Background
Engagement with school is
‘the single most important
protective factor in reducing
offending and re-offending’
(Youth Justice Board, 2006).
Therefore promoting
engagement with school is a
priority of Youth Offending
Teams (YOTs). YOTs use
attendance as their measure
of school engagement.
Current psychological
conceptualisations of school
engagement (e.g. Appleton et
al., 2008) are of a multicomponent model comprising
of:
Behavioural engagement
Academic engagement
Cognitive engagement
Psychological engagement
Summary
This study focused on
psychological and cognitive
school engagement, as these
subtypes have been
overlooked in previous
research (Appleton et al.,
2006). It considered how
these components correlate
with attendance (YOT
measure of engagement),
what the underlying mediators
are and how these
components can be increased.
The Cognitive and Psychological School
Engagement of Young Offenders
Dr. Kate Hambleton
University College London
Camden Educational Psychology Service
RQ 1: Do young offenders with higher levels of school attendance also
have higher levels of psychological and cognitive engagement?
Measures: Student Engagement Instrument (Appleton et al., 2006);
School attendance percentages
Analysis: Spearman’s Rho Correlation
Findings: No correlation (rs = -.05, ns)
Measures: Semi-structured interview with young offenders; Ranking Activity
Analysis: Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke. 2006) and descriptive statistics
Findings: Young people agreed that the indicators of cognitive and psychological
engagement as identified by Appleton et al., (2006) are important to overall
engagement with school and that ‘Family Support for Learning’ and ‘Teacher-Student
Relationships’ were most important.
RQ3: What are the underlying mediators of cognitive and psychological
engagement?
Self Belief
Competence
Need for positive
relationships
Locus of
control
Perceived Value
Link to goals
Negative Affect
Intrinsic interest
RQ 4: What do young offenders identify as the facilitators of & barriers to
psychological and cognitive engagement?
Measure: Semi-structured interview with young offenders
Analysis: Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke. 2006)
Themes:
Positively viewing
young people as
autonomous individuals
Communication and interaction
with young people is positive,
respectful and fair
Support for young people
is available, readily
provided and proactive
Additional engagement
measures needed for YOTs?
Triangulation/support for the
existing engagement literature.
RQ 2: What are young offenders’ views about the indicators of
psychological and cognitive engagement?
Measure: Semi-structured interview with young offenders
Analysis: Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke. 2006)
Themes:
Implications
Teaching is vibrant
and informative
Support for psychological
theories, including:
• Self-Determination Theory
(e.g. Deci and Ryan, 2008)
• Identification-Participation
theory (Finn, 1989)
• Broaden and Build Theory of
positive emotions
(Frederickson & Losada, 2005)
• Social Discipline Window
(Wachtel and McCold, 2004).
Self-belief/competence could
be included as an indicator of
cognitive engagement (not
identified in Appleton et al.,
2006).
Indication of what preventative
and reactive interventions
should target (how as well as
what), and informs the focus of
assessment and consultation.
Emphasises importance of
support for SEN, which is
disproportionately high in
young offenders.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386; 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; Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101;
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, M. R. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development and Health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182-185; Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing From School. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142;
Frederickson, B. L. & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686; Wachtel, T. & McCold, P. (2004). From Restorative Justice to Restorative Practices: Expanding the Paradigm; YJB
(2006). Barriers to engagement in education, training and employment London: Youth Justice Board.