zoom, being approachable
and reachable, empathy, asking what's going on
before assuming they just don't want to or care to.”

“I have spent time asking students about themselves,
outside of the classroom context. I have made myself
accessible to students, both during class and outside
of class. I have tried to foster an environment of
support and community, but it has not been as easy or
successful as it is in person.”

79

Qualitative Analysis for Strategies that Diminish School Connectedness
Students, parents, and teachers to described strategies that diminished school
connectedness in their own words. The researcher reviewed responses for inclusion in the sample
set. The researcher excluded responses left blank or including non-relevant information from the
data set for students. This reduced the number of responses used in this analysis for students, (N
= 39), parents (N = 228), and teachers (N = 61). Several categories common to all three
subgroups emerged during open coding of these responses: isolation from peers, lack of
community building activities, low engagement or motivation, poor communication, lack of
learning and support strategies, and low teacher care.
Differences in perceptions emerged in the frequency of responses in these categories.
Findings indicate that both students and teachers perceived peer collaboration strategies and
teacher care behaviors as most important in establishing connectedness in schools. Parents,
however, rated teacher care behaviors and community building strategies most highly. Parents
had the highest percentage of responses around the category of extracurricular events, however,
overall this category had low responses across all subgroups. Figure 4 provides a summary of
these findings.

Figure 4
Comparison of Categories for Strategies that Diminish School Connectedness

Note. Includes responses from students (N = 39), parents (N = 228), and teachers (N = 61).
80
81

Overall, responses were most similar for isolation from peers. This category had the
highest frequency for both parents (37.7%) and for students (41.0%) and was the second highest
rated category for teachers (36.1%). The only other category more frequently mentioned in
teacher responses was lack of learning and support strategies (54.1%). While this category
remained amongst the most frequently mentioned for students and parents, responses were lower
than responses in the parent subgroup, at 33.3% and 27.2%, respectively. Students identified low
teacher care as a diminishing factor with the highest frequency of the three subgroups, at 35.9%.
Parents (28.9%) and teachers (27.9%) also rated this category at similarly high rates.
There was a gap in all categories between the top three most frequent responses (isolation
from peers, lack of learning and support strategies, and low teacher care) and the lowest three
response categories (lack of community building activities, low engagement or motivation, and
poor communication). Low engagement or motivation had the highest impact on students
(25.6%), but dropped for parents (21.5%) and again for teachers (13.1%). Lack of community
building activities was viewed with low importance by teachers (6.6%), and higher importance
by students (10.3%) and for parents (13.6%). Poor communication was the lowest response
category for all subgroups. It was rated lowest by teachers (4.9%), followed by students (5.1%)
and parents (8.8%).
Lack of Peer Interaction
Isolation from peers was a frequently mentioned category within all three subgroups.
This category referenced challenges to relationship building in a virtual environment, lack of
time for students to interact, and feelings of loneliness and isolation. Many respondents
mentioned electronics as a challenge to true interpersonal connection, with students often citing
zoom as a hindrance to relationship building. An additional theme in this category was physical
82

presence as a factor in building relationships. Table 21 summarizes quotes from this question for
students, parents, and teachers.

83

Table 21
Quotations with References to Isolation from Peers
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 16 (41.0%) “I think distance learning has made me feel pretty
isolated from the rest of the student body. My only
contact with other students is outside of school
because I have their phone numbers. However, my
contact with people has significantly dropped this
year.”

“When students don't have the positive impact of their
friends around them, it's harder for them to stay
interested in school. For us as the students, half of
being at school is being with other kids. When you
don't have that, it's harder to care about the work.”

Parent 86 (37.7%) “Although classes have break out groups, often half the
group turns off cameras and microphones. that is very
frustrating for students who welcome the small group
activities. When school is in person, my child is able
to socialize casually with students on campus which is
helpful because she doesn't have the confidence to
have lots of contact with other students outside of
school. Distance learning has been very isolating. She
is connected to far fewer students now.”

“No social contact during class, no extracurricular
connections possible, alienation, loneliness, virtual
digital not real life, human friendships don't work over
computers, no music or chorus together, students not
motivated to reach out, exacerbates COVID isolation”

Teacher 22 (36.1%) “There are difficulties in distance learning with things
like body language and proximity. That type of
connection to the student doesn't really work well over
distance learning.”

“The model itself and how difficult it is to get to know
each student slows to the ability for form connections.
Making individual connections is a key to school
connectedness.”
84

Lack of Community Building Activities
Events both on campus and virtually intended to support community were categorized
under community building activities. These may include athletics, clubs, or extracurricular
activities. All three subgroups mentioned the absence of these types of events. Table 22
summarizes responses that referenced the lack of community building activities.

Table 22
Quotations with References to Lack of Community Building Activities
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 4 (10.3%) “Probably [miss] not being able to do school events
like rallies or homecoming.”

Parent 31 (13.6%) “Our whole family feels disconnected to the school.
Our daughter is a senior so she does not seek out our
involvement with her school activities, not that there
are any.”

“As a senior he desperately misses being on campus
with friends and his teachers. He desperately misses
all the lost senior traditions and choir concerts and the
musical and sports. He has actually been very
withdrawn, sad, anxious and frustrated for nearly a
year. It’s not good. It’s not the school’s fault, but for
a social teen (senior), this is devastating. He’s like a
zombie.”

Teacher 4 (6.6%) “No time on campus [and] limits on Zoom [equals] less
interest in doing more Zooms for club activities and
other extracurricular activities…cancelation of field
trips, dance days, and more hands-on experiences.”

85

Low Engagement or Motivation
Feelings of boredom, low motivation, or disinterest coded under the category low
engagement or motivation. This category contained some responses around excess of technology
use by teachers and by students, particularly by parents. Table 23 includes a list of responses.

86

Table 23
Quotations with References to Low Engagement or Motivation
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 10 (25.6%) “Sometimes I feel like class can be dry and lead
students like me not to be engaged.”

“No students talk to each other much in class, I feel
very disengaged and unmotivated, distance learning
is very boring, I feel I have to teach myself.”

Parent 41 (21.5%) “I also think that not all teachers are realizing what an
incredible challenge it is to be on the other end of a
camera and stay focused when the material is dry.
The job is to connect with the students on the
material, not just deliver it and hope for the best.
Some teachers understand that and others don't or
don't care. It's the same challenge as people work
from home in other jobs - keeping students,
colleagues, audiences, etc. engaged requires real
effort. It's exhausting but we all have to do it.”

“Distance learning puts the students in a box (literally)
on a screen and for them - they can’t pull out of that
feeling of either not wanting to be watched on screen
throughout the class and being home and not there in
person gives them the feeling that they are once
removed from the real time classroom time together
so they just don’t have the motivation to engage.”
Teacher 8 (13.1%) “Well, lectures, while sometimes necessary, are
difficult for kids to focus on for long periods, as
many drift and lose that sense of connectedness with
the class.”

87

Poor Communication
This category was small in all three subgroups, but distinct in the responses that
mentioned poor communication strategies from the school as contributing to disconnection.
Parents most frequently mentioned communication as a cause of low connection. Respondents
described poor communication in various ways, with some identifying poor communication,
others mentioning low communication, and another group citing excess of communication that
was confusing to understand as the challenges in this category. Responses are included in Table
24.
88

Table 24
Quotations with References to Poor Communication
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 2 (5.1%) “The higher ups in power send too many repetitive
messages, making it hard to see important emails
from my teachers, causing me to tune out
communications.”

Parent 20 (8.8%) “Teachers inconsistent with communications with
students in Canvas which was stressful for my
student.”

“In a class she is failing, I reached out to one teacher to
let him know she was struggling with her mental
health, and I got no reply. I reached out again 2
months later to ask for a meeting, and the counselor
had to remind him to message me back. Not sure if he
would have emailed me back if the counselor hadn't
reminded him. This is for a student who is getting a
low F!”

Teacher 3 (4.9%) “Students get overwhelmed with the amount of emails
they receive that I believe it becomes redundant and
they do not bother to read and therefore are not as
informed or engaged. There should be other means of
communication.”

Lack of Learning and Support Strategies
Responses that mentioned poor teaching methods, including poor use of instructional
technology, and lack of support strategies coded under the category of lack of learning and
support strategies. Responses often mentioned excessive lecturing, long zoom meetings, lack of
flexibility, and inadequate support for student learning. Students and parents made mentions on
89

the missed learning that they perceived to be a result of distance learning. Table 25 includes
examples of statements that mention lack of learning and support strategies.

90

Table 25
Quotations with References to Lack of Learning and Support Strategies
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 13 (33.3%) “Nothing really about connectedness more just frustrating
me by assigning busy work or assigning assignments at
night and they are due the next morning.”

“When teachers are extremely rigid, not willing to budge
about rules, don't explain the material well, or make me
resubmit an assignment multiple times for full points.”

Parent 62 (27.2%) “Missing out on labs and hands-on activities are having a
negative effect on my student. I think he is missing
learning opportunities that are essential to understand the
material that teachers need to properly teach (through no
fault of their own).”

