Edith Cowan University
Research Online
ECU Publications 2013
2013
Using self-determination theory to investigate
student engagement in the classroom
Leanne J. Fried
Edith Cowan University, leannefried@iinet.net.au
Deslea M. Konza
Edith Cowan University, d.konza@ecu.edu.au
This article was originally published as: Fried, L. J., & Konza, D. M. (2013). Using self-determination theory to investigate student engagement in the
classroom. The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 19(2), 27-40. Original article available here
This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks2013/889
VOLUME 19 ISSUE 2
The International Journal of
Pedagogy
and Curriculum
__________________________________________________________________________
Using Self-Determination Theory to
Investigate Student Engagement in the
Classroom
LEANNE FRIED AND DESLEA KONZA
thelearner.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
http://thelearner.com/
First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First St, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com
ISSN: 2327-7963
© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under
the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Typeset in CGScholar.
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Using Self-Determination Theory to Investigate
Student Engagement in the Classroom
Leanne Fried, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, Australia
Deslea Konza, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Abstract: This is a report on a study that: a. explored teacher perceptions of the term engagement
and b. tracked the engagement of nine early primary students who were identified by their
teachers as often disengaged. In the first section of the research, teacher perceptions of the term
engagement were found to focus on behavioural and emotional aspects, with little reference to
the cognitive component. In the second section, the researchers used an observation rating scale
to observe the students in their classrooms and recorded their levels of behavioural, emotional
and cognitive engagement. At the same time, the students’ learning activities were rated according
to the extent to which the activities addressed their perceived competence, sense of belonging
and autonomy support (aspects of Self-Determination Theory). It was found that students who
were ‘needy’ in terms of their perceived competence or sense of belonging responded to activities
that addressed these needs. This study points to the need for further investigation of Self-Determination Theory as a planning framework to address engagement issues in the classroom.
Keywords: Engagement, Early Primary Students, Perceived Competence, Belonging, Autonomy
INTRODUCTION
I
t is now recognised by numerous researchers (e.g. Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Marks, 2000;
Klem, 2004) that ‘student engagement’ is a vital component of academic success at school
and that it is a worthy outcome of schooling in its own right. Although there is general
consensus amongst educationists on this point, consensus has not yet been reached on the
meaning of ‘engagement.’ There is agreement that engagement is a multi-dimensional
construct (Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004) but not on the actual dimensions of the construct. The definition chosen for this study is: Energy in action, the connection between person
and activity, and consisting of three elements: behavioural, emotional and cognitive (Russell,
Ainley & Frydenberg, 2005). This definition enables a focus in the classroom on student interaction with activities that promote learning at many levels.
This article reports on a study that investigated the engagement of nine students in the early
primary years in a school situated in a low socio-economic status (SES) region in Western
Australia. This small exploratory study aimed to describe the patterns of engagement of students
who had been identified by their teachers as struggling to engage in the classroom. The study
was also designed to investigate how teachers’ understandings of the concept of engagement
aligned with current research.
The early primary years were chosen as a focus in this study because student engagement is
now understood to be malleable (Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Engagement is no
longer considered to be an intrinsic, discrete quality that a student possesses on school entry;
rather it can be developed and is also habitual once established (Finn, 1993). Therefore, it seems
important to develop good student engagement patterns as early as possible, and in the process
target those students who may be ‘at risk’. At risk populations include students from low SES
The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum
Volume 19, 2013, http://thelearner.com/, ISSN: 2327-7963
© Common Ground, Leanne Fried, Deslea Konza, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
regions where there is typically a low investment in, and commitment to, early education
(Munns, 2007). Improving students’ engagement is therefore a means of addressing social inequality and improving educational outcomes for these students.
Although the importance of student engagement has now been well established, much less
attention is placed by teachers on students who are disengaged than on students who are uncooperative and non-compliant and yet there is only a small difference in the educational outcomes
of the two categories (Angus et al., 2010). In a study conducted in 2006, and reported on by
Angus and others in 2010, it was found that there were approximately three times as many
disengaged students as the students who are commonly reported to be difficult or ‘challenging’
(oppositional towards their teachers or peers). Thus the study outlined in this article is deemed
of significance, not only to develop a framework through which engagement could be targeted
but also to address the imbalance in focus given to disengaged students in the classroom.
