Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teaching practices and student engagement in early adolescence: A

longitudinal study using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System
Sarah E. McKellar*, Kai S. Cortina, Allison M. Ryan
University of Michigan, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

Quality Feedback was the strongest predictor of behavioral engagement.

In addition to Quality Feedback, other practices matter for behavioral engagement.

Regard for Student Perspective was the only predictor of emotional engagement.

No gender and race differences were found among students for changes in engagement.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Student engagement in schoolwork is crucial for positive academic adjustment, particularly during early
Received 13 January 2019 adolescence. We investigated how observations of teaching practices predicted change in student
Received in revised form behavioral and emotional engagement. In the fall, we examined teacher behavior in 54 fifth and sixth
9 September 2019
grade classrooms through external observers' reports of 11 dimensions of teachers’ practices (Classroom
Accepted 18 September 2019
Available online 6 December 2019
Assessment Scoring System, CLASS). Students reported on their behavioral and emotional engagement in
the fall and spring. We found quality feedback was the strongest predictor of behavioral engagement and
regard for student perspective was the strongest emotional engagement. Our findings were more nuanced
Keywords:
Engagement
for what predicts behavioral engagement, as there is evidence that other teaching practices work in
Adolescence conjunction with quality feedback to predict behavioral engagement.
Teachers © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Classroom observations

1. Introduction
Student engagement in schoolwork is crucial for positive aca-
demic adjustment, particularly during early adolescence (Lawson &
Lawson, 2013; Lei, Cui, & Zhou, 2018). The construct of student
engagement has received considerable attention over the past few
decades because it robustly predicts numerous outcomes and is
responsive to intervention (Eccles, 2016; Finn & Zimmer, 2012;
Ulmanen, Soini, Pyh€ alto€, & Pietarinen, 2014). In particular, early
adolescent engagement has been linked with academic achieve-
ment, psychosocial adjustment, and long-term occupational suc-
cess (Abbott-Chapman et al., 2014; Chase, Warren, & Lerner, 2015;
Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012). Student reports of
teacherestudent relationships have been consistently associated
with students’ enhanced engagement in school (Quin, 2017; Quin,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smckella@umich.edu (S.E. McKellar).
Hemphill, & Heerde, 2017). However, teachers may seek to tap
into different facets of student engagement through taking
different approaches in their teaching practices and interactions
with students (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012). The aim of the current
study was to examine a range of observed teaching practices in
early adolescent classrooms and assess which are most strongly
linked with changes in students’ emotional and behavioral
engagement.
Student engagement is viewed as a multifaceted construct most
often assessed by asking students about what they do, think, and/or
feel in relation to academic tasks (Eccles, 2016; Fredricks, Reschly, &
Christenson, 2019). According to Finn’s (1989) participation-
identification model, students who engage in learning are those
who are emotionally invested and participate in actions that align
with their investment. In the present study and as in previous
studies (see, for example, Gonida, Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009;
Salmela-Aro & Upadaya, 2012; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer,
2009), student engagement was theorized as active behavior
exhibited by the students in the classroom and as positive emotion

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102936
0742-051X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
experienced during class work. While behavioral and emotional
engagement are conceptually and empirically correlated, they are
nevertheless theoretically distinct (Skinner et al., 2009). This means
that while students who are enjoying activities in math are likely to
be putting forth effort into these activities, some may be more likely
to report that they are enjoying it without showing much active
engagement, and others are visibly engaged but are not particularly
fond of the activities they are engaged in. Given this distinction in
two correlated types of engagement, further investigation is
needed to understand the extent to which specific teacher practices
promote behavioral and/or emotional engagement.