“Her advanced Geometry teacher was not helpful and not
able to coach and support my daughter when she was
feeling rushed by the clock ticking down in the corner of
the test. I believe in this unprecedented time "timed" tests
should not be used. Offering an open note test (because
let’s be honest - there is cheating happening out there)
where students have the opportunity to learn/apply
learned material in a test like atmosphere with lower
anxiety triggers. Or think outside the box and have the
students work together on a group project - applying the
learned material without the test anxiety. Everyone has
too much stress - and the teachers should recognize this
fear and channel it into positive student interactions and
learning outcomes.”
Teacher 33 (54.1%) “Launching directly into the lesson plan, strict grading
policies that may be considered inequitable or unfair,
especially during DL.”

“I think that having a lecture-based class will kill the
feeling of connection. I think not accepting late work, not
giving the chance to revise work are also major
disruptors of the feeling of school connection.”
91

Low Teacher Care
Actions and strategies that communicated a lack of willingness to accommodate student
needs, communicate directly with students, provide adequate access to material, and manage
workload effectively were grouped under low teacher care. Table 26 includes a summary of
responses for low teacher care from students, parents, and teachers.

92

Table 26
Quotations with References to Low Teacher Care
Survey group Respondents
n (%)
Example quote
Student 14 (35.9%) “Teachers just not caring about our mental health has
negatively affected my feeling of school connectedness,
like when teachers say how our mental health is
important and then they proceed to give us way too
much work to do in the time given. School work takes
up all my time because the teachers think they can give
more now that we’re home all the time.”

“When teachers don’t teach well and make few efforts to
ensure that students understand the material they’re
creating, it makes an impression (however accurate) that
they don’t care, or at least not enough to get to know us
or help us get to know each other.”

Parent 66 (28.9%) “The teachers are expecting the kids to learn like they are
in class, but they don't yet they grade them on that. The
teachers seem more concerned about how difficult it is
for them.”

“Bad teachers (sorry, there are some) are even worse
during remote learning. Busy work, especially a lot of it
is demoralizing. Teachers who talk over their class time
and then make students come out of class hours to do a
presentation, etc. are frustrating.”

Teacher 17 (27.9%) “There is more to do and not any more time, so stress and
time take a toll on what I am able to do. I have not been
able to give individualized feedback as much as I would
like.”

“[I] believe that at this time, during the pandemic, perhaps
a rigid grading policy (no late work, etc.) is detrimental.
That is easy for me to say in my discipline but I think it's
possible that teachers that are compassionate when it
comes to grading, deadlines, etc, tend to be more
connected. Not being aware of where our students are
emotionally, can cause harm.”

93

Research Question 3: How Did the Distance Educational Plan Affect Student, Parent, and
Teacher Beliefs About School Connectedness?
Descriptive Statistics for Traditional and Distance Learning Ratings
Students, parents, and teachers were asked to rate their overall experience with school
connectedness during traditional school and during distance learning on a scale from one to ten.
The research analyzed responses and compared using descriptive statistics. The comparisons
between subgroups are included in Table 27.

Table 27
Descriptive Statistics for Ratings of Connectedness in Traditional and Distance Learning
Traditional Distance Learning
N M SD N M SD
Students 46 7.6 1.9 46 4.8 2.6
Parents 283 7.8 2.0 280 5.3 2.7
Teachers 73 8.3 1.2 73 6.5 2.4

94

Overall, teachers had the highest ratings of connectedness in both traditional (M = 8.3,
SD = 1.2) and distance learning (M = 6.5, SD = 2.4) settings. Students had the lowest ratings
among the three subgroups in both traditional (M = 7.6, SD = 1.9) and distance learning (M =
4.8, SD = 2.6). Parents rated traditional (M = 7.8, SD = 2.0) and distance learning (M = 5.3, SD =
2.7) between the two other respondent groups. It is notable that students showed the most
substantial drop in connectedness from the traditional to the distance learning format.
Inferential Statistics for Traditional and Distance Learning Ratings
In each of the three subgroups, distance learning connectedness ratings were compared
with traditional connectedness ratings and subscale scores for connectedness. The researcher
analyzed results for significance.
An ANOVA was used to compare ratings of connectedness during traditional school. No
significant difference between means was found between the three subgroups of students,
parents, and teachers (p = 0.06). The results of the ANOVA are included on Table 28.

Table 28
ANOVA for Subgroup Means for Traditional School Connectedness Rating
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 19.64 2 9.82 2.81 0.06 3.02
Within Groups 1396.56 399 3.50

Total 1416.20 401

95

Similarly, an ANOVA was used to compare ratings of connectedness during distance
learning. A significant difference between means existed between the three subgroups of
students, parents, and teachers (p < 0.001). The results of the ANOVA are included on Table 29.

Table 29
ANOVA Subgroup Means for Distance Learning Connectedness Rating
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 103.90 2 51.95 7.29 0.0008 3.01
Within Groups 2821.45 396 7.12

Total 2925.36 398

96

Student Connectedness and Distance Learning Comparisons
For student responses, a strong statistically significant relationship existed between
distance learning ratings and connectedness scale ratings. Relationships between these variables
are included in Table 30.

Table 30
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Students
Subscale n M SD 1 2
1. Distance Learning Rating 46 4.8 2.6 --
2. Connectedness 68 3.2 0.6 0.65* --

*p < 0.00001

97

Teacher Traditional and Distance Learning Comparisons
For teacher responses, a strong statistically significant relationship existed between
distance learning ratings and connectedness scale ratings. Relationships between these variables
are included in Table 31.

Table 31
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Parents
Subscale n M SD 1 2
1. Distance Learning Rating 73 6.5 2.4 --
2. Connectedness 72 3.6 0.6 0.65* --

*p < 0.0001

98

Parent Traditional and Distance Learning Comparisons
For teacher responses, a strong statistical relationship existed between distance learning
ratings and connectedness scale ratings. Relationships between these variables are included in
Table 32.

Table 32
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Distance Learning Ratings for Parents
Subscale n M SD 1 2
1. Distance Learning Rating 280 5.3 2.7 --
2. Connectedness 286 3.4 0.9 0.58* --

*p < 0.00001

99

Summary
Findings indicated that students, parents, and teachers have differences in their
perceptions of school connectedness. Quantitatively, teachers rate connectedness higher than
both parents and students, with student ratings of connectedness as the lowest amongst the three
subgroups. Despite this, there were no significant distances between means for the three
subgroups. The connectedness subscale positively correlates with the caring relationships, high
expectations, and meaningful participation subscales for all subgroups. The teacher subgroup
revealed the weakest positive correlation of the three subgroups. Similarly, for the teacher survey
responses, connectedness positively correlated with the teacher support subscale.
There were nuanced differences between how students, parents, and teachers defined
connectedness. Students most commonly defined connectedness in terms of feelings of
community value and caring relationships with peers. Parents tended to describe connectedness
primarily in terms of caring relationships with adults and feelings of community value. Teachers
most frequently identified caring relationships with adults and mentioned academic engagement
at much higher levels.
The top three strategies for positively connecting students to school varied slightly
between students and parents. Both students and parents identified calling students by their first
names and actively listening while they were talking as top strategies, but students were more
likely to rank strategies involving peer interaction more highly as compared to parents. Both
groups rated outreach to parents and the community at low levels.
In qualitative responses, teachers and students showed similar patterns regarding
strategies for positive connection. Both indicated that peer collaboration strategies and teacher
100

care behaviors were top categories for fostering connectedness. Parents also identified teacher
care behaviors as a top category, followed by community building strategies. Parents were more
likely to mention extracurricular events as important to connection.
For qualitative responses to strategies that diminish connectedness, students, parents, and
teachers all rated isolation from peers as a top factor in inhibiting connectedness. Teachers rated
lack of learning and support strategies most highly of all categories.
When asked to compare distance learning to traditional learning, strong statistically
significant relationships existed in all three subgroups between distance learning and
connectedness. In all three subgroups, traditional learning was rated more highly than distance
learning, with students identifying the lowest ratings overall, followed by parents, then by
teachers.

101

Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter serves to discuss the findings from the present study and past research and
apply these to recommendations for schools navigating transition between traditional and
distance learning models. Additionally, this chapter addresses limitations to this study and
recommendations for further research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the
importance of school connectedness research in the field of education.
Discussion of Findings
The problem of practice of declining school connectedness is likely to be an important
topic as researchers examine the impact of COVID-19, school closures, and distance learning on
students. Findings from this study revealed that students and parents rely on the organization of
schools to provide opportunities for connection. During distance learning, many traditional
pathways for this were unavailable, resulting in an overall decline in connectedness as reported
by students, parents, and teachers in the VHSD. Therefore, addressing the problem of practice
within the scope of distance learning will require a focus on new strategies that provide
opportunity, access, and support for students.
This study evaluated the perceptions of school connectedness for students, teachers, and
parents in a California high school district during both traditional school and distance learning
through the application of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model. Survey responses from
three subgroups, students, parents, and teachers, were triangulated to understand interactions
within the microsystem. Open-ended survey questions regarding definitions of connectedness
and strategies that support and inhibit school connectedness during distance learning provided
additional detail regarding student, parent, and teacher experiences.
102

The categories from the study aligned closely with the literature. Conceptualizing school
involves four major categories: adult relationships, school environment, commitment to
education, and belonging to a positive peer group (Allen & Bowles, 2012; CDC, 2009). Table 33
includes a description of the alignment of these categories with the categories emergent from the
study.

