Indicators and facilitators of student engagement in secondary
education: Reviewing the gender gap
Abstract:
Student engagement has been a widely investigated construct for years. Generally, boys report lower
engagement than girls do. However, few studies have investigated gender differences in each of the
student engagement indicators (i.e. behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement) and facilitators
(i.e. motivation and competence beliefs) separately. The aim of this review article is to provide an
overview of the effect of gender on the various indicators and facilitators of student engagement. The
results show that girls generally score higher than boys do on each of the indicators and facilitators
and specifically on behavioral engagement (i.e. exhibiting effort, attention, persistence). Boys often
score higher than girls do on competence beliefs (facilitator of student engagement) and on
performance oriented learning approaches (cognitive engagement). The findings are discussed with
regard to biological, sociological and academic factors that may influence gender differences in
student engagement.
1 Introduction
1.1
Student engagement: a multidimensional concept
Research on student engagement has established the importance of this construct for the prediction
of academic performance (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Lam et al., 2012; Lamote et al.,
2012).
Most authors agree that ‘student engagement’ is a multidimensional construct. The most commonly
used operationalization of student engagement is the distinction between three dimensions: the
cognitive dimension (psychological investment in learning: self-regulated learning & goal
orientation), the behavioral dimension (conduct, participation and initiative in class) and the
emotional dimension (feelings towards learning, interest, identification with school) (Fredricks et al.,
2004). Nevertheless, many researchers also include motivational constructs (e.g. motivation,
competence beliefs), which vastly extends the concept. The cognitive, behavioral and emotional
dimensions of student engagement can then be seen as ‘engagement indicators’ (descriptive parts
present in the construct itself). The motivational constructs can be seen as ‘engagement facilitators’
(causal factors outside the construct influencing the construct) (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012).
Furthermore, it is interesting to take into account the level of measurement of student engagement,
i.e. school engagement, subject-specific and activity-specific engagement or flow (Shernoff &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Figure 1 gives an overview of this framework.
1.2
The perception of gender
The concepts of sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Though sex actually refers to the
physiological, biological differences between males and females while gender applies to both sex and
to the broader socio-cultural values that indicate what roles, behaviors, activities and attributes are
1
associated with being either a man or a woman (with ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ being gender
categories) (McGeown et al. 2012; working definition World Health Organization, 2012).
1.3
The current study
The goal of this review is to investigate gender differences (sex and gender identity) in the various
student engagement indicators (cognitive, behavioral and emotional) and personal facilitators
(intrinsic-extrinsic motivation, competence beliefs), which are differentially measured by several
authors. Furthermore, school engagement, subject-specific engagement and activity-specific
engagement are taken into account.
2 Method
A systematic literature search was conducted using three databases: Web of Science, ERIC and
Psychinfo. Keywords combined by OR were ‘(student) engagement’, ‘school engagement’, ‘motiv*’,
‘flow (theory)’ and ‘optimal experience’. These search terms were combined by AND with ‘gender’,
‘boy’, girl’, ‘male’ and ‘female’, which were connected through OR. Studies had to (1) be published in
English in peer reviewed journals; (2) be published after 2000; (3) be concerned with secondary
school students (age 11 to 18); (4) investigate the relationship between gender and one or more
indicators or facilitators of student engagement were selected; (5) contain general measurements,
course specific measurements and activity specific measurements for mathematics, language, and
science, (6) investigate students of western countries. By applying these criteria, a total of 64 articles
was analyzed.
3 Results and discussion
In table 1, for each engagement indicator and facilitator, the references of the retrieved articles are
enumerated.
For valuing of school, school belonging and interest and enjoyment (emotional engagement), it is
remarkable that for languages and in general, girls score higher and that for mathematics, no gender
differences are found or boys score higher.
For behavioral engagement, for math too, gender differences are favoring girls. The interviews of
Williams et al. (2002) indicate that girls can exert effort without having to find the task interesting.