While both facets of engagement tend to be associated with the
same student outcomes, they may differ in the way they respond to
the learning context. Less is known about the extent to which
specific observed teaching practices e or teacher-student in-
teractions e differentially predict student behavioral and emotional
engagement. According to Brophy (2010), teachers often over-
emphasize catering instruction to student enjoyment, interest, or
emotions as a means of engaging students in learning. Instead, he
asserted that the appropriate amount of instructional rigor, sup-
port, and feedback over time would foster students’ investment in
learning, even if students do not initially see tasks as relevant or
interesting. In contrast, recent work has stressed how teachers’
emotional support, or facilitating of student enjoyment in class-
room activities, drives positive student outcomes (Ruzek et al.,
2016; Weyns, Colpin, De Laet, Engels, & Verschueren, 2018). A
teacher might be able to enlist students in class activities through
subtle pressures that cause negative or mixed emotions; another
teacher might grab students’ attention and make them feel
welcome using an entertaining teaching style at the expense of
academic focus and pace.
There is a wealth of studies looking at adolescents’ reports of
general teachers’ support in relation to their engagement (Quin,
2017), but studies are just beginning to use standardized observa-
tion of these practices (Rimm-Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, Curby, &
Abry, 2015). Trained observers of real-time or videotaped teach-
ing practices assess teachers’ behavior apart from perception biases
that are inherent in student reports (Pianta et al., 2012; Pianta &
Hamre, 2009). These third-person observations can capture as-
pects of teaching largely outside of teacher and student awareness
in real time. This allows for more effective teacher training and
coaching because educators, particularly novice teachers, can bet-
ter understand what concrete practices are helpful for student
engagement regardless of their own perception (Rimm-Kaufman
et al., 2015). The current study examined whether systematic ob-
servations of specific teaching practices predict student behavioral
and emotional engagement.
1.1. Defining student engagement
The study of motivation and engagement in the classroom has
contributed to our understanding of effective teaching practices at
the intersection of research in psychology and education (Brophy &
Good, 1986; Pianta et al., 2012). Specifically, motivational theories
such as self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), expectancy-
value theory (Eccles et al., 1993), and goal theory (Ames, 1992;
Covington, 2000) have been used to frame the ways in which
teachers can engage students. For example, self-determination
theory posits that teachers’ autonomy supportive practices, mes-
sages about competence, and facilitation of student belongingness
in the classroom can engage and motivate students (see Pianta &
Hamre, 2009, for a review). According to expectancy-value theory
and goal theory, teachers’ messages about students’ abilities and
feedback about learning shape students’ beliefs (i.e., learning goals
and expectations about their success); in turn, students’ beliefs
predict engagement and achievement outcomes (Wang & Eccles,
2012).
Skinner and Belmont’s (1993) seminal study employed moti-
vational theory to assess the reciprocal relationship between
teacher involvement, structure, and autonomy support on the one
hand and student engagement on the other hand. This approach
was based on the understanding that engagement is being opti-
mized when the social context of the classroom fulfills children’s
and adolescents’ basic psychological needs (Connell & Wellborn,
1991). These are just a few examples of measures of teaching
practices that have been developed or aligned with those targeting
students’ psychological needs, engagement, and achievement.
In order to better understand the relationship between teaching
practices and student engagement, both must be conceptually and
empirically defined. In the past few decades, several common
conceptualizations of engagement have emerged, which include
academic, agentic, affective, social, and cognitive engagement
(Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003; Reschly & Christenson, 2012).
However, with greater specificity in measuring engagement and a
proliferation of constructs, Eccles (2016) cautions that researchers
may lose sight of engagement as a more holistic concept. We
therefore adopted Finn’s (1989) parsimonious two-dimensional
approach to understanding engagement and its antecedents. Ac-
cording to this model and subsequent empirical conceptualizations
(Skinner et al., 2009), engagement has two dimensions: behavioral
and emotional. Behavioral engagement refers to students’ active
engagement (e.g., a student pays attention, participates, listens, and
is involved in class activities), while emotional engagement refers
to the internal state (e.g., a student is interested, having fun, and
enjoying class activities). While adolescent engagement may also
be assessed via teacher or observer reports, students’ self-report of
engagement taps at the students’ state of mind which include
cognitive engagement and emotional state that is not necessarily
expressed in observable behavior. Consistently, student self-reports
tend to correlate with observer rating but are better predictors of
students' learning and academic achievement (Lei, Cui, & Zhou,
2018). In line with theoretical and empirical work on student
motivation and engagement, different teaching practices align with
different students’ adaptive classroom behaviors (Pianta, Belsky,
et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2012). While it is assumed that positive
teaching practices support all types of engagement, theory suggests
that certain teaching strategies are more effective at engendering
specific types of student engagement (Pianta et al., 2012; Rimm-
Kaufman et al., 2015).