In the remainder of this article the authors, as researchers with extensive previous experience
in teaching disengaged students, present the background theory for the study, the methodology,
the findings and discussion of the findings. The authors then outline the practical directions
for teachers and further studies for researchers implied by this research.
Background Theory
There is a growing body of literature concerned with teacher practices and how these impact
on student engagement in the classroom (e.g. Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa et al., 2004). We
contend, however, that a prior task is necessary to describe teacher practices in relation to
theory (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio & Turner, 2004). One of the theories with implications
for student engagement is Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self Determination
Theory (SDT) postulates three essential elements of learning: perceived competence, belonging,
and autonomy; each of which can be fostered by teachers in classroom contexts (Guay &
Vallerand, 1997). SDT acknowledges that the catalyst for behaviour in many educational
contexts is external to the individual (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT enables careful analysis of
teachers’ interventions and each student’s experience of them. Few studies have investigated
how context, engagement and needs are connected.
A focus on student engagement means an educator can intervene when students disconnect
from school (Appleton, Christenson & Furlong, 2008). The components of SDT may provide
a focus for such an intervention. The first component, ‘perceived competence’, includes student
beliefs about their control, strategies and capacity (Connell & Wellborn, 1991) to achieve
success in the school context. Learning activities in the classroom that develop students’ perceived
competence include those that are optimally challenging, those that enable students to access
tools they need to succeed and those that provide feedback that emphasises student effectiveness
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
The second essential element, ‘belonging’, has been described as the emotional quality of relationships, including the students’ sense of being valued, included and supported by others
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). ‘Teacher support’ and ‘cooperative learning’ have been referred
to in the literature as two important means of developing students’ sense of belonging at school.
When teacher support is directed at developing student independence, a student’s sense of belonging and autonomy are addressed simultaneously.
The third element, ‘autonomy’, encompasses organisational, procedural and cognitive components (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio & Turner, 2004). Organisational autonomy is used
to describe student ownership of the environment, for example teachers and students developing
classroom rules together. That is insertion of teachers and students. Procedural autonomy involves students, for example, in making decisions about how to present their ideas. Cognitive
autonomy is concerned with student ownership of their learning and is fostered by teachers
asking for students’ points of view, encouraging students to seek their own solutions to problems,
28
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
and getting students to evaluate their own and others’ ideas (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio
& Turner, 2004).
Perceived competence, belonging and autonomy have been explored to varying degrees in
research. Students’ perceived competence and engagement have been well documented in the
literature. For example, first graders’ self-ratings of academic competence were significantly
correlated with teacher ratings of their engagement (Valeski & Stipek, 2001). Perceived competence has been associated with elementary and middle school student behavioural and emotional engagement (Rudolph, Lambert, Clark & Kurlakowsky, 2001). Belonging, or relatedness
as it is sometimes called, has been considered in most research as being enhanced through
teacher support. Teacher support has been found to be correlated with engagement in primary
(Ryan et al., 1994) and middle school (Goodenow, 1993; Murdock, 1999). Teacher support
and caring have been correlated with various aspects of behavioural engagement (Battisitich,
Solomom, Watson & Schaps, 1997) and with emotional engagement (Skinner & Belmont,
1993). The effect of autonomy on engagement has been scantly explored in the school context.
Methodology
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are teachers’ understandings of the concept of engagement and how do they report
their use of SDT concepts to enhance engagement?
How are student needs, as outlined by SDT, addressed in the classroom?
What are the patterns of engagement for the students identified as experiencing engagement
difficulties?
What is the relationship between learning activities and engagement for the identified
students?
Focus groups were used to address the first question, soliciting the views of teachers and allowing
for collaborative elaboration and refinement of ideas. In order to address questions two to four
of this research, case studies were compiled of nine students identified by teachers as being
disengaged in the classroom. Case studies enable in-depth investigation within a real-life context.