This may explain why for emotional engagement, there are more contradicting results than for
behavioral engagement.
For cognitive engagement, girls’ higher mastery approach and self-regulation and boys’ higher
performance and performance avoidance approach come forward for all subjects and in general.
For flow and intrinsic motivation, girls seem to score higher. Girls also score higher on components of
extrinsic motivation, except for competition, for which boys rate themselves higher (Unrau &
Schlackmann, 2006). This indicates that girls can be extrinsically motivated when they are not fully
interested, which Williams et al. (2002) also report from their interviews.
2
For perceived competence, boys score higher or no gender differences are found while in the same
research girls score higher for other motivational variables ( Chouinard et al., 2007; Williams et al.,
2002).
Results for the relationship between gender identity and student engagement indicate that a more
feminine gender identity is positively associated with student engagement, however being an
atypical boy is more harmful for a student’s engagement than being an atypical girl is. Clearly, there
is a need for caution in concluding on these contradictory results of this small body of research.
3.1
Explanations for gender differences in student engagement
Theoretical explanations for these gender differences in student engagement can be found in three
perspectives: (1) the boys will be boys perspective (biological and personality factors), (2) the gender
role socialization perspective (social factors) and (3) the blaming schools perspective (academic
factors). For example, boys appear to have a need for competition and confirmation of their
competence (Geist & King, 2008; Katz et al., 2006). These elements may be a fundamental reason
why scores on competence beliefs in the retrieved articles are often significantly higher for boys and
why there are less significant differences in this area than for other aspects of student engagements.
The findings reporting a higher performance-approach orientation also correspond to this: boys
seem to be more directed to the self and the outer display of their competence than girls are.
3.2
Limitations and future research
Limitations of this study are (1) the choices made to limit the amount of retrieved studies (2) the
possible overestimation of gender differences because of publication bias, (3) the scarce research on
some facilitators and indicators of student engagement and on other measures than student-report,
which limits drawing firm conclusions and which needs to be elaborated in future research on
student engagement.
3
4 References
Beghetto, R. (2007). Factors associated with middle and secondary students' perceived
science competence. Journal of research in science teaching, 44, 800-814.
Brozo, W.G. (2002). To be a boy, to be a reader: Engaging teen and preteen boys in active
literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Chen, J. & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation
to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary
educational psychology, 35, 75-87.
Chen, P. & Zimmerman, B. (2007). A cross-national comparison study on the accuracy of selfefficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics students. The Journal of experimental education, 75,
221-244.
Chouinard, R. (2008). Changes in high-school students' competence beliefs, utility value and
achievement goals in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 31-50.
Chouinard, R., Karsenti, T., & Roy, N. (2007). Relations among competence beliefs, utility
value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
501-517.
Chouinard, R. & Roy, N. (2008). Changes in high-school students' competence beliefs, utility
value and achievement goals in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 31-50.
Cleary, T. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school:
Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of school psychology, 47, 291-314.
Cleary, T. J. & Chen, P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in
middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of school psychology, 47, 291314.
Dotterer, A., McHale, S., & Crouter, A. (2009). The Development and Correlates of Academic
Interests From Childhood Through Adolescence. Journal of educational psychology, 101, 509-519.
Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., Maw, J. (Eds.) (1998). Failing boys? Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Fan, W. (2011). Social influences, school motivation and gender differences: an application of
the expectancy-value theory. Educational psychology, 31, 157-175.
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, 59-109.
Freudenthaler, H., Spinath, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2008). Predicting school achievement in
boys and girls. European journal of personality, 22, 231-245.
4
Friedel, J., Cortina, K., Turner, J., & Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs
and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases.
Contemporary educational psychology, 32, 434-458.
Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. A. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic
engagement and performance. Journal of educational psychology, 95, 148.
Geist, E. A. & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: gender differences in mathematics
learning and achievement.(Report). Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 43.