1.2. Defining teacher practices
Similar to student engagement, there have been attempts to
create frameworks and standardized measures surrounding
teacher practices that predict positive outcomes. Building on prior
work, Pianta and Hamre (2009) developed observational measure
and a corresponding frameworkdTeaching Through Interactions
frameworkdfor assessing teacher-student interactions or teaching
practices. In line with other categories of teaching practices from
educational and psychological literature (e.g., Eccles & Roeser,
2011; Pressley et al., 2003; Roehrig, Johnson, Moore, & Bryan,
2015), the Teaching Through Interactions model describes three
broad domains teaching practices: Emotional Support, Instructional
Support, and Classroom Organization (Hafen et al., 2015; Hamre
et al., 2013). Each of these domains describes teaching practices
more generally, and contains dimensions within the larger domains
that outline more specifically what teachers are doing to support
students. The Emotional Support domain encompasses four mean-
ingful dimensions: Positive Climate, Negative Climate, Teacher
Sensitivity, and Regard for Student Perspective. The Instructional
 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
Support domain captures four teachers’ practices that support
cognitive and academic development, including the promotion of
Problem Solving, Content Understanding, Substantive Dialogue,
and teachers’ Quality of Feedback. The Classroom Organization
domain includes teachers’ abilities to manage classroom structures
and routines to maximize students actively participating, specif-
ically Behavior Management, Productivity, and Instructional
Learning Formats. While teaching practices are defined by these
three larger domains, efforts to support teachers in improving their
practices have leveraged the specificity of the 11 teaching di-
mensions of the CLASS that fall under the three broader domains
(Hafen et al., 2015).
1.3. Assessing teaching practice: standardized observational
protocols
While student reports of teaching practices are the most com-
mon way to assess teaching practices, this method has limitations.
The vast majority of studies have used aggregated student per-
ceptions to understand teaching practices due to proximity to
student outcomes and the ease of collection compared with other
sources (Burniske & Meibaum, 2012). Overreliance on student re-
ports to assess teaching practices may be problematic for several
reasons. First, the validity of student self-reports has been called
into question, among others, for halo effects (Nisbett & Wilson,
1977; Wetzel, Wilson, & Kort, 1981) and social desirability bias
(Fisher, 1993). In other words, relying solely on student reports of
their teacher may cause issues because students have individual
biases that affect their general preferences and the extent to which
they can parse out the effectiveness of teachers’ specific practices.
In predicting other questionnaire variables, common method bias
becomes a major threat to the validity of the findings (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). This means that student re-
ports of their teachers' practices and their individual engagement
may be related based on student reporters as common data sources
rather than teachers affecting students' outcomes. Furthermore,
there is some evidence that student perceptions of the classroom
are shaped to a certain extent by their experiences in prior course
or other concurrent courses (e.g., Friedel, Cortina, Turner, &
Midgley, 2010).
Apart from these methodological aspects, there are several ad-
vantages of trained observers of teaching practices in comparison
to student reports. Trained observers can be aware of teaching as-
pects that students are not aware. Because the trained observer
focuses on concrete behavior of teachers and students seen in class,
the results lend themselves to be used for teacher training purposes
in particular if combined with observations and video footage of
the class period assessed. A limitation of third-person observations
apart from the higher costs of the classroom is that they only
capture one (or a few) class periods and cannot assess students’
actual cognitive processes unless they are verbalized (e.g., a
misconception in a science class). Accounting for these weaknesses,
observing teaching practice can offer an effective alternative lens to
understanding teaching practices. This is especially true if ob-
servers are trained to use an accepted rubric and adhere closely to
this training.
