Student Engagement in High School: Impacts of Teacher Support
Karisa L. Weske, M.S.Ed. and Robert J. Dixon, Ph.D., NCSP
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Abstract
Method
Teachers are instrumental in facilitating a student’s relationships
with the school community. By offering various types of support,
teachers may positively impact the cognitive and psychological
engagement of high school students. The current study examined
which aspects of teacher support—as perceived by students—are
predictive of school engagement. Implications for school
psychologists are discussed regarding enhancing student
engagement, focusing consultation services and impacting school
improvement plans.
Participants. Participants were 222 students from a suburban
public high school in a midsized Midwestern city.
• Male: N=97; Female: N=125
• 10th grade: 28%; 11th grade: 40%; 12th grade: 32%.
• White: 85%; Biracial: 5%; Latino/a: 4%; African-American: 2%;
Asian: 2%; “Other”: 2%.
• Students had the opportunity to participate if they were enrolled
in and attending a study hall.
Data Collection Tools:
Teacher support. The Teacher Support Scale (McWhirter, 1996)
assessed student perceptions of four types of teacher support using
a 21-item, 5-point Likert-type self-report measure:
• Type 1: “Invested:” teachers engage in helping behaviors geared
toward future success and achievement ( = .86).
• Type 2: “Positive Regard:” teachers are caring and emotionally
connected and available to students ( = .85).
• Type 3: “Expectations:” teachers convey positive expectations for
educational success ( = .74).
• Type 4: “Accessible:” teachers are available and open to
students’ seeking support or information ( = .78).
Student engagement. The Student Engagement Instrument
(Appleton et. al., 2006) assessed two types of school engagement
using a 35-item, 5-point Likert-type self-report measure.
• Cognitive engagement: perceptions of variables such as selfregulation, value of learning, relevance of schoolwork to future
endeavors, and personal goals and autonomy ( = .86).
• Psychological engagement: perceptions of variables such as
feelings of identification or belonging, and relationships with
teachers and peers ( = .92).
Introduction
• High student engagement has consistently been linked to
increased levels of school success and reduced dropout rates
(Morse, Christenson & Lehr, 2004).
• Student engagement is generally understood to include
participation in school activities and the student’s identification
with school and acceptance of school values.
• It is important to recognize student engagement as a “metaconstruct” that is further broken down into four facets:
academic, behavioral, cognitive and psychological
engagement.
• Academic and behavioral components of engagement are
arguably overemphasized in school practice today, and more
research is needed to examine the cognitive and psychological
components of engagement given their demonstrated
importance to school performance (Appleton et. al., 2006).
• Evidence exists for a number of factors through which
educators can promote student engagement; however, one
factor that warrants closer investigation is teacher support, or
the degree to which teachers listen to, encourage and respect
students.
• A closer look at perceived teacher support at the high school
level is especially important due to findings that perceived level
of support from teachers declines with student age, suggesting
possible developmental differences in perceptions of social
support (Malecki & Elliott, 1999).
Results
Means and standard deviations were calculated for student
responses measuring both cognitive and psychological engagement.
For mean scores by gender and grade, see figure 1.
Figure 1: Scores by Gender and Grade.
5
Current Study
4
The current study examined the impact of four types of teacher
support upon high school students’ engagement in school.
Specifically, which type or types of teacher support best predicted
both cognitive and psychological engagement? The variations in
student report of engagement by gender and grade level, and the
correlation between degree of engagement and self-reported GPA,
were also investigated.
3
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2007
www.PosterPresentations.com
Cog
Psych
2
1
10th
11th
Male
12th
10th
11th
Female
12th
A Correlation Matrix was computed for the independent variables of
teacher support (Invested, Positive Regard, Expectations,
Accessible) and the dependent variables of cognitive engagement
and psychological engagement. See table 1.
Table 1: Correlation Matrix.