Graham, J., Tisher, R., Ainley, M., & Kennedy, G. (2008). Staying with the text: the
contribution of gender, achievement orientations, and interest to studentsÇÖ performance on a
literacy task. Educational psychology, 28, 757-776.
Green-Demers, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A., Suarez Orozco, C., & Camic, P. (2008). Supportive
adult relationships and the academic engagement of Latin American immigrant youth. Journal of
school psychology, 46, 393-412.
Hodis, F., Meyer, L., McClure, J., Weir, K., & Walkey, F. (2011). A Longitudinal Investigation of
Motivation and Secondary School Achievement Using Growth Mixture Modeling. Journal of
educational psychology, 103, 312-323.
Hoglund, W. L. G. (2007). School functioning in early adolescence: Gender-linked responses
to peer victimization. Journal of educational psychology, 99, 683-699.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (2005). Pupils' liking for school: Ability grouping, self-concept and
perceptions of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 297-311.
Jacobs, J., Lanza, S., Osgood, D., Eccles, J., & Wigfield (2002). Changes in children's selfcompetence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child
development, 73, 509-527.
Katz, I., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2006). Interest as a motivational
resource: Feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference. Social psychology of
education, 9, 27.
Kiang, L., Supple, A., Stein, G., & Gonzalez, L. (2012). Gendered Academic Adjustment among
Asian American Adolescents in an Emerging Immigrant Community. Journal of youth and
adolescence, 41, 283-294.
Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between
academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for research in mathematics education,
32, 448-470.
Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Kikas, E., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Nelson, B. et al. (2012). Do girls and
boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The results of an international study from 12
countries. Journal of school psychology, 50, 77-94.
5
Lamote, C., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Speybroeck, S., Boonen, T., & de Bilde, J.
(2012). Dropout in secondary education: an application of a multilevel discrete-time hazard model
accounting for school changes. Quality and quantity.
Lavigne, G., Vallerand, R., & Miquelon, P. (2007). A motivational model of persistence in
science education: A self-determination theory approach. European journal of psychology of
education, 22, 351-369.
Leutwyler, B. (2009). Metacognitive learning strategies: differential development patterns in
high school. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 111-123.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Cheng, J. H. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in
classroom motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of
educational psychology, 100, 78-95.
Martin, A. J. (2003). Boys and motivation. Australian educational researcher, 30, 43-65.
Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of
kind, or both? Australian journal of psychology, 56, 133-146.
Martin, A. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
413-440.
McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., & Wright, P. (2012). Gender differences in
reading motivation: does sex or gender identity provide a better account? Journal of research in
reading, 35, 328-336.
Opdenakker, M.-C., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: developmental changes and linkage.
School effectiveness and school improvement, 23, 95-119.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into
practice, 41, 116-125.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and selfbeliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary educational psychology, 25,
406-422.
Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement
of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary educational psychology,
26, 366-381.
6
Park, S., Holloway, S., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes students
engaged in learning? A time-use study of within- and between-individual predictors of emotional
engagement in low-performing high schools. Journal of youth and adolescence, 41, 390-401.
Perry, D. G. & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and Adolescent Development. Journal of research
on adolescence, 21, 61-74.
Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students' attitudes to
learning mathematics with technology. Computers & education, 48, 285-300.
Ramseier, E. (2001). Motivation to learn as an outcome and determining factor of learning at
school. European journal of psychology of education, 16, 421-439.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of
educational psychology, 99, 734-746.
Reyes, M., Brackett, M., Rivers, S., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom Emotional
Climate, Student Engagement, and Academic Achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 104,
700-712.
Sanchez, B., Colon, Y., & Esparza, P. (2005). The role of sense of school belonging and gender
in the academic adjustment of Latino adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 34, 619-628.
Schmidt, J. A., Shernoff, D. J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Individual and situational factors
related to the experience of flow in adolescence: A multilevel approach. In A.D.Ong & M. v. Dulmen
(Eds.), The handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 542-558). Oxford, England: Oxford
university press.