Over the past few decades, there has been increasing attention
and progress in developing standardized observation protocols to
better understand e and fairly asses e teaching practices
(Danielson, 2007; 2011; Pianta et al., 2012). Calls for standardized
protocols come out of efforts to better identify which classroom
teaching processes (e.g., management, formats, interactions) are
most closely linked with student achievement outcomes; referred
to as the process-product paradigm (Brophy, 2010; Brophy & Good,
1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). The process-product approach
3
is linked with efforts to identify “best,” highly effective, or quality
teaching practices (Cochran-Smith, 2016; Doyle, 1977). The CLASS,
developed at the University of Virginia, has become a widely used
protocol aimed at measuring aspects of instruction and teaching
quality (Pianta et al., 2012).
Growing use of the CLASS has also been accompanied by
research and calls for additional work to further assess the pre-
dictive validity of the domains and dimensions (Bihler, Agache,
Kohl, Willard, & Leyendecker, 2018; Hafen et al., 2015; Hamre
et al., 2013; Westergård, Ertesvåg, & Rafaelsen, 2018). Some work
revealed moderate to high correlation across the three domains,
including discussions of multicollinearity among its three larger
domains when predicting student engagement (See Rimm-
Kaufman et al., 2015). Despite support for a three-domain struc-
ture for the 11 teaching dimensions of the framework, a more
practical focus, in particular from a teacher training perspective,
favors a more differentiated model because the 11 dimensions
(three to four dimensions per domain) are clearly defined and can
be isolated in video footage for training purposes.
1.4. Observational assessment of teaching practices (the CLASS) and
engagement
In our review of the literature, we identified three studies to
date that examined student engagement during early adolescence
in relation to teaching practices using at least one of the three
domains of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS
Emotional Support, Instructional Support, and Classroom Organiza-
tion). The first of these studies, by Reyes and colleagues (2012),
examined the extent to which the three domains of the CLASS
predicted engagement e focusing solely on emotional engagement
e and achievement in 5th and 6th grade English and Language Arts
(ELA) classes. They found that emotional engagement mediated the
relationship between CLASS Emotional Support and student
achievement. However, they did not find any association between
the other two CLASS teaching domains (i.e., Instructional Support
and Classroom Organization) and student engagement or achieve-
ment. They focused on a more general construct of engagement
using Furrer and Skinner’s (2003) Engagement vs. Disaffection
Scale (e.g., “I feel good when I’m in my ELA class”). While longitu-
dinal in design, this study did not assess how teaching practices
predicted changes in student engagement over the course of the
year and did not assess student behavioral engagement.
Our second identified study, Ruzek et al. (2016), examined
behavioral engagement instead of emotional engagement, focusing
on only one domain of the CLASS, Emotional Support, as a predictor.
This study was centered around Emotional Support because it was
designed to assess whether the three facets of self-determination
theory (students’ sense of autonomy support, competence, and
peer belongingness) mediated observed Emotional Support and
self-reported behavioral engagement. They found Emotional Sup-
port predicted behavioral engagement. They also found students
sense of autonomy support and peer belongingness mediated the
relationship between Emotional Support and behavioral engage-
ment. These mediators closely align with the CLASS dimension of
Regard for Student Perspective, which is one component of the
Emotional Support domain. For example, Regard for Student
Perspective includes indicators such as “relaxed structure for
movement about the classroom” and “peer sharing and group
work” paralleling autonomy support and peer relatedness respec-
tively (Ruzek et al., 2016, p. 98).
