Why measure engagement? To Learn more about what makes learning

environments more or less effective in maintaining engagement.

To improve the chance of gaining support for effective alternatives.

To influence what is valued – to move mainstream educators from a focus on teaching and compliance to learning and whole-person/life outcomes.

Risks That, as a measurement model, it is

re-incorporated into a managerialist inspired change approach based on blame and command and control.

A great deal therefore hangs on HOW it is used.

We advocate its use as a part of site initiated interventions based around an inquiry model.

What influences engagement?

Engagement

Personal temperament, health and intelligence

Social context - parental and peer relationships and social support,

access to resources

Quality of Learning environments

Learning environments

There is evidence to suggest that of the contextual variables which impact on engagement in learning, the learning environment is one of the most significant.

It is also the one over which we have most control.

Our approach

Designed to evaluate the impact of alternative learning environments – we assume that learners well-being will respond instant by instant to their environment.

Does not assume those learning environments are school based

The Scales Involvement (measures the behaviour

with respect to the learning) Well-being (measures the experience of

learning in terms of Happiness and satisfaction Social functioning Disposition towards learning

Thinking Context (e.g. peer and parental support,

student assumptions about school, learning and self)

The Instruments non-age specific observational scales and

self–report questionnaires for involvement

Age range specific observational scales and self-report questionnaires for Well-being and Thinking

Self-report questionnaires in two forms Conventional Graphical

Involvement Adopts Laevers well established and tested

instrument incorporating nine behavioural signals Concentration Energy Complexity/creativity Persistence Precision Reaction Time Satisfaction

Well-being

Incorporates Laever’s three dimensions of well-being using a measurement scale developed by Pam Winter Happiness and Satisfaction

(intrapersonal) Social Functioning (Interpersonal) Learning Dispositions

Thinking

Three thinking dimensions meta-cognitive knowledge; meta-cognitive regulation; and Epistemic awareness

Signals of Happiness And Satisfaction

Confidence and self-esteem Sense of self Vitality Enjoyment and sense of humor Ability to rest and relax

Signals of Social Functioning

Social Initiative Assertive Coping/Flexibility Positive Attitude towards warmth and

closeness

Signals of Learning Dispositions

Openness and receptivity/pleasure in exploring

Pleasure in sensory experience Persistence Robustness

Signals of Thinking meta-cognitive knowledge

knowledge of and ability to apply a range of alternative learning strategies;

meta-cognitive regulation ability to take control over his/her approach to

learning and monitor effectiveness through self-reflection; and

Epistemic awareness of own assumptions and capacity to

approach a situation using alternative view-points.

Where are we?

Observational instrument established, well tested, reliable for involvement and well-being – thinking component still under development

Self-report instruments are in trial stage

Why Important revisited Laevers talks of these as being critical

process variables. Improving them improves accademic

attainment What is clear is that they also measure the

development of critical life skills and align strongly with Essential Learnings

They are therefore important means for effective learning as well as important learning outcomes.