View article

A growing number of educators, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers are focusing on engagement as a necessary factor in efforts to address and understand the high rates of underachievement, disengagement, and dropout facing high schools, as well as in efforts to increase post-secondary enrollment and persistence (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Fredricks et al., 2011; National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 2004). Research on student engagement has been active for over 25 years, and although this work has led to general agreement among researchers on various aspects of engagement definitions, theory, and research, there are questions and issues that remain to be addressed (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Debates persist, for example, about how to best conceptualize student engagement, how it differs from motivation, and how to measure student engagement most effectively. Most of the international research community that studies student engagement conceptualizes the construct as multi-dimensional (Reschly & Christenson, 2012), typically involving some aspects of behavior, emotion, and cognition (Fredricks et al., 2004; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Appleton, Christenson, and others use these dimensions, but further differentiate behavioral engagement into two sub-types: behavioral and academic engagement (Appleton, Christenson, Kim & Reschly, 2006; Christenson et al, 2008). Across scholars, there is still a great deal of variation regarding which subtypes or dimensions are measured and included in analyses …