Our third identified study, Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2015), exam-
ined how several types of engagement were related to all three
domains of the CLASS. They focused on a sample of 5th grade
students and their math classrooms, using student engagement at
4 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
three time points over the course of the year. They confirmed that
students had higher cognitive, social, and emotional engagement in
classrooms with greater Emotional Support and Classroom Organi-
zation. They also found only one of the three domains of the CLASS,
Classroom Organization, predicted observer reports of student
behavioral engagement. Rimm-Kaufmann and colleagues were
surprised that Instructional Support did not predict behavioral
engagement and hypothesized a few possible reasons, calling
future studies to examine the role of differences in student ability
levels and the role of specific dimensions within the domain of
Instructional Support.
Overall, more research is needed to understand the relation-
ships between the CLASS domains of Instructional Support and
Classroom Organization and different types of engagement. None-
theless, when taken together, these three studies provide evidence
that the Emotional Support domain of the CLASS predicts student
emotional and behavioral engagement in secondary ELA and math
classrooms. While these studies used the three broad domains of
the CLASS to assess the relationships between teaching practices
and student engagement, they ultimately used the CLASS’s 11
teaching dimensions to explain the implications of their findings.
For example, when discussing findings related to the Emotional
Support domain of the CLASS, Ruzek et al. (2016) and Rimm-
Kaufman et al. (2015) suggested ways in which student engage-
ment may be shaped by practices that demonstrate Regard for
Student Perspective (e.g., providing students with autonomy and
opportunities to connect with classmates). Similarly, when dis-
cussing findings about the Classroom Organization domain of the
CLASS, Rimm-Kaufman and colleagues explained how classrooms
that have “interesting learning formats, clear statement of expec-
tations, high productivity” enhance students’ behavioral engage-
ment (p. 182).
Despite these strides in understanding how domains of
observed teaching practices are related to student engagement, the
strength of the CLASS’s ability to record 11 specific teaching prac-
tices has not fully been utilized. Few studies have parsed out these
11 dimensions of the CLASS to outline how different teacher-
student interactions may differentially predict distinct types of
student engagement, despite the fact that from the practical
perspective of teacher training it is particularly beneficial to be as
specific as possible. Teachers may be able to improve their
instructional approaches with greater insights on the extent to
which student emotional and behavioral engagement are related to
each of the 11 teaching dimensions of the CLASS (e.g., Teacher
Sensitivity, Content Understanding, and Productivity). Deemer and
Hanich (2005) stressed the benefits of this kind of specificity,
arguing that a framework including detailed dimensions of teach-
ing (i.e., Epstein’s (1988) and Ames’ (1992) TARGET framework) can
help instructors improve student motivation and engagement. For
example, they describe how understanding teacher recognition of
student effort and appropriate evaluation of student lear-
ningdcomponents in the CLASS’s dimension Quality of Feed-
backdcan support teachers in increasing student engagement,
especially when used as part of a multidimensional framework.
Moreover, the developers of the CLASS and their colleagues, Hafen
et al. (2015), created an intervention program, called MyTeach-
ingPartner, to improve teaching practices based on the Teaching
Through Interactions framework and the CLASS. While MyTeach-
ingPartner uses all 11 teaching dimensions of the CLASS to offer
feedback, this specificity has not been used to understand sec-
ondary student reports of their engagement in prior empirical
studies. Although a domain approach to understanding engage-
ment is useful, studying the specific dimensions of the CLASS may
better support teachers in their efforts to improve their practices.
There has also been some debate about whether these 11
dimensions actually fall under three domains or whether a
different factor or domain structure is best, such as one or two
domains (Allen et al., 2013; Bihler et al., 2018; Hafen et al., 2015;
Virtanen et al., 2018). A dimensional approach instead of a domain
approach to predict engagement may help address some of these
recent questions. Pianta et al. (2012) also recommended that future
studies examine teaching practices at a “granular level” in relation
to student engagement (p. 380). Researchers and teachers will
easily agree that Emotional Support, Instructional Support, and
Classroom Organization will all be positively associated with desir-
able student outcomes, but the present study built upon prior work
by more closely examining the extent to which the 11 CLASS
teaching dimensions predict two types of student engagement,
behavioral and emotional engagement, in early adolescence.