The case studies comprised quantitative and qualitative data collected from classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. Classroom observations were used to rate and describe
student levels of emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement, while at the same time
classroom teaching was rated according to how it addressed the three components of SDT.
Semi-structured interviews with the identified students were used to gather information about
the student’s perceived competence, sense of belonging, and feelings of autonomy in the classroom.
Participants
The focus group participants consisted of 25 teachers, administrators and education assistants
employed at the school. The teachers ranged in age and stage in career. Twenty three of the
participants were female and two male.
The nine case study participants, aged between 6 and 9 years of age, were identified by their
teachers as having ‘significant difficulties’ with engagement in the classroom. One of the participants was female and the rest were male. One of these students spoke English as a second
language and another was of Aboriginal descent.
29
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
Procedure
The focus groups were conducted during a staff development day at the beginning of 2011.
Five groups of five teachers were formed and discussions took place over a ninety minute
period. Participants were asked to discuss and record on paper their responses to questions related to student engagement and the determinants of engagement as outlined by SDT. These
questions were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you understand by the concept of student engagement and what does an engaged
student look like?
What strategies/structures do you use to encourage students to develop perceived competence
in the classroom?
What strategies/structures do you use to encourage a sense of belonging in the classroom?
What strategies/structures do you use to support student autonomy in the classroom?
Observations of the case study students were conducted over a period of one term. Each student
was observed in the classroom for two mornings, a total of 6 hours. Every thirty seconds students
were rated according to each of the three types of engagement: cognitive, behavioural and
emotional and then an overall rating was given for each engagement subcomponent for the
activity. Time-sampled observations were used because student engagement is constantly
changing in response to teacher activities and student characteristics (Frederick, Blumenfeld &
Paris, 2004). A rubric devised by Lutz, Guthrie & Davis (2006) was modified for use in this
project. This comprised a 3 point scale to rate student engagement (Appendix A). Field notes
were also recorded to describe what engagement “looked like” for the identified students,
capturing detail possibly missed in the rating scale.
In addition, teacher activities were described and elements of the lesson addressing perceived
competence, belonging or support for autonomy recorded. Teacher activities were rated according to the extent to which they appeared to address each student’s need for autonomy, belonging
and competence. For example, a lesson in which students worked independently on a worksheet
that was then collected by the teacher, rated low on belonging, perceived competence and
autonomy support. A group activity session wherein students created and acted out an alternative ending to a story, with peer and teacher feedback in relation to set criteria, rated highly
on each of belonging, perceived competence and autonomy support. Computer activities in
which students autonomously navigated their way through a series of challenges, were rated
highly on perceived competence and autonomy and low on belonging. Teacher activities were
also delineated according to their format. For example, a reading lesson may have had various
components: a whole-class discussion, partner work, independent work and then whole-class
reflection. Each of these components was rated separately, rather than the lesson as a whole.
In addition, activities were described in order to capture detail that may contribute to overall
engagement, which may not have been obvious from a rating scale. Tables 1a and 1b show an
example of how lesson activities were described and rated. The rating scale used to rate individual activities according to how they addressed SDT can be seen in Appendix B.
Analysis
Focus group discussions, interviews and the descriptive part of the observations were analysed
by identifying themes, using categories from previous research as a starting point and allowing
others to emerge. Pearson coefficients were used to assess the correlations between ratings obtained from the observations for the subcomponents of engagement and the SDT ratings of
classroom activities for each case study. Each case study comprised descriptive data from the
interview and observations together with correlations between SDT rated activities and engage-
30
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
ment subcomponents. Cross-case analysis was then used to draw comparisons and contrasts
between cases.
Results
What are Teachers’ Understandings of the Concept of Engagement and how do
they Report their use of SDT to Enhance Engagement?
In response to the first part of the question, most teachers referred to behavioural or emotional
engagement. Amongst other responses, teachers said that the engaged student was busy, alert,
involved, actively listening, took turns, happy, confident, curious and content. Only one response
referred to cognitive engagement; this response described an engaged student as making connections.
