Hansen William B, Fleming Charles B, Scheier Lawrence M
Prevention Strategies, LLC, 5900 Summit Ave., Browns Summit, NC, 27214, USA.
Social Development Research Group, University of Washington, 9725 Third Ave., NE, Suite 401, Seattle, WA, 98115, USA.
J Prim Prev. 2019 Feb;40(1):5-34. doi: 10.1007/s10935-018-00532-1.
Numerous studies emphasize the role of student engagement in academic learning and performance. Less known is whether engagement plays a role in drug prevention program outcomes. We examined a self-report measure of engagement as part of the All Stars Core drug prevention program evaluation, assessing its impact on target risk mechanisms and behavioral outcomes. Students completed pretests just prior to and posttests just after completing the intervention. Surveys assessed demographics, proximal intervening measures (i.e., commitments to avoid substance use and antisocial behavior, perceived lifestyle incongruence with substance use and antisocial behavior, normative beliefs about substance use and antisocial behavior, and parental attentiveness), and distal outcome measures of alcohol, cigarette use, and antisocial behaviors. A brief 6-item posttest measure including items tapping the students' perspective on the quality of teaching the program material and their level of engagement with the program was internally consistent (α = .79). Multi-level analyses positing engagement effects at both the classroom- and individual-level indicated that classroom average engagement was significantly associated with all the targeted risk mechanisms, and outcomes of antisocial behavior and alcohol use, controlling for pretest measures and classroom size. Individual student engagement relative to classroom peers was significantly associated with all posttest target risk mechanisms and behavioral outcomes. The current findings suggest that students should routinely provide assessments of engagement and perceived quality of teaching, which would improve our understanding of how prevention programs work. Teachers can improve engagement by paying attention to students when they speak in class, making the program enjoyable to participants, encouraging students to share opinions, stimulating attentiveness, being well prepared to deliver the intervention, and helping students think broadly about implications of drug prevention as it affects their lives. This type of support will ultimately engage students in ways that will enhance the likelihood that these programs will have their desired effects.
众多研究强调了学生参与度在学术学习和成绩方面的作用。而参与度在药物预防项目成果中是否发挥作用则鲜为人知。作为“全明星核心”药物预防项目评估的一部分，我们考察了一种参与度的自我报告测量方法，评估其对目标风险机制和行为结果的影响。学生们在干预前刚刚完成预测试，在干预后立即完成后测试。调查评估了人口统计学特征、近端干预措施（即避免物质使用和反社会行为的承诺、感知到的与物质使用和反社会行为不一致的生活方式、关于物质使用和反社会行为的规范信念以及父母的关注度），以及酒精、香烟使用和反社会行为的远端结果测量。一项简短的包含6个条目的后测试测量方法，包括一些挖掘学生对项目材料教学质量的看法以及他们对项目的参与程度的条目，其内部一致性良好（α = 0.79）。在课堂层面和个体层面设定参与度效应的多层次分析表明，课堂平均参与度与所有目标风险机制、反社会行为和酒精使用结果显著相关，同时控制了预测试量和班级规模。相对于课堂同龄人，个体学生的参与度与所有后测试目标风险机制和行为结果显著相关。当前的研究结果表明，学生应该定期提供对参与度和感知教学质量的评估，这将增进我们对预防项目运作方式的理解。教师可以通过在学生课堂发言时给予关注、使项目对参与者具有趣味性、鼓励学生分享意见、激发注意力、为实施干预做好充分准备以及帮助学生广泛思考药物预防对其生活的影响等方式来提高参与度。这种支持最终将以增强这些项目产生预期效果可能性的方式让学生参与进来。
