disengaged to highly engaged. Students can move either direction on that continuum depending on what they experience and choose. It can vary from subject to subject and teacher to teacher (Darr, 2012). There are common threads in the research on student engagement. For example, psychology professors’ Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci’s (2000a, 2000b) self-determination theory shows how students move from unmotivated to intrinsic motivation. Education researcher Phil Schlechty’s (2001) engagement framework highlights the behavioral manifestations of engagement, moving from rebellious to authentic. Finally, education professors Sitwad Saeed and David Zyngier’s (2012) complex model blends Ryan and Deci’s (2000a, 2000b) motivation work and Schlechty’s (2001) engagement framework to explain student engagement behavior and the motivation underneath. I have combined all this research with my own teaching experiences to develop specific engagement mindsets and put them into a continuum of disengaged to engaged.
As I begin describing student mindsets, it is important to remember three points.
1. These mindsets evolved from the existing body of social scientific research (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012; Schlechty, 2001). They are rooted in hard work researchers have done and published. Without their hard work, the student engagement mindsets would not exist.
2. My experiences as a student, teacher, principal, and parent drove my thinking when developing these mindsets.
3. The mindsets are only that. They are not actual students, and they are not labels for students. Students change behavior from class to class and day to day. I don’t condone labeling students. We are labeling behavior to identify positive and negative consequences. This student engagement model exists only to assist educators to help students grow.
Figure I.2 (page 8) shows the student engagement mindset continuum. Let me first explain it; then I will call attention to how important it is to address students with the agitator mindset and the retreater mindset. You can see, from left to right, the mindsets that are least to most engaged. The zone of critical need highlights those mindsets of students who need immediate attention—agitator and retreater. You can also see which possess the fixed and growth mindsets, which I’ll discuss further throughout the book and specifically in chapter 2 (page 27).
Figure I.2: Student engagement mindset continuum.
Special Attention for Agitator and Retreater Mindsets
The continuum points out the zone of critical need. Those with the agitator and retreater mindsets need immediate attention. These students are at the highest risk of dropout or academic failure in your school, the dangers of which are highlighted in chapter 2 (page 27). Note that students who underperform are capable of more than they’re accomplishing. The continuum indicates mindsets only—not potential. Sadly, these students in the zone of critical need will experience disciplinary problems, attendance issues, and social issues with other students and teachers (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Unfortunately, the education system has few solutions for these students. Many times, they are suspended or fail out of school. Some districts have created alternative schools or programs. In the best cases, these placements offer alternative methods, like those in the How to Reach Them sections of this book. These students needn’t be trapped in their current mindsets in a class that is intentionally less rigorous without complex work that exhibits their competency.
When devising ways to help students with the agitator or retreater mindset, educators must consider multiple factors. First, students need academic challenge. Sometimes rigor is swapped for compliance (Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, 1986, as cited in Schussler, 2009). Districts cannot put the least experienced or least capable teachers with our most challenging populations. Alternative programs for students with the agitator and retreater mindsets need the best teachers.
Next, lack of academic challenge in the classroom communicates disrespect to a young mind. Research shows that students actually want academic challenges (Sizer & Sizer, 1999). Students with the agitator and retreater mindsets perceive short-term gains when they avoid work. They ultimately feel that the teachers don’t care enough to try. When a student has a bargain-making teacher, one who barters away school rules or learning norms for behavioral compliance, that student gets a crushing blow to engagement (Schussler, 2009). Alternative program teachers who work with students who underperform must scaffold instruction and make it more complex gradually. These students need missions (highly complex and highly engaging activities) more than students with any other mindset.
My wife was an alternative high school teacher in Michigan. Her school has helped many students succeed with its intense level of care and instructional expertise. Imagine being a disengaged student who transfers to a place where all the adults communicate and work to make sure you succeed. It creates a relatedness and a positive affective bond. My wife’s former students still seek her out and thank her. When the instruction matches the student-teacher bond, the student is more likely to take risks and leave the retreater or agitator mindset behind (Parsons, Nuland, & Parsons, 2014).
It is important to recognize that not all students begin with an agitator or retreater mindset and then move forward on the continuum; some come to us already with the probationer, aficionado, and academician mindsets. In this book, I focus on ways to help students move forward on the continuum from wherever they are and help academician mindsets maintain the highest level of engagement.
What’s in This Book
Chapter 1 will define student engagement in regard to the five mindsets on student engagement, link it to Ryan and Deci’s (2009) self-determination theory (SDT; which asserts that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are crucial to engagement), and further clarify its importance. This chapter will also take into consideration student perception in order to understand how students perceive assigned tasks. You’ll see terms like chores, games, burdens, and missions throughout to that end.
Chapters 2 through 6 will cover each of the five mindsets on the student engagement mindset continuum: (1) agitator, (2) retreater, (3) probationer, (4) aficionado, and (5) academician. No matter what a student’s grade level, all learners need to feel a high level of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Each chapter will tie those concepts together and explain how a teacher can use them to engage students. For each, I identify those students’ motivations. These chapters open with a description of an actual student I taught or coached who had the specific mindset, and I describe the mindset in detail. Then, the launching and consolidating sections are balanced. The launching sections present classroom scenarios that highlight strong hooks, and the consolidating sections present a critical concept or multiple research-validated strategies when engaging students with that mindset. Chapter 7 offers guidelines to help you, preK–12 teachers and administrators, create a culture of engagement throughout your school, increasing sustainability.
What you read in the coming chapters helps you build the systems thinking instructional principles—(1) relationships, (2) communication, (3) responsiveness, and (4) sustainability—you need to engage students. Let’s dive in.
CHAPTER