Table 33
Definition of Connectedness and the Literature
Category from the Study Category from the Literature
(Allen & Bowles, 2012; CDC, 2009)
Caring Relationships with Peers Belonging to a Positive Peer Group

Community Value School Environment

Individual Value
Extracurricular Engagement
Outreach and Communications Commitment to Education

Academic Engagement
Caring Relationships with Adults Adult Relationships

Note. The conceptual framework (included in Figure 1) draws from the seminal literature on
school connectedness.

103

Findings indicated that all three subgroups, students, parents, and teachers, defined
school connectedness in alignment with the prior research; the categories that define school
connectedness and make up the mesosystem in the conceptual framework were present in survey
responses in this study. However, there were nuanced differences in how stakeholder groups
emphasized each category. Students most frequently cited examples of belonging to a positive
peer group and school environment. Parents made the most mentions of school environment and
adult relationships as determinants of connectedness. Teachers prioritized adult relationships and
school environment. These small differences between subgroups provides important information
about how to best strategize and operationalize for building connectedness in a school setting.
The literature on social presence provides five categories for education in a virtual setting
that can build a sense of belonging: affective association, community cohesion, interaction
intensity, knowledge and experience, and teacher care (Dikkers et al., 2012; Dikkers et al., 2013;
Whiteside, 2015). While the research on social presence is more formative than that the research
on school connectedness, both draw heavily from the seminal literature on belonging. The
conceptual framework draws from social presence theory to help understand the impact of
distance learning on student, parent, and teacher perceptions of strategies utilized to build
connectedness. Table 34 includes a description of the alignment of these categories with the
categories emergent from the study.

104

Table 34
Strategies for School Connectedness and the Literature
Category from the Study Category from the Literature
(Dikkers et al., 2012; Dikkers et al.,
2013; Whiteside, 2015)
Peer Collaboration Strategies Affective Association

Community Building Strategies Community Cohesion

Extracurricular Event Opportunities
Class Interaction and Communication Interaction Intensity

Academic Engagement Strategies Knowledge and Experience

Teacher Care Strategies Instructor Involvement

Note. The conceptual framework (included in Figure 1) draws from the seminal literature on
social presence.

Findings indicated that all three subgroups, students, parents, and teachers, defined
strategies for social presence in a distance learning environment in alignment with the conceptual
framework. The categories that define social presence and make up the mesosystem in the
conceptual framework were present in survey responses in this study. Similar to definitions for
school connectedness, response rates in the various categories of the conceptual framework
varied between the subgroups. Students emphasized strategies that promoted affective
association, parents ranked instructor involvement as a top strategy, and teachers prioritized a
combination of both affective association strategies and instructor involvement. Quantitative data
gathered from survey questions adopted form The Use of Connection-Building Strategies
105

Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011) mirrored these open-ended responses, with students ranking
collaborative strategies that promote affective association more highly in frequency than parents.
This information is helpful in understanding what strategies can have the highest influence on
building school connectedness in a distance learning environment, helping school organizations
to prioritize energy and resources in the most efficient way possible.
Finally, findings indicated connectedness ratings for students, parents, and teachers all
declined when asked to compare traditional school to distance learning. Furthermore, there were
significant differences between students, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness on a
distance learning model, with student perceptions as the lowest of the three subgroups. Distance
learning profoundly affected perceptions of connectedness in the VHSD, suggesting that VHSD
schools were not emphasizing strategies to promote social presence at the level necessary to
maintain traditional setting connectedness levels.
The survey responses to the open-ended question regarding strategies that inhibit school
connectedness may give insight into the behaviors of teachers and schools that could have
contributed to this outcome. In the survey responses, emergent categories aligned with the
categories from the literature on social presence. Table 35 includes a description of the alignment
of these categories with the categories emergent from the study.

106

Table 35
Strategies that Inhibit School Connectedness and the Literature
Category from the Study Category from the Literature
(Dikkers et al., 2012; Dikkers et al.,
2013; Whiteside, 2015)
Isolation from Peers Affective Association

Lack of Community Building Community Cohesion

Low Engagement and Motivation Interaction Intensity

Poor Communication
Lack of Learning and Support Strategies Knowledge and Experience

Low Teacher Care Instructor Involvement

Note. The conceptual framework (included in Figure 1) draws from the seminal literature on
social presence.

While the data is in this area is more mixed, students emphasized a combination of
affective association, knowledge and experience, and instructor involvement as the most
damaging to school connectedness. This implies that, although students did not consider
knowledge and experience to be as critical for building school connectedness as teachers, that
they did feel the absence of knowledge and experience as a top impact on connectedness.
Teachers, however, perceived lack of knowledge and experience as a primary inhibitor to
connectedness. This suggested that teacher emphasis in this area might be positively impacting
student connectedness in ways that students could not directly perceive. In other words,
knowledge and experience, while not ranked highly by students, may be an unrecognized driver
107

for higher connectedness; while virtually invisible when it is functioning well, in the absence of
an instructor with high knowledge and experience the impact is acute.
Recommendations for Practice
There are three main recommendations from the findings of this study. Overall findings
clearly indicate that school organizations must consider all aspects of school connectedness as
described in the Wingspread Declaration (Blum & Libbey, 2004) when planning programing and
implementing initiatives. This includes intentional and targeted work to ensure that students feel
a sense of belonging to a positive peer group, experience interaction with adults who care,
observe the cultivation of a positive school environment, and receive evidence of the school’s
commitment to education. The three subgroups, students, parents, and teachers, interact within
the microsystem in their construction of connectedness; therefore, all three groups must be
included in the design and implementation of school efforts to increase connectedness. Finally,
the context of distance learning changes the conceptualization of connectedness. Using the social
presence model can support this work, as it describes how typically aspects of connectedness
operationalize in a virtual setting.
Recommendation 1: Schools must be explicit about communicating efforts to build
connectedness to all stakeholders.
Teacher efforts to build connectedness are often not visible to students and parents. To
ensure that these efforts are visible, schools must communicate efforts to build connectedness to
all stakeholders. The findings from this study indicated that teachers more highly value academic
engagement as a means for high connection. In the literature, these findings speak to
commitment to education, an area of connectedness defined by high teacher expectations and
108

support for student performance. Similarly, when asked about strategies that support
connectedness, teachers were approximately twice as likely to mention academic engagement
and support strategies as students and parents. Furthermore, teachers overwhelmingly mentioned
lack of learning and support strategies as a detriment to school connectedness. In the literature,
these strategies are reliant on teacher knowledge and experience, an aspect of social presence
that involves the assets a teacher brings to the digital classroom space (Whiteside, 2015).
While examples of commitment to education were not mentioned as frequently for
students and parents, it is likely that students and parents felt the impact of teacher commitment
to education in different ways, such as through the development of caring relationships with
adults on campus. Collectively, all three subgroups had strong response rates for caring
relationships with adults. When analyzed collectively, these findings may imply that, while
teachers are motivated by of their commitment to education, the strategies they employ actually
translate more as caring relationships to students and parents.
Allen et al. (2016) discussed a variety of teacher support strategies that build
connectedness. These strategies fall into three areas: those that build positive student-teacher
relationships, those in which teachers show fairness through classroom practices, and those in
which teachers provide academic support. The findings from this study validate that all three of
these strategies should be utilized as a way of engaging teachers in the work of building
connections and ensuring that these efforts are received by the students in ways that positively
increase connectedness.
Given that teachers are more intimately aware of how academic design contributes to
building or diminishing connectedness, schools can support these efforts, and student and parent
109

perceptions of connectedness, by making teacher strategies visible and explicit. A commitment
to education may feel, to school organizations, like an implied objective and, therefore, not
worthy of explicit messaging or discussion. However, in neglecting to promote pedagogy
intended to build both learning and connection, schools may be missing an opportunity to
communicate important values and initiatives that, if visible, serve to help meet the outcomes of
increasing connectedness. A primary way to achieve this is through embedding connectedness
explicitly within the goals of the schools and Districts. Since this represents a change from how
most schools and Districts are oriented, with learning and instruction in the center, it may require
organizational change within the mesosystem.
Kotter’s Eight Steps to Transforming Your Organization is a framework for
organizational change for reorienting schools around connectedness (Kotter, 1995). In this
model, schools must begin by establishing a sense of urgency around school connectedness and
then transition to building a powerful guiding coalition. This guiding coalition, however, must
include mixed stakeholders. Since students, parents, and teachers conceptualize connectedness in
slightly different ways, clear defining of a vision requires the collective efforts of all
stakeholders. Schools that do this will be more successful in communicating this vision through
the multiple vehicles necessary to make connectedness real and visible to all members of the
community. Ultimately, this clear communication will lead to empowerment of others to act on
the vision, in the form of teacher strategies in the classroom, parent involvement in planning
school events, and student motivation to engage in activities available to them. However, without
an inclusive guiding coalition to assist in this explicit communication, stakeholder groups may
110