When asked how they enhanced a student’s sense of competence in the classroom, teachers
reported the use of many techniques that could be described as providing a supportive environment, such as using praise, being enthusiastic, showing patience and offering encouragement.
A few responses referred to the type of activities that were more conducive to enhancing a
feeling of competence, such as hands-on lessons and differentiated lessons. Two responses were
about skills that students could develop to enhance their perceived competence: self-assessment
and reflection.
When the staff discussed how they enhance students’ sense of belonging in the classroom,
their responses were grouped under the following headings: 1. Ownership; 2. Teacher support;
3. Celebrating diversity; 4. Social interaction. Most of the responses fell within the teacher
support category.
Discussion about developing student autonomy in the classroom resulted in teacher responses
falling into three distinct categories: 1. Structure or scaffolding devices, which included organised
classrooms, visual timetables and explanations as to why things are done; 2. Leadership and
responsibility; 3. Choice.
How are Student Needs, as Outlined by SDT, Addressed in the Classroom?
Perceived competence-In most lessons, general feedback was given to students in the class, with
particular students, often not the target students, receiving specific feedback. Few sessions received the highest rating for enhancing perceived competence (see Appendix A). In those that
did receive the highest rating, students worked one-on-one with a teacher for a period of time
and received explicit feedback about their improvements in relation to goals, or were engaged
in lessons on the computer wherein their work was marked instantly, with explicit feedback
designed to enable them to move to progressively higher levels. A whole-class lesson with individual and choral responses and teacher and peer feedback also rated highly in terms of developing feelings of competence.
Activities with the potential to develop perceived competence appeared to fit into the categories
of high risk and low risk. High risk activities were those in which students had the opportunity
to enhance their sense of competence, for example through presenting their work to the rest of
the class, but which also had the potential to threaten their perceived competence if they were
not successful in the activity. For two of the targeted students, this risk was too great and they
chose to disengage from the activity.
Belonging-Most of the lessons were rated in the low to moderate category for belonging, with
the teacher-centred nature of lessons generally meaning peer interaction, for example, was
rarely seen. Lessons that were rated highly on their capacity to develop feelings of belonging
were those where the whole class was involved in a joint production. In some cases this was
31
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
singing together or working on a drama production. Other lessons that rated high on belonging
were those in which the observed student received considerable teacher support, or partners
shared their work and gave each other constructive feedback.
Autonomy support-Most observed lessons scored low on autonomy support as they were highly
teacher directed. Some evidence of autonomy support was seen in lessons in which students
had choice in story writing and in discussions that elicited student opinions and thoughts.
What were the Patterns of Engagement for the Identified Students?
Observations of engagement for identified students revealed that the students generally showed
moderate to high levels of behavioural and emotional engagement, leaving some question over
why they had been selected by the teacher as experiencing difficulties with engagement. It may
have been that the teacher, knowing that the researcher was observing these students, gave
more attention to engaging them. It may also have been that one session of low behavioural or
emotional engagement is enough for the teacher to identify the student as ‘having significant
issues with engagement’, because all except two of the students displayed a low level of behavioural or emotional engagement for one activity during the observed period of time.
There did not appear to be a common underlying feature of activities that resulted in a reduced
level of emotional or behavioural engagement. Such activities included students reporting back
to class after partner discussions, independent seat work, whole-class instruction, and independent writing. For the targeted students, noted by their teachers as having ‘significant difficulties
with engagement’, the lower level of behavioural or emotional engagement appeared highly
individual and perhaps context-based. The only common factor in these periods of low behavioural or emotional engagement was that the activity in which it occurred was rated by the observer as low on at least one or more of autonomy, competence and belonging.
Cognitive engagement was difficult to rate because the processes occurring in the student’s
head were, to some extent, unknown. Some interaction was required at times for the observer
to understand what the student was doing and what thinking processes were being undertaken.
Overall, the ratings for cognitive engagement were lower than behavioural and emotional engagement and although cognitive engagement generally tracked the movements of the other
forms of engagement, there were times when behavioural engagement was high and cognitive
engagement was low.