Shapka, J. D. & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence:
Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational
Research Journal, 40, 929-960.
Shernoff, D. J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow in schools: Cultivating engaged learners
and optimal learning environments. In E.S.Huebner & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology in schools. ( New York: Rootledge.
Shernoff, D. J. & Schmidt, J. A. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement-achievement
paradox among US high school students. Journal of youth and adolescence, 37, 564-580.
Skaalvik, S. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in Math and verbal self-concept,
performance expectations, and motivation. Sex roles, 50, 241-252.
Skinner, E. A., Kinderman, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A Motivational Perspective on
Engagement and Disaffection Conceptualization and Assessment of Children's Behavioral and
Emotional Participation in Academic Activities in the Classroom. Educational and psychological
measurement, 69, 493.
7
Skinner, E. A. & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,
and everyday resilience . In S.L.Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.
Skinner, E., Marchand, G., Furrer, C., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and Disaffection
in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? Journal of educational psychology, 100,
765-781.
Ueno, K. & McWilliams, S. (2010). Gender-Typed Behaviors and School Adjustment. Sex roles,
63, 580-591.
Unrau, N. & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement
in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81-101.
Usher, E. L. & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of
entering middle school students. Contemporary educational psychology, 31, 125-141.
Van de Gaer, E., De Fraine, B., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2009). School
effects on the development of motivation toward learning tasks and the development of academic
self-concept in secondary education: a multivariate latent growth curve approach. School
effectiveness and school improvement, 20, 235-253.
Van de Gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2007). Tracking and the
effects of school-related attitudes on the language achievement of boys and girls. British journal of
sociology of education, 27, 293-309.
Vrugt, A., Oort, F., & Waardenburg, L. (2009). Motivation of men and women in mathematics
and language. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 351-359.
Wang, M.-T. & Eccles, J. (2012). Social Support Matters: Longitudinal Effects of Social Support
on Three Dimensions of School Engagement From Middle to High School. Child development, 83, 877895.
Wang, M.-T., Willet, J., & Eccles, J. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: examining
dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of school
psychology, 49, 465-480.
Watt, H. M. G. (2000). Measuring attitudinal change in mathematics and English over the 1st
year of junior high school: A multidimensional analysis. The Journal of experimental education, 68,
331-361.
Watt, H. M. G. (2008). A latent growth curve modeling approach using an accelerated
longitudinal design: The ontogeny of boys' and girls' talent perceptions and intrinsic values through
adolescence. Educational research and evaluation, 14, 287.
What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"? (World Health Organization (WHO > Programmes
and Projects > Gender, Women and Health)) as accessed jan. 24, 2013
8
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). 'French is the language of love and stuff':
student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British educational
research journal, 28, 503-528.
Yeung, A., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2011). Primary and secondary students' motivation in learning
English: Grade and gender differences. Contemporary educational psychology, 36, 246-256.
9
5 Appendices
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of the integration of the multidimensional conceptualization of
student engagement, the levels on which engagement can occur and the distinction between
facilitators and indicators of engagement (based on Fredricks et al., 2004 & Skinner & Pitzer, 2012).
Table 1. Student engagement indicators and facilitators linked with investigated subjects and
retrieved articles.
Indicators and facilitators of
student engagement
Subject
Retrieved articles
Student engagement
general
Darr (2012), Lam et al. (2012), Reyes et al.