remain misaligned and connectedness efforts will fail to meet the needs of students or the
expectations of the community. In a distance learning environment, this is even more critical.
Recommendation 2: To meet student needs on distance learning, schools need to be
purposeful in shifting priorities for connectedness.
The context in which students foster connections matters, and in a distance learning
environment personal connection is more challenging than in a traditional setting. Students,
parents, and teachers all mention caring relationships with peers as a top factor in defining school
connectedness. When asked about strategies, students overwhelmingly note that those that
increase peer collaboration as critical to building connectedness. Similarly, students are most
likely to mention isolation from peers as diminishing of school connectedness. These findings
yield a clear picture of the value of peer relationships as an indicator of connectedness in a
distance learning environment.
Goodenow (1993) described school connectedness as “the extent to which students feel
personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school environment” (p.
80). Peers, while operationalized in the mesosystem as positive relationships with peers, are an
integral part of the mircosystem along with teachers and parents for students (Allen et al., 2016).
While students and parents in this study typically described peer relationships in terms of access
to and promotion of activities, teachers tend to describe peer relationships in terms of the student
likelihood of engagement, or their behavioral connectedness (Chapman et al., 2014).
During traditional school, students experience peer relationships as embedded within the
normal interactions of the day. Students socialize during lunch and passing periods, interaction
classroom spaces both formally and informally, and participate in a range of cocurricular and
111

extracurricular activities. Intentionality of peer interaction is not necessarily required because the
context of a traditional school space allows this to happen throughout the day. Additionally, in a
traditional setting, teachers and school leadership is more likely to view peer connections as a
form of behavioral connectedness more dependent on individual students than on the
organization. In distance learning, the informal aspects of peer relationships are not possible and
schools must embed opportunities for peer interaction intentionally through classroom strategies
and school programming to meet student needs. Relying on individuals to seek out activities is
not sufficient, and schools must be more proactive in this area to maintain connectedness for
students.
Teachers can integrate peer collaboration into classrooms to maintain peer relationships
in any context. It is notable, however, that merely placing students together is not sufficient to
achieve the benefits of peer collaboration on motivation and connectedness. Rather, teachers
must teach and model student behavior in collaborative environments (Wentzel, 2017). In the
absence of this explicit direction and practice, collaborative grouping will not necessarily yield
the intended benefit to student perceptions of connectedness. In a distance environment where
peer interaction is new and unfamiliar, explicitly teaching group norms and expectations is even
more critical.
Recommendation 3: Students require in-person connection along with social presence
strategies.
Social presence model is a useful framework for building school connectedness in a
distance learning environment, but it is not enough to maintain high levels of connection. All
subgroups surveyed in the VHSD noted aspects of the social presence model in questions
112

regarding strategies that build and diminish school connections during distance learning.
Students placed the most value on affective association, parents emphasized instructor
involvement, and teachers prioritized a combination of these two areas in responses.
The social presence model is a useful model for schools on distance learning to employ
and utilize for teacher training. Ensuring teachers are aware of practices that build connectedness
in a digital format can help assist teachers in planning lessons that build in the aspects of social
presence necessary for facilitating a connected classroom. This requires training to build
knowledge and experiences in teachers and aligning values around the prominent role of
instructor involvement in building a digital classroom that effectively builds connectedness. The
other categories of social presence are intertwined and overlapping. Affective association,
involving the use of emotional connection, community cohesion, as evident through social
sharing, and interactive intensity, promoted through inquiry and probing in questioning, blend
together within the successfully implemented distance learning classroom (Whiteside, 2015).
While the social presence model provides important tools, overall ratings of
connectedness were significantly lower for students than for parents and teachers in this study,
indicating that despite the aligned perceptions, students were not feeling sufficiently connected
on a distance learning environment. Many responses from all subgroups referenced he
importance of physically attending school, for academics, for athletics, or for events. Schools can
support this need for in-person interaction by establishing opportunities for live engagement
during a distance learning environment.
The obstacles for this are many, as restrictions on gatherings and requirements to
physically distance create legal and health and safety barriers. However, the motivation to
113

navigate these barriers may be more a product of attribution than impossibility. COVID-19 and
subsequent school closures presented schools with an external, unstable, and uncontrollable
problem (Perry & Hamm, 2017). Schools must focus on things that are controllable to find the
motivation to offer in-person events for students. Small gatherings with classmates for picking
up materials or drive through events that allow students to see each other and be physically on
campus are examples of ways that schools can adapt to permit more in-person interaction.
Limitations and Delimitations
This is a study of a single school district. Therefore, while this study may provide support
for other settings, this study is not generalizable to the larger population. This study was
temporally specific and impacted by the limitations imposed by a post COVID-19 setting. The
global climate undoubtedly influenced student, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness.
These additional stressors from the external environment influenced the connections in the
macrosystem, the individuals in the microsphere, and the student in the center of the ecological
model. The researcher did not specifically address the macrosystem in this study, but
acknowledging the presence of external conditions was important.
Despite an attempt to include large sample sizes, a limitation of this study is the number
of participants. There were 622 responses to the parent survey, but only 290 included in the data
set that met the completion requirements established by the researcher. The researcher excluded
responses to the parent survey that were incomplete or designated as SPAM. Of the 126
responses to the teacher survey, 73 were included in the data set. The researcher excluded
incomplete responses to the teacher survey. The student survey required parental consent. After
affirmative consent, parents received a link for their student to use to complete the survey. This
114

was a substantial limitation. As a result, there were only 86 responses for the student survey.
Within these responses, 47 were complete and included in the data set.
The surveys were adapted to be similar for each of the three subgroups included. The Use
of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale was not included in the teacher survey (Vidourek et
al., 2011). During analysis, it was not possible to compare student and parent responses to those
of teachers in this area. Instead, teachers provided open-ended responses regarding strategies
during distance learning.
Open-ended assisted in the gathering of qualitative data. However, it was not possible to
follow up with respondents to gain additional insight and clarity.
The study was reliant on truthful responses by participants, particularly through open-
ended questions. Participants may not have been truthful or have taken the time to engage with
these questions thoughtfully. Language in the survey prompted thoughtful thinking and
encouraged genuine responses. Lastly, while additional member checking through follow up
interviews could lend additional validity to the study, this was not possible in the time limits
imposed.
Recommendations for Future Research
A primarily limitation of this study was the number of responses from students. In a
future study, recruitment of more student respondents would enrich the data and provide
additional evidence for understanding student perceptions of connectedness. Furthermore,
overall completed responses in all subgroups may have increased through more selectivity in
survey questions. Shorten the survey may have facilitated a higher completion rates in all
subgroups. Lastly, while the open-ended questions did provide rich narratives for understanding
115

individual perceptions of connectedness, if time permitted interviews would have further
enriched these findings. Adding an option for respondents to opt into an interview could yield
additional details not captured in an open-response question.
Distance learning remains a topic in need of additional research. Most literature on the
topic of digital learning comes from post-secondary settings in which the students have opted
into the online environment voluntarily. Since distance learning was the result of school closures,
it was not a choice of students, parents, or teachers. Schools moved quickly to accommodate this
change, but there are many gaps left to explore. This was particularly evident in the number of
responses referencing the lack of in-person activities. The impact of distance learning on overall
school connectedness requires additional research and investigation to understand the potentially
lasting impact on students. Specifically, schools and researchers will need to carefully observe
and monitor student wellness and overall health to understand how distance learning and the
resulting isolation from peers has influenced students. Researchers can also learn from teachers
regarding adaptations to instructional strategies made during distance learning that may continue
even in a traditional setting.
Conclusion
This study sought to understand student, parent, and teacher perceptions of school
connectedness and strategies for building school connectedness in the context of distance
learning resulting from the closure of schools in the VHSD during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study is important because student connectedness correlates with academic achievement
(Animosa et al., 2018; Biag, 2016; Gore et al., 2016) and can serve as a protective factor against
depressive symptoms (García-Moya, 2015; Joyce, 2019; Loukas et al., 2013), suicidal ideation
116

(Arango et al., 2018; Govender et al., 2013), and bullying, (LaSalle et al., 2016; Morrow et al.,
2014). Furthermore, this study is important because it captures perceptions of students, parents,
and teachers during a time of tremendous upheaval and organizational changed within schools.
Understanding how these changes have affected perceptions of the major school stakeholders
will be important to further investigating the impact of school closures and distance learning in
the future. In this study, students clearly indicated declining levels of school connectedness and
gaps in how their schools were addressing this problem. Since declining levels of connectedness
strongly correlate to risk factors, this trend presents real concern for educators in the future, as
schools navigate the long-term impacts of distance learning on student wellness.