What is the Relationship between Classroom Activities and Engagement for the
Identified Students?
Nine case studies were developed for this study. These case studies were compiled from observations and semi-structured interview data. Cross-case analysis identified similarities and differences between the cases. The interview data placed the students in two distinct categories:
those who appeared to be vulnerable or ‘needy’ in terms of their perceived competence or their
belonging in the classroom (Case Studies 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7); and those who were strong in these
aspects of personal needs (Case Studies 4, 5, 8 and 9). As it was difficult for the students to
express themselves in relation to desire for autonomy, this aspect of SDT was not used as a
means of classifying students as ‘needy’. ‘Needy’ students were those who expressed the view
that either they weren’t good at school learning or that they didn’t belong in the class. Using
the words of SDT, one group appeared to be having its needs met, while the other group didn’t.
As an example, Case Study 2 was placed in the category of ‘needy’ based on comments made
in the interview. Table 1a shows the ratings observed for this student for eight different activities.
Table 1b describes the activities in which the student was observed. When observing this student,
it was noted that proximity to the teacher appeared to affect engagement; when physically close
32
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
to the teacher engagement for this student was high, when away from the teacher it appeared
to be low. When Pearson correlation coefficients were produced to measure the strength of the
relationship between the activities and engagement levels (scored as Low = 1, Medium = 2 and
High = 3) over the observed sessions for this student, statistically large to medium correlations
were found between belonging and each of the engagement subcomponents. This means that
there was a strong to relatively strong relationship between the engagement observed and the
student’s sense of belonging to the classroom. Large correlations were found between perceived
competence and each of the engagement subcomponents (see Table 1c). This means that feelings
of competence were strongly related to this student’s engagement in the classroom. Medium
correlation was obtained between autonomy and emotional engagement for this student,
meaning that there was a moderately strong relationship between the student’s feelings of
autonomy and his or her emotional engagement. These correlations were similar to those of
the other case studies grouped in the ‘needy’ category. It must be recognised, however, that the
small sample size, represented by the number of activities observed, may deem the correlation
figures unreliable.
Table 1a: Activity Descriptions for Case Study 2
Activity
Description
1
Partner work testing each other on word wall
2
Whole class sound work
3
Whole class circle acting out verbs
4
One-on-one reading with Education Assistant
5
Structured whole class hand writing
6
Individual work on maths worksheet
7
Whole class lesson on the ‘sh’ sound
8
Individual work on sound worksheet
Table 1b: Case Study 2 Observation Ratings for SDT and Engagement Sub-components
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L/M
M
M
H
M
L
L/M
L
Belonging
M
M
M
M/H
L
L
L/M
L
Cognitive
Engagement
M
H
M
H
M
L
M
M
Behavioural
Engagement
M
H
H
H
H
L
M
M
Emotional
Engagement
M
H
H
H
H
L
M
M
Autonomy
Competence
L = Low; M = Medium; H = High
33
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
Table 1c: Pearson Correlations between SDT and Engagement Subcomponents Case Study 2
Cognitive Engagement
Behavioural Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Autonomy
Small (-.08)
Small (.27)
Medium (.34)
Competence
Large (.77)
Large (.52)
Large (.81)
Belonging
Large (.72)
Medium (.32)
Large (.52)
On the other hand, the engagement of students with few needs, as defined by SDT, did not
appear to be correlated with the types of activities they were exposed to. Case Study 5 is an
example of such a student. The pattern of this student’s engagement in relation to activities
observed is shown in Table 2a. Activity descriptions are given in Table 2b while Pearson correlations between activity components and engagement subcomponents are presented in Table
2c. This student showed medium to large positive correlations between autonomy and the engagement subcomponents. This means that the student’s feelings of autonomy were strongly
or relatively strongly connected to his or her level of engagement in the classroom. It is difficult
to understand why these students, in particular, had been identified by their teachers as having
significant issues with engagement. However, a recurring theme with this group was possible
difficulties in their social relationships with other students in the class. This was not evident in
the student responses to questions on belonging in the interviews, but in classroom observations:
one student met with several refusals from peers when asked by the teacher to swap work papers
for marking; and another was told to move by a student when he sat down next to her. Another
common factor within this group was a level of ‘distractibility’, although the students were
often not distracted for long and generally re-engaged quite quickly.