(2012), Wooley & Bowen (2007)
Emotional engagement
general
Furrer & Skinner (2003), Hoglund (2007),
Skinner et al. (2008), Skinner et al. (2009),
Wang et al. (2011)
Koller, Baumert, & Schnabel (2001)
Fan (2011), Green-Demers et al. (2008), Ireson
& Hallam (2005), Marsh et al. (2008), Martin
(2003), Martin (2004), Sanchez, Colon, &
Esparza (2005), Wang et al. (2011), Wang &
Eccles (2012)
Fan (2011), Jacobs et al. (2002), Pajares &
Valiante (2001), Watt (2000), Watt (2008),
Williams et al. (2002)
Emotional engagement:
valuing of school
math
general
language
math
Chouinard et al. (2007), Chouinard & Roy
(2008), Fan (2011), Ramseier (2001), Watt
10
(2000), Watt (2008)
Emotional engagement: interest
language
general
Fan, (2011), Graham et al. (2008), McGeown et
al. (2012), Pajares & Valiante (2001), Watt
(2000), Watt (2008), Williams et al. (2002),
Yeung, Lau, & Nie (2011)
Dotterer, McHale, & Crouter (2009), Van de
gaer et al. (2007)
math
Cleary & Chen (2009), Fan (2011), Jacobs et al.
(2002), Pierce, Stacey, & Barkatsas (2007),
Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2004), Watt (2008)
Emotional engagement:
school belonging
general
Sanchez et al. (2005), Ueno & McWilliams
(2010), Wang & Eccles (2012)
Behavioral engagement
general
Chen & Zimmerman (2007), Fan (2011), Furrer
& Skinner (2003), Green-Demers et al. (2008),
Hoglund (2007), Marks (2000), Marsh et al.
(2008), Martin (2003), Martin (2004), Martin
(2007), Skinner et al. (2009), Ueno &
McWilliams (2010), Unrau & Schlackman
(2006), Van de Gaer et al. (2009), Wang et al.
(2011), Wang & Eccles (2012), Williams et al.
(2002), Yeung et al. (2011)
Chouinard et al. (2007), Pierce et al. (2007),
Shapka & Keating (2003), Watt (2000)
Van de Gaer et al. (2007)
math
language
Cognitive engagement
Cognitive engagement: goal
orientation
general
science
math
language
Cognitive engagement: selfregulation
general
Freudenthaler, Spinath, & Neubauer (2008),
Hodis et al. (2011), Marsh et al. (2008), Yeung
et al. (2011)
Chen & Pajares (2010)
Chouinard et al. (2007), Chouinard & Roy
(2008), Friedel et al. (2007), Ramseier (2001),
Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2004)
Graham et al. (2008), Pajares, Britner, &
Valiante (2000), Pajares & Valiante (2001),
Ramseier (2001), Williams et al. (2002), Yeung
et al. (2011),
Leutwyler (2009), Marsh et al. (2008), Martin
(2003), Martin (2004), Martin (2007), Pajares
11
language
math
(2002), Wang et al. (2011)
Williams et al. (2002)
Cleary & Chen (2009)
Flow
general
Park et al. (2012), Shernoff & Schmidt (2008),
Shernoff & Csikszentmihalyi (2009)
Intrinsic motivation
general
Kiang et al. (2012), Opdenakker, Maulana, &
den Brok (2012), Ratelle et al. (2007)
Williams et al. (2002)
Lavigne, Vallerand, & Miquelon (2007)
Ramseier (2001)
Ratelle et al. (2007)
Opdenakker et al. (2012)
Opdenakker et al. (2012)
Extrinsic motivation
Competence beliefs
language
science
math
general
math
language
general
science
math
language
Furrer & Skinner (2003), Marsh et al. (2008),
Martin (2004), Martin (2003), Martin (2007),
Sanchez et al. (2005)
Beghetto (2007), Pajares et al. (2000)
Chen & Zimmerman (2007), Friedel et al.
(2007), Chouinard et al. (2007), Pajares (2002),
Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2004), Chouinard & Roy
(2008), Fan (2011), Jacobs et al. (2002), Shapka
& Keating (2003), Watt (2000), Watt (2008),
Vrugt, Oort, & Waardenburg (2009)
Fan (2011), Jacobs et al. (2002), McGeown et
al. (2012), Pajares & Valiante (2001), Skaalvik &
Skaalvik (2004), Unrau & Schlackman (2006),
Usher & Pajares (2006), Watt (2008), Williams
et al. (2002), Yeung et al. (2011)
12