117

References
Allen, K. A., & Bowles, T. (2012). Belonging as a guiding principle in the education of
adolescents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12, 108-
119. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1361844300?accountid=14749
Allen, K., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary
schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Educational and Developmental
Psychologist, 33(1), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.5
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2010). The promise of afterschool programs for promoting school
connectedness. Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 11-14.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/757172101?accountid=14749
Animosa, L., Lindstrom Johnson, S., & Cheng, T. (2018). “I used to be wild”: Adolescent
perspectives on the influence of family, peers, school, and neighborhood on positive
behavioral transition. Youth & Society, 50(1), 49–74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15586146
Arango, A., Cole-Lewis, Y., Lindsay, R., Yeguez, C., Clark, M., & King, C. (2018). The
protective role of connectedness on depression and suicidal ideation among bully
victimized youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 00(00), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2018.1443456
Biag, M. (2016). A descriptive analysis of school connectedness: The views of school
personnel. Urban Education, 51(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914539772
118

Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 16-19.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62082875?accountid=14749
Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). Wingspread declaration on school connections. The
Journal of School Health, 74, 233–234. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2004.tb08279.x
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
California Department of Education. (2018). 2017-18 College-Going Rate for California High
School Students. Retrieved March 13, 2021. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2019a). 2018-19 Certificated staff by ethnicity. Retrieved
March 13, 2021. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2019b). English language arts/literacy and mathematics:
Smarter balanced summative assessments. Retrieved on March 13, 2021. https://caaspp-
elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/
California Department of Education (2020a). 2019-20 Enrollment by ethnicity and grade.
Retrieved March 13, 2021. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2020b). 2019-20 Four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate. Retrieved March 13, 2021. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education (2020c). Stronger together: A guidebooks for the safe
reopening of California’s public schools.
Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C.N. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a
119

distance. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp.
217-234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School Connectedness: Strategies for
Increasing Protective Factors among Youth. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/pdf/connectedness.pdf
Chapman, R. L., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., & Shochet, I. (2013). School-based programs for
increasing connectedness and reducing risk behavior: A systematic review. Educational
Psychology Review, 25(1), 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9216-4
Chapman, R. L., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., & Shochet, I. M. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of
school connectedness and risk-taking in adolescence. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education (QSE), 27(4), 413-431.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.771225
Cholewa, B., Amatea, E., West-Olatunji, C., & Wright, A. (2012). Examining the relational
processes of a highly successful teacher of African American children. Urban Education,
47(1), 250-279. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911429581
Cleugh, C. (2013). Sense of community in post-secondary online blended courses: Importance of,
opportunities and implications for course development. (Publication No. 1826517298;
ED563626). [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University]. Proquest Dissertations
Publishing http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1826517298?accountid=14749
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
120

Coyne-Foresi, M. (2018). Wiz kidz: Fostering school connectedness through an in-school student
mentoring program. Professional School Counseling, 19(1), 68-79.
http://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.68
Cresswell, J.W. & Cresswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
Dikkers, A. G., Whiteside, A., & Lewis, S. (2012). Get present: Build community and
connectedness online. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40(2), 22-25. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1314311275?accountid=14749
Dikkers, A. G., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2013). Virtual high school teacher and student
reactions to the social presence model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(3),
156-170. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1651865825?accountid=14749
Frick, J. E., & Frick, W. C. (2010). An ethic of connectedness: Enacting moral school leadership
through people and programs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(2), 117-130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910370729
García-Moya, I., Brooks, F., Morgan, A., & Moreno, C. (2015). Subjective well-being in
adolescence and teacher connectedness: A health asset analysis. Health Education
Journal, 74(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896914555039
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
121

development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-90.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu
/docview/62873123?accountid=14749
Gore, J. S., Thomas, J., Jones, S., Mahoney, L., Dukes, K., & Treadway, J. (2016). Social factors
that predict fear of academic success. Educational Review, 68(2), 155-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1060585
Govender, K., Naicker, S., Meyer-Weitz, A., Fanner, J., Naidoo, A., & Penfold, W. (2013).
Associations between perceptions of school connectedness and adolescent health risk
behaviors in South African high school learners. Journal of School Health, 83(9), 614-
622. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12073
Granger, D. & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance. In M. G. Moore &
W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 169-180). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hagborg, W.J. (1994). An exploration of school membership among middle- and high-school
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 12(4), 312-323.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299401200401
Hagborg, W.J. (1998). School membership among students with learning disabilities and
nondisabled students in a semirural high school. Psychology in the Schools. 35(2), 183-
188. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199804)35:2<183::AID-
PITS10>3.0.CO;2-8
Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: the
psychometric properties of the Healthy Kids Survey. (Issues & Answers Report, REL
122

2007–No. 034). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Joyce, H.D. (2019). Does school connectedness mediate the relationship between teacher
support and depressive symptoms? Children & Schools, 41(1), 7-16.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdy024
Karcher, M. J. (2001, August). Measuring adolescent connectedness: Four validation studies
[Poster presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
San Francisco, CA, USA.
Karcher, M., & Lee, Y. (2002). Connectedness among Taiwanese middle school students: A
validation study of the Hemingway measure of adolescent connectedness. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 3(1), 92-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024924
Karcher, M. J., & Sass, D. (2010). A multicultural assessment of adolescent connectedness:
Testing measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 57(3), 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019357
Kohlhagen, J. A. (2016). Impact of an inclusive environment on the feelings of belonging of
students with disabilities (Order No. AAI3663040) [Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh
Dickinson University]. ProQuest Information & Learning. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1790947405?accountid=14749
Kotter JP (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73,
59–67.
123

LaSalle, T. P., Parris, L., Morin, M., & Meyers, J. (2016). Deconstructing peer victimization:
Relationships with connectedness, gender, grade, and Race/Ethnicity. School Psychology
Forum, 10(1), 41-54. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1941339147?accountid=14749
Lemberger, M. E., & Clemens, E. V. (2012). Connectedness and self-regulation as constructs of
the student success skills program in inner-city African American elementary school
students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(4), 450-458.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00056.x
Lester, L., & Cross, D. (2015). The relationship between school climate and mental and
emotional wellbeing over the transition from primary to secondary school. Psychology of
Well-being, 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-015-0037-8
Lester, L., Waters, S., & Cross, D. (2013). The relationship between School connectedness and
mental health during the transition to secondary school: A Path Analysis. Australian
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 23(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2013.20
Loukas, A., Cance, J., & Batanova, M. (2013). Trajectories of school connectedness across the
middle school years. Youth & Society, 48(4), 557–576.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13504419
Mahatmya, D., Lohman, B., Brown, E., & Conway-Turner, J. (2016). The role of race and
teachers’ cultural awareness in predicting low-income, black and Hispanic students’
perceptions of educational attainment. Social Psychology of Education: An International
Journal, 19(2), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9334-1
Marraccini, M. E., & Brier, Z. M. F. (2017). School connectedness and suicidal thoughts and
124

behaviors: A systematic meta-analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 5-21.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000192
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed). SAGE.
McLaren, S., PhD., Schurmann, J., M.Psych, & Jenkins, M., PsyD. (2015). The relationships
between sense of belonging to a community GLB youth group; school, teacher, and peer
connectedness; and depressive symptoms: Testing of a path model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 62(12), 1688-1702. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1078207
McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J., & Blum, R. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health,
72(4), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06533.x
Meloro, P. C. (2005). Do high school advisory programs promote personalization? Correlates of
school belonging (Doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305429656/624F2F01CAF04764PQ/4?acc
ountid=15725
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Moore, M. (1983). The individual adult learner. In M. Tight (ed), Adult learning and education.
(pp. 153-168). Croom Helm.
Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., & Swift, L. E. (2014). Relations among multiple types of peer
victimization, reactivity to peer victimization, and academic achievement in fifth-grade
boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 60(3),
125

302-327. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1651837057?accountid=14749
Nasir, N. S., Jones, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). School connectedness for students in low-
income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1755-1793. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1312424906?accountid=14749
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Adolescent
and School Health. (2009). Fostering school connectedness: Improving student health
and academic achievement. Information for school districts and school administrators.
Retrieved from ERIC http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/762467889?accountid=1474
Neely, E., Walton, M., & Stephens, C. (2015). Building school connectedness through shared
lunches. Health Education, 115(6), 554-569. https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-08-2014-0085
Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K. M., & Rakes, C. R. (2012). A longitudinal study of school
connectedness and academic outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychology,
50(4), 443-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.03.002
Oldfield, J., Humphrey, N., & Hebron, J. (2016). The role of parental and peer attachment
relationships and school connectedness in predicting adolescent mental health outcomes.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 21(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12108
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of
126

Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/214111717?accountid=14749
Patton, M. (2015) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th Edition, SAGE.
Perry, R.P. & Hamm, J.M. (2017). An attribution perspective on competence and motivation:
Theory and treatment interventions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 61-84).
The Guilford Press.
Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T.,
Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L.H., & Udry, J. (1997). Protecting
adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent
Health. JAMA, 278(10), 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038
Robinson, S.B. & Leonard, K.F.. (2019). Designing Quality Survey Questions. SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.3138/jpe.68217
Rowe, F., Stewart, D., & Patterson, C. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through whole
school approaches. Health Education, 107(6), 524-542.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280710827920
Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology: A pragmatic
paradigm. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education
(pp. 3-20). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scott, K.A. & White, M.A. (2013). COMPUGIRLS’ Standpoint. Urban Education., 48(5), 657–
681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913491219
127