Table 2a: Case Study 5 Observation Ratings for SDT and Engagement Sub-components
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Autonomy
L
L
H
L
L
M
L
L/M
L
L
Competence
L
L/M
H
M
L
H
L/M
L
H
M
Belonging
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
Cog Engage
L/M
L
H
H
L/M
M
M
M
L
L
Beh Engage
M
M
H
H
H
H
M/H
H
L
L
Emo Engage
M
M
H
H
M
H
M
M
L
L
34
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
Table 2b: Activity Descriptions for Case Study 5
Activity
Description
1
Small group sound work
2
Small group handwriting
3
Literacy games on computer
4
Teacher directed whole class sentence development discussion
5
Independent work-sentence development worksheet
6
Literacy games on computer
7
Whole class worksheet discussion
8
Independent completion of above worksheet
9
Whole class smart board maths lesson
10
Whole class hands on money lesson
Table 2c: Pearson Correlations between SDT and Engagement Subcomponents Case Study 5
Cog. Engagement
Behav. Engagement
Emo. Engagement
Autonomy
Large (.60)
Medium (.46)
Large (.60)
Competence
Small (.23)
Small (-.14)
Small (.20)
Belonging
Small (.14)
Small (-.22)
Small (-.07)
Discussion
The teachers in the study viewed engagement mainly from a behavioural and emotional viewpoint. Although some of the discussed behavioural and emotional signs of an engaged student
occur in response to cognitive engagement, it is possible that a lack of understanding of cognitive
engagement may lead teachers to focus on the more obvious forms of engagement. Realisation
that cognitive engagement doesn’t necessarily follow behavioural or emotional engagement
may promote active attention on the part of teachers to how cognitive engagement is facilitated
in classroom activities. In teacher-centred classrooms, as these were, cognitive engagement is
dependent on the teacher’s ability to match the activity to each student’s current skills and
knowledge. At times, there appeared to be a mismatch between activities and student skills or
knowledge; on occasions the students being observed struggled to understand the task set them,
or finished an activity very quickly. Expanding the concept of engagement to include social
engagement may also be important given that many of the observed students appeared to have
difficulties with social relationships. As Fredericks and others (2004) remark, a socially supportive environment contributes positively to behavioural engagement. A focus on developing student
social engagement could mean that teachers consider peer interaction when planning learning
activities, thus also giving students greater opportunity to develop a sense of belonging.
There were some differences in what teachers said they did to enhance aspects of SDT in the
classroom and what was observed. In the focus groups, the teachers generally identified broad,
teacher-directed strategies for enhancing perceived competence, such as giving praise and encouragement, and showing enthusiasm. Two teachers acknowledged the potential of student
input in enhancing perceived competence by including self-assessment and reflection in classroom
activities, thus addressing autonomy support simultaneously. In the classrooms, teachers were
often observed giving praise, but they did not use specific feedback or student-centred strategies
35
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
to enhance perceived competence. The observer noted that students who chose to participate
in discussions and put their hand up to answer questions received feedback about their competence, whereas others, generally including those identified by the teachers as experiencing engagement issues, did not participate actively and therefore did not have the opportunity to receive
such feedback. Overall, feedback about competence was mainly given through whole-class interaction with the teacher. In the activities observed, the identified students were exposed to
few opportunities to enhance their perceived competence and there were few strategies that
targeted both perceived competence and autonomy support through enabling the students to
engage in their own assessment.
In the focus group discussions, teachers identified a wide range of strategies they used for
enhancing belonging. In the classroom observations, teacher support was evident, although
this was not always directed to the students being observed. With the exception of some partner
activities, most lessons were teacher directed with student work undertaken independently.
Therefore, it appeared that teachers in the observed classrooms could do considerably more to
encourage student sense of belonging in the classroom.
