You are here:

Learning and Instruction

June 2016 Volume 43, Number 1

Search this issue

Table of Contents

Number of articles: 8

  1. Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement

    Jennifer A. Fredricks, Connecticut College, United States; Ming-Te Wang, Jacqueline Schall Linn, Tara L. Hofkens, Hannah Sung, Alyssa Parr & Julia Allerton, University of Pittsburgh, United States

    Student engagement in math and science is vital to students' academic achievement and long-term participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) courses and careers. In this... More

    pp. 5-15

    View Abstract
  2. The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties

    Ming-Te Wang, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Jennifer A. Fredricks, Connecticut College, United States; Feifei Ye, Tara L. Hofkens & Jacqueline Schall Linn, University of Pittsburgh, United States

    There is an urgent need to develop appropriate instruments to measure student engagement in math and science for the fields of research and practice. The present study developed and validated... More

    pp. 16-26

    View Abstract
  3. Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model

    Hyungshim Jang, Hanyang University; Eun Joo Kim, Yonsei University; Johnmarshall Reeve, Korea University

    We adopted a dual-process model within a self-determination theory framework to investigate why students sometimes veer toward a longitudinal trajectory of rising classroom engagement during the... More

    pp. 27-38

    View Abstract
  4. How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement?

    Sanna Järvelä, Hanna Järvenoja, Jonna Malmberg, Jaana Isohätälä & Márta Sobocinski

    This study investigates how self-regulated learning phases are related to collaborative engagement in two different collaborative task conditions. It integrates SRL theory and the concept of... More

    pp. 39-51

    View Abstract
  5. Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms

    David J. Shernoff, Rutgers University, United States; Sean Kelly, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Stephen M. Tonks & Brett Anderson, Northern Illinois University, United States; Robert F. Cavanagh, Curtin University, Australia; Suparna Sinha, Rutgers University, United States; Beheshteh Abdi, Northern Illinois University, United States

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the linkage between the quality of the learning environment and the quality of students' experience in seven high school classrooms in six different... More

    pp. 52-60

    View Abstract
  6. Integrating the light and dark sides of student engagement using person-oriented and situation-specific approaches

    Katariina Salmela-Aro & Julia Moeller, University of Helsinki, Finland; Barbara Schneider & Justina Spicer, Michigan State University, United States; Jari Lavonen, University of Helsinki, Finland

    This study contributes to the research on student engagement in three ways: 1) by combining questionnaire and situational measures of engagement using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), 2) by... More

    pp. 61-70

    View Abstract
  7. Engagement: Where to next?

    Jacquelynne S. Eccles

    In my commentary, I discuss the historical origins of the Fredricks et al. 3 dimensions of engagement, provide some critical assessment of the individual papers in this special issue, and lay out... More

    pp. 71-75

    View Abstract
  8. Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process

    Monique Boekaerts

    This commentary describes the contribution of each individual paper to our understanding of engagement, as well as evaluating whether together these papers achieve the editor's goal of developing... More

    pp. 76-83

    View Abstract