Sharp, J. (2014). Student connectedness and the perception of community of inquiry presences in
online instruction (Publication No.1720064153; ED557657) [Doctoral dissertation,
College of Education of Trident University International]. Proquest Dissertations and
Publishing. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/dissertations-theses/student-connectedness-perception-
community/docview/1720064153/se-2?accountid=14749
Shearer, R. (2003). Instructional design in distance education: an overview. In M. G. Moore &
W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 275-286). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Shochet, I. M., & Smith, C. L. (2014). A prospective study investigating the links among
classroom environment, school connectedness, and depressive symptoms in adolescents.
Psychology in the Schools, 51(5), 480-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21759
Stokes, P.J. (1999). E-Learning: Education businesses transform schooling. Forum on
technology in education: Envisioning the future. ERIC database.
http://www.air.org/forum/forum.htm
Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, connectedness and “teacher-presence”: Engaging
and retaining students online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 146–169.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/interactivity-connectedness-teacher-
presence/docview/2299301852/se-2?accountid=14749
Sulkowski, M. L., Demaray, M. K., & Lazarus, P. J. (2012). Connecting students to schools to
128

support their emotional well-being and academic success. National Association of School
Psychologists. 40(7), 1 – 22. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1018427482?accountid=14749
Thijs, J., Keim, A. C., & Geerlings, J. (2019). Classroom identification in ethnic minority and
majority students: Effects of relationships and ethnic composition. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89(4), 707-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12253
Vidourek, R. & King, K. (2014). Enhancing school connectedness: Teachers’ perceived
confidence in positively connecting students to school. International Journal of School &
Educational Psychology, 2(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.876949
Vidourek, R. A., King, K. A., Bernard, A. L., Murnan, J., & Nabors, L. (2011). Teachers'
strategies to positively connect students to school. American Journal of Health
Education, 42(2), 116-126. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/864939164?accountid=14749
Waller, S. N., Costen, W. M., & Wozencroft, A. J. (2011). If we admit them, will they stay?:
Understanding the role of social connectedness in the retention of African American
students in a recreation and leisure studies program. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies
and Recreation Education, 26(1), 30-48. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1011399375?accountid=14749
Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
129

Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (p. 272–293). The Guilford Press.
Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D., Haltigan,
J.D., McDougall, P., Cunningham, C.E. & Hymel, S. (2014). School climate, peer
victimization, and academic achievement: Results from a multi-informant study. School
Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 360-377. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000084
Warren, C. S. C. (2014). Hispanic students' perception of campus culture and the correlation to
academic motivation (Order No. AAI3607681). [Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Baptist
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1627944064?accountid=14749
Wentzel, K. R. (2017). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In
A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation: Theory and application (pp. 586–603). The Guilford Press.
WestEd. (2019a). California Healthy Kids Survey High School Questionnaire Version HS23 –
Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Core Module. CalSCHLS. https://kern.org/alted/wp-
content/blogs.dir/4/files/sites/5/2020/02/High-School-CHKS-Core-English.pdf
WestEd. (2019b). California Healthy Kids Survey School Staff Survey Version 23 – Fall 2019-
Spring 2020. CalSCHLS. https://calschls.org/site/assets/files/1103/csss-
1920_final_watermark.pdf
WestEd. (2019c). Crosswalk of CalSCHLS Survey Items, 2019-20. CalSCHLS.
https://calschls.org/docs/calschls-2019-20-crosswalk.pdf
130

WestEd. (2021a). The California school climate, health, and learning survey (CalSCHLS) system
– About. CalSCHLS. https://calschls.org/about/
WestEd. (2021b). Secondary student: State trends over time. CalSCHLS.
https://calschls.org/reports-data/public-dashboards/secondary-student/
Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended
learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2), 1-20. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1720065072?accountid=14749
Wilson, S., & Gore, J. (2009). Appalachian origin moderates the association between school
connectedness and GPA: Two exploratory studies. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 15(1-2), 70-
86. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/815958721?accountid=14749
Winiecki, D.J. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance. In M. G. Moore &
W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 193-216). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

131

Appendix A: Student Survey
Research Questions:
1. How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between students, parents, and
teachers?
2. What strategies do students, parents, and teachers feel facilitate and inhibit school connectedness at
their school site?
3. How did the distance educational plan affect student, parent, and teacher beliefs about school
connectedness?

Target Population: Students in Grades 10 and 12.
Introduction
We invite you to take part in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This page explains information
about this study. You should ask questions if anything is unclear to you.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of school connectedness for students, parents, and
teachers in the Acalanes Union High School District. Furthermore, this study explores differences in perceptions
of school connectedness within a traditional school setting and within a distance-learning setting. We hope to
learn student, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness during a distance learning model. You are invited
as a possible participant because you are a 10th or 12th grade student within the Acalanes Union High School
District. About 13,000 participants will take part in the study.

Procedures will include the administration of surveys to each of the three populations (all parents of 10th and
12th grade students, all teachers with at least two years of experience within the District, and all 10th and 12th
grade students provided parental consent) examining perceptions of school connectedness and strategies utilized
by the Acalanes Union High School District to increase school connectedness in a distance learning environment.
The surveys will contain both quantitative and qualitative questions. If you decide to take part, you will receive a
survey administered through Qualtrics and be asked to complete and submit the survey. The study should take
about 10 minutes to complete. You may skip or choose not to answer any questions and/or withdraw from the
study at any time.

Confidentiality
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. All data collected during this study will be anonymous and no identifiers will be gathered.

Contact Information
If you have questions about this study, please contact Julie Parks at juliecpa@usc.edu.

This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a research review
board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. Contact
the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a research participant or you have complaints about the
research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.

You may wish to print a copy of this page to retain contact information and other details concerning this study.

Statement of Consent
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. All my questions have been answered. By checking the box, I am agreeing to take part in this study. At
132

the end of this survey, I will have the opportunity to consent for my child to also take this survey.

I agree to take part in this study
(Continue to survey questions).
I do not agree to take part in this study
(Survey will terminate).
Question 2 is an open ended question.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
2. In your own words, how do you
define school connectedness or
feelings of belonging to your school?
Open 1 Perceptions
Question 3 is non-response text.
For the following questions, please answer based on your perceptions of school connectedness. For the purposes
of this survey, school connectedness is defined as the belief by students that adults in the school care about their
learning and about them as individuals. Do your best to answer these questions based on your experiences
engaging in distance learning.
Questions 4 – 6 are connectedness scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
4. During distance learning, I feel
close to people at this school.
Closed 24 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
1 Belonging to a
Positive Peer
Group

Affective
Association
5. During distance learning, I am
happy to be at this school.
Closed 25 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
6. During distance learning, I feel like
I am a part of this school.
Closed 26 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
133

Strongly agree
7. During distance learning the
teachers at this school treat students
fairly.
Closed 27 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement
8. During distance learning, I feel safe
at this school.
Closed 28 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
Questions 9 – 11 are caring relationship scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
9. At my school during distance
learning, there is a teacher or some
other adult who really cares about me.
Closed 37 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
10. At my school during distance
learning, there is an adult who notices
when I am not there.
Closed 39 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
11. At my school during distance
learning, there is a teacher or adult
who listens to me when I have
something to say.
Closed 41 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
Questions 12 – 14 are high expectations scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
134

Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
12. At my school there is a teacher or
some other adult who tells me when I
do a good job.
Closed 38 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationships

Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
13. At my school there is a teacher or
some other adult who always wants
me to do my best.
Closed 40 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationships

Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
14. At my school, there is a teacher or
some other adult who believes I will
be a success.
Closed 42 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Adult
Relationship

Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
Questions 15 – 19 are meaningful participation scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
15. At school during distance learning,
I do interesting activities.
Closed 43 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
16. At school during distance learning,
I help decide things like class activities
or rules.
Closed 44 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
1 Commitment to
Education

135

Very much true Knowledge and
Experience
17. At school during distance learning,
I do things that make a difference.
Closed 45 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
18. At school during distance learning,
I have a say in how things work.
Closed 46 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
19. At school during distance learning,
I help decide school activities or rules.
Closed 47 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
Question 20 is non response text.
The following questions ask you to rate strategies that you have seen from your teachers during Distance
Learning. There may be variation between your teachers. To answer these questions, consider your overall
experience.
Question 21 is a matrix style question with response options “never,” less than once a month,” “once a month,”
“once a week or more,” or “everyday.”
The stem provided is as follows: At my school during distance learning, teachers…”
From Vidourek et al. 2011
Question RQ Concept
Measured
Try to act as a positive role models. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Call students by their first names. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Enforce rules of student respect. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Try to show students that they respect them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Actively listen to their students when students are speaking. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
136

Smile when they are teaching the class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Offer praise to their students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Show their students that they care about them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage and motivate their students to do their best in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Set high expectations for their students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use humor when interacting with students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Set rules for students to show respect for one another. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage student discussion in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Make small talk with students before/after class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Try to relate to their students and get to know them better. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Provide students with opportunities to show responsibility in the classroom. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use strategies to get their students positively connected in their class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Share personal stories or experiences during class to reach students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Spend time engaging students in conversations about their daily lives. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
137

Allow students to make low-level decisions in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to share their feelings. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Tell students that they care about them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use cooperative learning in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Divide students into small groups in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to talk to their parents. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Involve parents in student activities. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to get positively connected to their community. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use icebreakers to get students to know one another. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Questions 22 and 23 are open-ended free response questions.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
22. In the space provided, tell me more
about experiences in distance learning
that supported your feelings of school
connectedness.
Open 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
23. In the space provided, tell me more
about experiences in distance learning
that may have negatively affected your
feelings of school connectedness.
Open 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Questions 24 contains two rating scale questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Response
Type
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
138

24. Use the rating scale to share your
perceptions of the school's efforts to
build connectedness during traditional
school and during distance learning
(1=very poor and 10=outstanding).
Closed Interval 1 through 10 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning and of
traditional
school
Question 25 is an open-ended free response question.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
25. Is there anything else that you
would like to add about your
experience with school connectedness
or belonging? Please do not
specifically name a teacher or other
school identifier.
Open 1-3 Mesosystem
Question 26 is a non response text.
The following questions are demographic questions. Please answer truthfully to the best of your ability.
Question Open or Closed Response Options
27. What grade are you? Closed 10
th

12
th

28. What is your gender? Closed Male
Female
Nonbinary
Decline to state
29. Are you of Hispanic or Latino
origin?
Closed Yes
No
Decline to state
30. What is your race? Closed American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Two or more races
Other: _________
Decline to state
31. What language is spoken most of
the time in your home?
Closed English
Spanish
Mandarin
Cantonese
Taiwanese
Tagolog
Vietnamese
Korean
Arabic
Other: _______
139

32. During the past semester, how
would you describe the grades you
mostly received?
Closed Mostly As
As and Bs
Mostly Bs
Bs and Cs
Mostly Cs
Cs and Ds
Mostly Ds
Mostly Fs

140

Appendix B: Parent Survey
Research Questions:
1. How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between students, parents, and
teachers?
2. What strategies do students, parents, and teachers feel facilitate and inhibit school connectedness
at their school site?
3. How did the distance educational plan affect student, parent, and teacher beliefs about school
connectedness?

