Academic Engagement

861 Words2 Pages

Overarching Framework of Academic Engagement. Pierson and Connell’s (1992) motivational theories and Newmann’s (1992) incorporation of academic engagement theory built the foundation of the current theoretical framework for academic engagement. As a sub-theory of motivational theories, self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) provides the overarching framework to understand the roles of academic engagement in a student’s life (Appleton et al., 2008; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles et al., 1993; Fall & Roberts, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Skinner et al., 2008; Wang & Eccles, 2013). Self-system model of motivational development (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), stage-environment fit theory (Eccles & Midgley, 1989), and expectancy-value …show more content…

The Self-System Model of Motivational Development (SSMMD; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Skinner et al., 2008) builds off of youths’ developmental needs to connect with others and interact with their broader ecologies and internalize the knowledge, customs, and values that surround them (Appleton et al., 2008; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Wang & Eccles, 2013). The model addresses an important factor that mediates the connection between social support and positive developmental outcomes, the individual’s self-system processes, which are defined as relatively stable personal resources that individuals construct over time in response to interactions with the developmental context (Skinner et al., 2008). In research, self-system processes are mostly commonly operationalized as students’ identification with school (Fall & Roberts, 2012), perceived self-control (Appleton et al., 2008), subjective tack value (Wang & Eccles, 2013), and academic self-efficacy (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, &, Davis-Kean, …show more content…

Instead, their specific needs may be changing over time in respond to their cognitive, social and emotional development (Eccles et al., 1993). Some negative changes may result from a mismatch between the needs of developing adolescents and the opportunities afforded to them in their various social environments. According to the theory, the unique developmental nature of adolescence partly results from the relation between changes in the developmental needs of adolescents and changes in the social contexts in which they live (Eccles et al., 1993; Eccles, Lord, & Roeser, 1996). Adolescents whose environments change in developmentally regressive ways are more likely to experience negative impacts on their engagement. In contrast, adolescents whose social environments effectively respond to their changing needs are more likely to experience positive outcomes on engagement. For example, considering that one of the salient developmental tasks confronting adolescents is establishing oneself as an autonomous being (Eccles et al., 1993; Smetana, 2000), it is not surprising to see the raise of stress and tension among family members if the needs for autonomous were not adequately addressed and

Open Document