When discussing student autonomy in the focus groups, teachers said they supported it
through classroom structures, giving responsibilities to the students, and presenting them with
choices. However, it was difficult to observe autonomy supportive classroom structures in
place, partly because they aren’t always obvious. Students were at times seen accessing resources
around the rooms, in particular word dictionaries and environmental print. More typically,
however, there was a lack of independent work time or choices observed in the classrooms,
with little use of any autonomy supportive structures. Most commonly, the activities observed
were teacher-directed with pre-determined products, which presented little opportunity for
cognitive autonomy. According to Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio and Turner (2004), cognitive
autonomy support can lead students to a deep psychological investment in learning, thus developing this capacity in students is a worthwhile aim.
The students observed were generally rated in the moderate to high level range for their engagement during the observed times and perhaps were identified by the teacher more by the
occasional periods of disengagement they exhibited. As these disengaged periods were characterised by an association with activities low in one or more of autonomy, perceived competence
and belonging (as rated by the observer), it may be that a focus on these aspects of SDT could
be used by teachers to increase levels of student engagement. This is particularly relevant to
students who have low feelings of competence or belonging in the class, as it appeared that
these students did respond to activities that addressed their needs. Risk factor is also important
to consider in terms of perceived competence. Gaining feedback about competence appears to
have a negative influence on engagement if there is risk attached. This risk includes factors such
as exposure of competence levels to peers or others who may threaten student self-esteem. Little
was learnt about autonomy support in this research. Views on autonomy support were difficult
to obtain in the interviews because of the age of the students and autonomy support was rarely
implemented in the observed classrooms. However, the fact that autonomy support was correlated with engagement in Case Study 5, a student exhibiting few of the SDT needs, could mean
that such students respond to opportunities for autonomy. This needs further exploration in
future research.
Not only were findings limited by the investigation of just one school, the timing of the observations may have also influenced the results. It is possible that teachers at the school encouraged greater social interaction and autonomy after the lunch break. There appeared to exist at
the school an understanding that more formal lessons, and consequently more teacher-directed
lessons should occur in the morning, with a ‘loosening’ of control, as described by one of the
teachers, in the afternoon. All observations occurred in the mornings. Difficulties associated
with not being able to observe cognitive or emotional processes also need to be recognised
(Fredericks, 2004). This may have been offset to some extent by the questioning of the students
36
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
employed by the observer about the observations. Combining observation with analysis of
student discourse and work samples may also help to make future judgements about cognitive
and emotional engagement more accurate.
Conclusion
SDT appears to provide a useful framework through which teachers can address student engagement in the class, particularly for those students who have difficulties with engagement and
who also have particular ‘needs’. A focus on SDT may require a greater understanding on the
part of teachers of the use and value of strategies to enhance autonomy, perceived competence
and belonging. Further exploration of how teachers view the concept of cognitive engagement
may be important in future studies. Growing the concept of engagement to include cognitive
and social engagement in the minds of teachers may help build activities that will simultaneously
address all aspects of the concept. Future studies are required to build on the findings of this
small pilot study.
Appendix A
Engagement Observation Rubric
Behavioural Engagement
Low = Distracted by something unrelated to task; not participating in task; teacher has to tell
student to get to work
Moderate = Neutral body language; hard to judge whether student is truly behaviourally engaged;
not off task but does not appear particularly involved or actively engaged
High = Clearly on-task as suggested by eye movements and posture; raising hand; writing;
speaking; clearly listening (suggesting that student is attentive at least behaviourally).
Emotional Engagement
Low = Displays negative emotion; looks bored; sighs; prolonged yawn
Moderate = Even expression; replies in monotone voice
High = Smiling (perhaps just briefly); looks pleased; appears interested; tone suggests some
pride/interest
Cognitive Engagement
Low = Response reveals student is not thinking about given task either because the student
does not have the skills or chooses not to.
Moderate = Hard to judge whether student is truly cognitively engaged although appears to be
attending to the task.
High = Eye movement and posture suggests that student is processing information and thinking
hard. Response shows student is making connections or contrasting and comparing.