Target Population: Parents of students in Grades 10 and 12.
Introduction
We invite you to take part in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This page explains information
about this study. You should ask questions if anything is unclear to you.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of school connectedness for students, parents, and
teachers in the Acalanes Union High School District. Furthermore, this study explores differences in perceptions
of school connectedness within a traditional school setting and within a distance-learning setting. We hope to
learn student, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness during a distance learning model. You are invited
as a possible participant because you are a parent or guardian of a 10th or 12th grade student within the Acalanes
Union High School District. About 13,000 participants will take part in the study.

Procedures will include the administration of surveys to each of the three populations (all parents of 10th and
12th grade students, all teachers with at least two years of experience within the District, and all 10th and 12th
grade students provided parental consent) examining perceptions of school connectedness and strategies utilized
by the Acalanes Union High School District to increase school connectedness in a distance learning environment.
The surveys will contain both quantitative and qualitative questions. If you decide to take part, you will receive a
survey administered through Qualtrics and be asked to complete and submit the survey. The study should take
about 10 minutes to complete. You may skip or choose not to answer any questions and/or withdraw from the
study at any time.

Confidentiality
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. All data collected during this study will be anonymous and no identifiers will be gathered.

Contact Information
If you have questions about this study, please contact Julie Parks at juliecpa@usc.edu.

This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a research review
board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. Contact
the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a research participant or you have complaints about the
research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.

You may wish to print a copy of this page to retain contact information and other details concerning this study.

Statement of Consent
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. All my questions have been answered. By checking the box, I am agreeing to take part in this study. At
the end of this survey, I will have the opportunity to consent for my child to also take this survey.

141

I agree to take part in this study
(Continue to survey questions).
I do not agree to take part in this study
(Survey will terminate).
Question 2 is an open ended question.
Question Open or Closed RQ
2. In your own words, how do you
define school connectedness or
feelings of belonging to your school?
Open 1
Question 3 is non-response text.
For the following questions, please answer based on your perceptions of your child's school connectedness. For
the purposes of this survey, school connectedness is defined as the belief by students that adults in the school care
about their learning and about them as individuals. Do your best to answer these questions based on your
observations of your child engaging in distance learning. If you have a student in both 10th and 12th grade, please
consider answering the survey twice to capture the experiences of both children.
Questions 4 – 8 are connectedness scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
4. During distance learning, my child
feels close to people at this school.
Closed 24 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 Belonging to a
Positive Peer
Group

Affective
Association
5. During distance learning, my child
is happy to be at this school.
Closed 25 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
6. During distance learning, my child
feels like they are a part of this school.
Closed 26 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
7. During distance learning, the
teachers at this school treat my child
fairly.
Closed 27 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

142

Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Instructor
Involvement
8. During distance learning, my child
feels safe at this school.
Closed 28 Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
Questions 9 – 11 are caring relationship scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
9. At my school during distance
learning, there is a teacher or some
other adult who really cares about my
child.
Closed 37 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
10. At my school during distance
learning, there is an adult who notices
when my child is not there.
Closed 39 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
11. At my school during distance
learning, there is a teacher or adult
who listens to my child when they
have something to say.
Closed 41 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
Questions 12 – 14 are high expectations scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
12. At my school there is a teacher or
some other adult who tells my child
when they do a good job.
Closed 38 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
1 Adult
Relationships

143

Very much true
Don’t know
Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
13. At my school there is a teacher or
some other adult who always wants
my child to do their best.
Closed 40 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Adult
Relationships

Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
14. At my school, there is a teacher or
some other adult who believes my
child will be a success.
Closed 42 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Adult
Relationship

Commitment to
Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
Questions 15 – 19 are meaningful participation scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
15. At school during distance learning,
my child does interesting activities.
Closed 43 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
16. At school during distance learning,
my child helps decide things like class
activities or rules.
Closed 44 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
144

17. At school during distance learning,
my child does things that make a
difference.
Closed 45 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
18. At school during distance learning,
my child has a say in how things work.
Closed 46 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
19. At school during distance learning,
my child helps decide school activities
or rules.
Closed 47 Not at all true
A little true
Pretty much
true
Very much true
Don’t know
1 Commitment to
Education

Knowledge and
Experience
Question 20 is non response text.
The following questions ask you to rate strategies that your child has experienced with teachers during distance
learning. There may be variation between your child's teachers. To answer these questions, consider your child's
overall experience and answer to the best of your ability.
Question 21 is a matrix style question with response options “never,” less than once a month,” “once a month,”
“once a week or more,” or “everyday.”
The stem provided is as follows: At my child’s school during distance learning, teachers…”
From Vidourek et al. 2011
Question RQ Concept
Measured
Try to act as a positive role models. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Call students by their first names. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Enforce rules of student respect. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Try to show students that they respect them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Actively listen to their students when students are speaking. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Smile when they are teaching the class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
145

Offer praise to their students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Show their students that they care about them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage and motivate their students to do their best in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Set high expectations for their students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use humor when interacting with students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Set rules for students to show respect for one another. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage student discussion in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Make small talk with students before/after class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Try to relate to their students and get to know them better. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Provide students with opportunities to show responsibility in the classroom. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use strategies to get their students positively connected in their class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Share personal stories or experiences during class to reach students. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Spend time engaging students in conversations about their daily lives. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Allow students to make low-level decisions in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to share their feelings. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Tell students that they care about them. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use cooperative learning in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
146

Divide students into small groups in class. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to talk to their parents. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Involve parents in student activities. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Encourage students to get positively connected to their community. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Use icebreakers to get students to know one another. 2 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Questions 22 and 23 are open-ended free response questions.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
22. In the space provided, tell me more
about your child’s experiences in
distance learning that support school
connectedness.
Open 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
23. In the space provided, tell me more
about your child’s experiences in
distance learning that may have
negatively affect school
connectedness.
Open 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning
Question 24 contains two rating scale questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Response
Type
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
24. Use the rating scale to share your
perceptions of the school's efforts to
build connectedness during traditional
school and during distance learning
(1=very poor and 10=outstanding).
Closed Interval 1 through 10 3 Mesosystem of
distance
learning and of
traditional
school
Questions 25 is an open-ended free response question.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
25. Is there anything else that you
would like to add about your child's
experience with school connectedness
or belonging? Please do not
specifically name a teacher or other
school identifier.
Open 1-3 Mesosystem
Question 26 is a non response text.
147

The following questions are demographic questions. Please answer truthfully to the best of your ability.
Question Open or Closed Response Options
27. What is your child’s grade? Closed 10
th

12
th

28. What is your gender? Closed Male
Female
Nonbinary
Decline to state
29. Are you of Hispanic or Latino
origin?
Closed Yes
No
Decline to state
30. What is your race? Closed American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Two or more races
Other: _______
Decline to state
31. What language is spoken most of
the time in your home?
Closed English
Spanish
Mandarin
Cantonese
Taiwanese
Tagolog
Vietnamese
Korean
Arabic
Other: _______
32. During the past semester, how
would you describe the grades your
student mostly received?
Closed Mostly As
As and Bs
Mostly Bs
Bs and Cs
Mostly Cs
Cs and Ds
Mostly Ds
Mostly Fs
Question 33 is consent information for parents to grant permission for children to participate in the survey. It has
a conditional response.
Introduction
We would like to invite your child to take part in a research study. Your child's participation is voluntary. This
page explains information about this study. You should ask questions if anything is unclear to you.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of school connectedness for students, parents, and
teachers in the Acalanes Union High School District. Furthermore, this study explores differences in perceptions
148

of school connectedness within a traditional school setting and within a distance-learning setting. We hope to
learn student, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness during a distance learning model. Your child is
invited as a possible participant because they are a 10th or 12th grade student within the Acalanes Union High
School District. About 13,000 participants will take part in the study.

Procedures will include the administration of surveys to each of the three populations (all parents of 10th and
12th grade students, all teachers with at least two years of experience within the District, and all 10th and 12th
grade students provided parental consent) examining perceptions of school connectedness and strategies utilized
by the Acalanes Union High School District to increase school connectedness in a distance learning environment.
The surveys will contain both quantitative and qualitative questions. If you decide to take part, you will receive a
survey administered through Qualtrics and be asked to complete and submit the survey. The study should take
about 10 minutes to complete. You may skip or choose not to answer any questions and/or withdraw from the
study at any time.

