The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments

By Jennifer Fredricks, Wendy H. McColskey. 2012

950 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/efdd760161dd258098f71c47d0d737d417714ff5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review (2015, background): “Several publications review methods and identify issues that need to be addressed to improve the measurement of student engagement (Betts, 2012; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2011; Samuelsen, 2012).”
Studying Triggers for Interest and Engagement Using Observational Methods (2015, methodology): “…2011), whereas in engagement research the experience of the learning environment is typically discussed as being composed of multiple and distinct components, for example, cognitive, affective, and behavioral (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2004; see Christenson et al., 2012; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Longitudinal and Contextual Associations Between Teacher–Student Relationships and Student Engagement (2017, background): “Measurement of behavioral engagement includes commonly collected school data describing patterns of attendance and reports of disruptive behaviors (Chase, Hilliard, Geldhof, Warren, & Lerner, 2014; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science (2015, background): “There exist a multitude of instruments and methods that purport to measure student engagement, and each has strengths and weaknesses (see Fredricks & McColskey, 2012, for indepth discussion).”
Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching (2015, methodology): “Prior research shows that internal consistency of EvsD measured using Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.61 to 0.85 for student report and from 0.81 to 0.87 for teacher report (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016, methodology): “Behavioral engagement has been measured qualitatively via observation of participation and effort as well as teacher reports and student self-reports or interviews (see Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Defining and Measuring Engagement and Learning in Science: Conceptual, Theoretical, Methodological, and Analytical Issues (2015, neutral): “EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 50(1), 84–94, 2015 Copyright Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069 Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement (2016, methodology): “Another concernwas that the majority of measures identified in the review focused on general engagement in school rather than on engagement in specific subject areas (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Assessing student Engagement in School: Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale (2016, background): “The conceptualization of student engagement in school suffers variations across literature (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012; Reeve & Tseng, 2011).”
Measuring Cognitive Engagement With Self-Report Scales: Reflections From Over 20 Years of Research (2015, background): “We knew that there were other forms of engagement, such as emotional and behavioral (e.g., Fredricks & McColskey, 2012), but our interest was on how cognitive engagement could help us understand motivation to learn and achievement.”
Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions (2021, methodology): “In addition to these more obvious communication cues, it is also possible to study cognitive engagement through nonverbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, eye movements and body positioning (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Academic Engagement: An Overview of Its Definitions, Dimensions, and Major Conceptualisations (2016, background): “However, most previous studies have subsumed this dimension (i.e., academic) under behavioural engagement (Appleton et al., 2008; Coleman, 2012; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
Teacher support and math engagement: roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions (2018, background): “…the degree to which students engage themselves in learning-related activities, including behavioural, affective and cognitive engagement that underlie students’ connectedness to academics (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).”
All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement (2020, background): “Behavioral engagement is understood as a set of externally observable behaviors (Appleton et al. 2008; Fredricks and McColskey 2012), which comprise several distinct aspects as absenteeism, disruptive behavior, withdrawal, following instructions, and student participation in whole-class dialogues…”
Disaffection and agentic engagement: ‘Redesigning’ activities to enable authentic self-expression (2018, methodology): “…be used to better understand variations in engagement across different contexts and how this variation may relate to affordances within the context’ (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012, p. 779), an ethnographic approach provides an appropriate means for examining the evolution of engagement within a…”