37
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
Appendix B
Classroom SDT Activity Ratings
Belonging
1 = no evidence of teacher support or opportunity for peer interaction.
2 = some evidence of teacher support or peer interaction; for example, teacher gives some
feedback to individual students or students spend some-time working in groups or with a
partner.
3 = considerable teacher support given or students spend a significant amount of time in supportive peer interaction.
Autonomy Support
1 = no evidence of autonomy support
2 = some evidence of procedural, organisational or cognitive autonomy support. That is, the
teacher allows some of the decisions about class work procedures or organisation to be made
by the students or the teacher at times allows and encourages the students to think of alternative
solutions or explanations.
3 = considerable procedural, organisational or cognitive autonomy support. Students spend
significant portions of their school day making their own decisions about their learning and
being encouraged to think for themselves.
Perceived Competence
1 = no evidence of students receiving feedback about their progress or competence in an activity
and tasks not well designed for success and challenge.
2 = some evidence of students engaging in assessment of their progress and some differentiation
of learning to match student capabilities.
3 = students receive and self-generate continual and specific feedback about their competence
at a task and understand what they need to do to progress.
.
38
FRIED: USING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO INVESTIGATE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
REFERENCES
Angus, M., McDonald, T., Ormond, C., Rybarczyk, R., Taylor, A. & Winterton, A. (2009).
Trajectories of classroom behaviour and academic progress: A study of engagement
with learning over time. Edith Cowan University.
Appleton, J., Christenson, S., & Furlong, M. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical
conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45
(5), 369. DOI: 10.1002/pits.20303
Connell, J.P. & Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational
analysis of self-system processes. In M.R. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self Processes
in Development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–68.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Centre
for Education Statistics.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119. doi:
10.3102/00346543074001059
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–158.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships
to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43.
Guay, F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Social context, students’ motivation, and academic
achievement: Toward a process model. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 211–233.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Reading research handbook, Vol.
III, 403–424. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klem, A.M. (2004). “Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and
achievement”. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–271.
Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary
school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 3–20.
Marks, H. M. (2000). “Student engagement in instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary,
Middle, and High School Years”. American educational research journal (0002–8312),
37(1), 153.
Munns, G (2007). “A sense of wonder: Student engagement in low SES school communities”.
International journal of inclusive education (1360–3116), 11(3), 301.
Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 62–75.
Niemiec, C. P. & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom:
Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and research in
education (1477–8785), 7(2), 133. DOI: 10.1177/1477878509104318
Rudolph, K. D., Lambert, S. F., Clark, A. G., & Kurlakowsky, K. D. (2001). Negotiating the
transition to middle school: The role of self-regulatory processes. Child Development,
72, 929–946.
39
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM
Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Schooling Issues Digest: Student Motivation
and Engagement. Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR). Retrieved March 9, 2009, from: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_motivation_engagement.htm.
Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, S. (1993). Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy
in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.
Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. J. (2001). Young children’s feelings about school. Child Development, 72(4), 1198–1213.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Leanne Fried: Leanne Fried is currently employed at Edith Cowan University in the Fogarty
Learning Centre as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow. She is involved in several research projects,
mainly focusing on student early literacy acquisition and novice teacher transition to the
workforce. A primary trained teacher, her teaching experience has mainly involved working
with students with learning difficulties, students at educational risk and education support
students in mainstream education and education support centres. She completed a Masters in
Special Education focusing on student motivation and a Doctorate of Education with a study
on the emotion regulation strategies used by middle school students. Her main interest currently
is in developing university and school partnerships of equality that assist teachers in using
evidence and research to meet student needs.
Dr. Deslea Konza: Edith Cowan University, Australia
40
The International Journal of Pedagogy and
Curriculum is one of ten thematically focused journals
in the family of journals that support The Learner
knowledge community—its journals, book series,
conference and online community. The journal explores
the processes of designing and implementing learning
experiences and the dynamics of learning. It is a section
of The International Journal of Learning.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites presentations of practice—including
documentation of curricular practices and exegeses of
the effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum
is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
ISSN: 2327-7963