Confidentiality
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. All data collected during this study will be anonymous and no identifiers will be gathered.

Contact Information
If you have questions about this study, please contact Julie Parks at juliecpa@usc.edu.

This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a research review
board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. Contact
the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a research participant or you have complaints about the
research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.

You may wish to print a copy of this page to retain contact information and other details concerning this study.

Statement of Consent
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. All my questions have been answered. By checking the box, I am agreeing to allow my child to take
part in this study. I understand that my child will have the opportunity to provide independent consent upon the
receipt of the survey and can choose to take part in this study or decline participation in this study.

I agree to allow my child to take part in this study.

(Conditional response will populate with a link for the parent to send to their child).
I do not agree to allow my child to take part in this study.
(Survey will terminate).

149

Appendix C: Teacher Survey
Research Questions:
1. How are perceptions of school connectedness similar and different between students, parents, and
teachers?
2. What strategies do students, parents, and teachers feel facilitate and inhibit school connectedness
at their school site?
3. How did the distance educational plan affect student, parent, and teacher beliefs about school
connectedness?

Target Population: Teachers in the VHSD.
Introduction
We invite you to take part in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This page explains information
about this study. You should ask questions if anything is unclear to you.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of school connectedness for students, parents, and
teachers in the Acalanes Union High School District. Furthermore, this study explores differences in perceptions
of school connectedness within a traditional school setting and within a distance-learning setting. We hope to
learn student, parent, and teacher perceptions of connectedness during a distance learning model. You are invited
as a possible participant because you are a teacher within the Acalanes Union High School District. About 13,000
participants will take part in the study.

Procedures will include the administration of surveys to each of the three populations (all parents of 10th and
12th grade students, all teachers with at least two years of experience within the District, and all 10th and 12th
grade students provided parental consent) examining perceptions of school connectedness and strategies utilized
by the Acalanes Union High School District to increase school connectedness in a distance learning environment.
The surveys will contain both quantitative and qualitative questions. If you decide to take part, you will receive a
survey administered through Qualtrics and be asked to complete and submit the survey. The study should take
about 10 minutes to complete. You may skip or chose not to answer any questions and/or withdraw from the
study at anytime.

Confidentiality
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. All data collected during this study will be anonymous and no identifiers will be gathered.

Contact Information
If you have questions about this study, please contact Julie Parks at juliecpa@usc.edu.

This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a research review
board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. Contact
the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a research participant or you have complaints about the
research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.

You may wish to print a copy of this page to retain contact information and other details concerning this study.

Statement of Consent
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. All my questions have been answered. By checking the box, I am agreeing to take part in this study. At
the end of this survey, I will have the opportunity to consent for my child to also take this survey.

150

I agree to take part in this study
(Continue to survey questions).
I do not agree to take part in this study
(Survey will terminate).
Question 2 is an open ended question.
Question Open or Closed RQ
2. In your own words, how do you
define student connectedness or
feelings of belonging to your school?
Open 1
Question 3 is non-response text.
For the following questions, please answer based on your perceptions of student connectedness to your school.
For the purposes of this survey, school connectedness is defined as the belief by students that adults in the school
care about their learning and about them as individuals.
While not all student experiences are the same, do your best to answer these questions based on your perceptions
of students engaging in distance learning.
Questions 4 – 6 are connectedness scale questions. They are formatted as multiple choice questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
4. During distance learning, students
feel close to people at this school.
Closed 24 Strongly disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 Belonging to a
Positive Peer
Group

Affective
Association
5. During distance learning, students
are happy to be at this school.
Closed 25 Strongly disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
6. During distance learning, students
feel like they are a part of this school.
Closed 26 Strongly disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
7. During distance learning, teachers at
this school treat students fairly.
Closed 27 Strongly disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat agree
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement
151

Strongly agree
8. During distance learning, students
feel safe at this school.
Closed 28 Strongly disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1 School
Environment

Community
Cohesion
Question 9 is a matrix style question with response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly
disagree.” It incorporates questions from the teacher support scale, caring adult relationship scale, high
expectations scale, and meaningful participation scale. These will be grouped on a single page in a matrix format
for traditional school perceptions and distance learning perceptions.
Question Open or
Closed
Alignment to
2019 CHKS
and CSSS
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
9.1 School is a supportive and inviting
place for students to learn.
Closed Teacher
Support
S6

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
9.2 Teachers go out of their way to
help students.
Closed Teacher
Support
S74
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
9.3 School emphasizes helping
students academically when they need
it.
Closed Teacher
Support
S9
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
9.4 Adults at my school really care
about every student.
Closed

Caring
Relationships
S33

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

Commitment
to Education

Instructor
Involvement

152

Interaction
Intensity
9.5 Adults at my school acknowledge
and pay attention to students.
Closed Caring
Relationships
S34

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationships

Commitment
to Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
9.6 Adults at my school listen to what
students have to say.
Closed Caring
Relationships
S36

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Adult
Relationship

Commitment
to Education

Instructor
Involvement

Interaction
Intensity
9.7 Adults at my school want every
student to do their best.
Closed High
Expectations
S35

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
9.8 Adults at my school believe every
student can be a success.
Closed High
Expectations
S37

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
9.9 My school has high expectations
for all students.
Closed High
Expectations
S24
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
9.10 My school encourages
opportunities for students to decide
things like class activities and rules.
Closed Meaningful
Participation
S16

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
153

9.11 My school gives opportunities to
“make a difference” by helping
people, school, or community.
Closed Meaningful
Participation
S19

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
9.12 My school gives equal
opportunity to participate in classroom
discussions or activities.
Closed Meaningful
Participation
S17
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1 Commitment
to Education

Knowledge
and
Experience
Questions 10 and 11 are open-ended free response questions.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
10. In the space provided, tell me more
about your strategies as a teacher in
distance learning that support school
connectedness.
Open 2 Mesosystem
11. In the space provided, tell me more
about any strategies as a teacher in
distance learning that may negatively
affect school connectedness.
Open 2 Mesosystem
Question 12 contains two rating scale questions.
Question Open or
Closed
Response
Type
Response
Options
RQ Concept
Measured
12. Use the rating scale to share your
perceptions of the school's efforts to
build connectedness during traditional
school and during distance learning
(1=very poor and 10=outstanding).
Closed Interval 1 through 10 3 Mesosystem
of distance
learning and
of traditional
school
Question 13 is an open-ended free response question.
Question Open or Closed RQ Concept
Measured
13. Is there anything else that you
would like to add about your
experience with school connectedness
or belonging? Please do not
specifically name a school identifier
(i.e. a teacher or school name).
Open 1-3 Mesosystem
Question 14 is a non response text.
The following questions are demographic questions. Please answer truthfully to the best of your ability.
154

Question Open or Closed Response Options
15. What grade(s) do you teach? Closed 9
th

10
th
11
th

12
th

16. What is your gender? Closed Male
Female
Nonbinary
17. How many years have you been
teaching?
Closed 0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21 or more years

155

Appendix D: CHKS and CSS Question Comparisons
Scale 2019 CHKS
Question
2019 CSSS
Question
Student
Survey
Question
Parent
Survey
Question
Teacher
Survey
Question
Connectedness
Scale (CHKS)
24 4 4 4
25 5 5 5
26 6 6 6
27 7 7 7
28 8 8 8
Teacher
Support Scale
(CSSS)

6 9.1
74 9.2
9 9.3
Caring
Relationship
Scale (CHKS)

37 9 9
39 10 10
41 11 11
Caring
Relationship
Scale (CSSS)

33 9.4
34 9.5
36 9.6
High
Expectations
Scale (CHKS)

38 12 12
40 13 13
42 14 14
High
Expectations
Scale (CSSS)

35 9.7
37 9.8
24 9.9
Meaningful
Participation
Scale (CHKS)
43 15 15
44 16 16
45 17 17
46 18 18
47 19 19
Meaningful
Participation
Scale (CSSS)

16 9.10
19 9.11
17 9.12

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This mixed method study evaluated the perceptions of school connectedness for students, teachers, and parents in a California high school district during both traditional school and distance learning through the application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Instrumentation included surveying of students, parents, and teachers. Survey questions contained a combination of quantitative and open-ended qualitative responses, including questions adopted from both the CHKS (WestEd, 2019a) and Use of Connection-Building Strategies Subscale (Vidourek et al., 2011). Completed responses for students (N = 47), parents (N = 290), and teachers (N = 73) were analyzed to draw findings. Students, parents, and teachers identified aspects of school connectedness that aligned with the literature, including adult relationships, school environment, commitment to education, and belonging to a positive peer group (Allen & Bowles, 2012

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

College preparation coursework opportunities for students of color at the secondary level

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

PDF

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

PDF

Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

School connectedness for Latinx English learners

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

The impact of parents’ divorce on student learning: a case study of institutional support in a martial arts school

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Parks, Julie Cellini (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/27/2021

Defense Date 04/08/2021

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

Tag belonging,Bronfenbrenner's ecological model,distance learning,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,school connectedness,social presence theory

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Nickerson, John (committee member)

Creator Email celliniparks@gmail.com,juliecpa@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-456100

Unique identifier UC11669130

Identifier etd-ParksJulie-9552.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-456100 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParksJulie-9552.pdf

Dmrecord 456100

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Parks, Julie Cellini

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