School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Australia.
School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia.
J Sch Psychol. 2018 Aug;69:1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.04.003. Epub 2018 Apr 23.
There is a need to further understand the development of student engagement. Ecological models of adolescent development state that proximal factors, such as teacher support, should strongly influence student engagement. Theoretical models also explain concurrent influences from the individual, family, peer, and community contexts. The current study applied an ecological model to the development of five indicators of students' engagement in school. Six hundred and sixty-five full-time Grade 11 students and an additional 54 students who had dropped out of school from Victoria, Australia, completed a Communities That Care survey in term 3 of Grade 10 and term 3 of Grade 11. Grade 10 risk and protective factors from the school (e.g., teacher support), individual (e.g., academic grades, prior engagement), family (e.g., family management practices), peer (e.g., antisocial peer affiliation), and community contexts (e.g., community disorganization) were modeled as predictors of five indicators of Grade 11 engagement (academic engagement, emotional engagement, school discipline, absences from school, and school dropout). Teacher support at Grade 10 had bivariate associations with Grade 11 academic engagement (r = 0.37), emotional engagement (r = 0.35), absences from school (r = -0.14), and school discipline responses (OR = 0.64). The full ecological models explained between 22 and 34% of the variance in engagement; however, teacher support did not predict engagement. Prior engagement and academic grades explained the greatest proportion of variance in students' engagement. Factors from the family, peer, and community contexts made unique contributions to some indicators of engagement. The findings suggest that there is a need to consider student engagement as a long-term process. Implications for improving students' engagement are discussed within an individualized stage-environment fit model of adolescent development.
需要进一步了解学生参与度的发展。青少年发展的生态模型指出，近端因素，如教师支持，应该强烈影响学生的参与度。理论模型还解释了来自个体、家庭、同伴和社区环境的并发影响。本研究应用生态模型来研究学生在学校参与度的五个指标的发展。来自澳大利亚维多利亚州的 665 名全日制 11 年级学生和另外 54 名辍学学生在 10 年级第 3 学期和 11 年级第 3 学期完成了一项“关心社区”调查。从学校（例如，教师支持）、个体（例如，学业成绩、先前的参与度）、家庭（例如，家庭管理实践）、同伴（例如，反社会同伴关系）和社区背景（例如，社区混乱）等方面对 10 年级的风险和保护因素进行建模，作为 11 年级参与度五个指标（学业参与度、情感参与度、学校纪律、缺课和辍学）的预测因素。10 年级的教师支持与 11 年级的学业参与度（r=0.37）、情感参与度（r=0.35）、缺课（r=-0.14）和学校纪律反应（OR=0.64）呈双变量关联。完整的生态模型解释了参与度变化的 22%到 34%；然而，教师支持并不能预测参与度。先前的参与度和学业成绩解释了学生参与度变化的最大比例。来自家庭、同伴和社区背景的因素对一些参与度指标做出了独特的贡献。研究结果表明，有必要将学生参与度视为一个长期的过程。在青少年发展的个体化阶段-环境匹配模型中讨论了提高学生参与度的意义。