Psychological
Cognitive
69
2. Invested
64
3. Positive Regard
58
4. Expectations
58
5. Accessible
58
2
52
-66
69
63
3
52
-64
51
4
53
-51
5
32
--
Two stepwise regressions were conducted with the independent
variables of teacher support (Invested, Positive Regard, Expectations,
Accessible) and the dependent variables of cognitive engagement
(see table 2) and psychological engagement (see table 3).
Table 2: Cognitive Engagement Regression.
Cognitive
Model 1 B
Constant
Expectations
Positive Regard
Invested
R2
F
R2
F
20.83
1.95
--.28
85.86
Model 3
Model 2 B
B
95% CI

20.79
21.56 [12.73, 30.39] -1.26
.93
[.35, 1.51]
.25
.77
.58
[.18, .97]
.22
-.34
[.07, .61]
.20
.33
.35
54.33
39.03
.05
.02
16.65
5.95
All are one-directional, and all are significant at p<.05
Table 3: Psychological Engagement Regression.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Psychological
B
B
B
Constant
31.18
Invested
1.40
Accessible
-Positive Regard
-Expectations
-R2
.41
F
152.49
R2
F
28.33
1.00
1.36
--.46
93.63
.05
20.87
22.94
.70
1.19
.82
-.50
70.83
.03
14.00
Model 4
B
95% CI
14.58 [4.61, 24.54]
.55
[.22, .89]
1.12 [.54, 1.69]
.64
[.18, 1.09]
.79
[.13, 1.45]
.51
55.62
.01
5.53
Conclusions and Implications
• Factors of teacher support did predict cognitive engagement;
specifically, Expectations was the primary predictor followed by
Positive Regard and Invested adding to the regression equation.
• Factors of teacher support also predicted psychological
engagement, with Invested as the primary predictor and
Accessible, Positive Regard and Expectations adding to the
regression equation.
• These findings suggest a multi-faceted construct of teacher
support that differentially predicts psychological engagement
more than cognitive engagement.
• Teachers will benefit from understanding the many ways to
support students, and modifying this support according to the
engagement needs of students.
• Implications for school psychologists include using these results
as a lens through which to understand student engagement, and
focus consultation efforts with teacher support factors in mind.
• A limitation of the current study was that a single suburban high
school contributed to the population sample. Furthermore,
students self-selected to participate and must have been
enrolled in and present at their study hall.
• Future studies should expand upon the correlational and
predictive relationships established in this study by investigating
teacher perceptions of the four support types and their relation
to student views. Also of interest is examining the impact of an
intervention (i.e., consultation with a school psychologist)
through pre- and post-assessment of a targeted support type or
combination of support types.
References

-.25
.24
.19
.17
All are one-directional, and all are significant at p<.05
Correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationship
between student-reported GPA and both dependent variables.
GPA was found to be weakly correlated with both cognitive and
psychological engagement, [r=.29 (CE), r=.27 (PE), p<.05].
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A.L. (2006). Measuring cognitive
and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument.
Journal of School Psychology. 44, 427 – 445.
Bru, E., Stornes, T., Munthe, E., & Thuen, E. (2010). Students’ Perceptions of Teacher
Support across the Transition from Primary to Secondary School. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research. 54(6), 519 – 533.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of
the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109
Klem, A.M. & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to
Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health. 74(7), 262 – 273.
Libbey, H.P. (2004). Measuring Student Relationships to School: Attachment, Bonding,
Connectedness, and Engagement. Journal of School Health. 74(7), 274-283.
Metheny, J., McWhirter, E.H., O'Neil, M.E. (2008). Measuring Perceived Teacher Support
and Its Influence on Adolescent Career Development. Journal of Career
Assessment. 16, 218 – 239.
Rosenfeld, L.B., Richman, J.M., & Bowen, G.L. (2000). Social Support Networks and
School Outcomes: The Centrality of the Teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal. 17(3), 205 – 227.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2006). Voices of Students on Engagement: A Report on the 2006 High
School Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.