1.5. Purpose and hypotheses
In classrooms, teachers may take different approaches to
engaging students and tap into different facets of student engage-
ment. For example, one might imagine a classroom where students
are behaviorally engaged due to the high expectations and aca-
demic rigor rather than emotional support. Conversely, one can
imagine a classroom where students are emotionally engaged as a
result of teacher warmth and positive relational climate rather than
instructional supports. While teachers use a variety of practices to
engage students, perhaps specific practices promote specific types
of student engagement. The purpose of this study was to system-
atically examine the ways in which specific observed teaching
practices predict specific forms of engagement.
The present study used the 11 teaching dimensions of the CLASS
to understand behavioral and emotional engagement. While this
study was largely exploratory, especially related to understanding
which dimensions of the CLASS predict changes in behavioral
engagement, we had two broad hypotheses based on Pianta and
colleagues' (2012) theoretical review and the three studies linking
the CLASS to engagement during early adolescence (Reyes et al.,
2012; Rimm-Kaufman at al., 2015; Ruzek et al., 2016). Based on
Reyes et al.’s (2012) and Rimm-Kaufman at al. ’s (2015) findings, our
first hypothesis was that one or more dimensions within the
domain of Emotional Support would be the strongest predictor of
emotional engagement. Second, we hypothesized that one of the
domains of Classroom Organization would also strongly predict
emotional engagement. There was insufficient prior research to
make dimensional-based hypotheses related to behavioral
engagement, though Rimm-Kaufman et al.’s and Ruzek et al.’s work
discussed Productivity and Regard for Student Perspective as
possible dimensional predictors. Lastly, in light of Rimm-Kaufman
at al. ’s (2015) findings that the relationship between Classroom
Organization and behavioral engagement was stronger for 5th
grade boys than girls, we also explored gender differences among
students.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure and participants
Data were collected as part of a larger longitudinal study
examining early adolescent social and academic adjustment in
school. Schools were recruited from three school districts located in
small urban communities in the Midwest. To provide a common
reference point across the different school settings, we focused on
the classroom context in the domains of math and science. Prior
work (Allen et al., 2013) found that the CLASS was related to gains
in math and science achievement similarly, providing support for
including both subjects. All math and science teachers in the 6th
 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936 5

grade at the middle schools agreed to participate, and we chose one
of their classes to observe and administer surveys. For the teachers
from the feeder elementary schools, we aimed to focus on math or
science in equal proportions.
Observations were conducted in October and November. As the
school year commenced in mid-August in these school districts,
this was about two or three months into the school year. Research
assistants scheduled classroom observations on days that the
teachers deemed “typical” days of math or science instruction.
About a week or two following observations, two trained research
assistants administered surveys to students in their classrooms.
Four classrooms did not complete the student survey aspect of the
project due to scheduling conflicts and were not included in our
study.
The Upper Elementary Version of the CLASS certification (grades
4e6; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2010) was obtained by our six
classroom observers; the Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative (CITI) Human Subject Protection trained university re-
searchers. Certification on the CLASS observation protocol meant
that all six coders had to achieve at least 80% correct on the test at
the end of the CLASS course. To obtain this, score codes must be
within one point (on a seven point continuum) from what the
developers consider the correct code when coding segments of
videos of classrooms. Furthermore, 20% of the classroom observa-
tions in our sample were conducted in pairs. When we employed
the same criteria in the field as the CLASS certification test, 94% of
the time our observation pairs were coded within one point of each
other.
For the present study, students came from 54 classrooms (27 5th
grade classrooms, 18 math and 9 science; and 27 6th grade class-
rooms, 16 math and 11 science). The 5th grade teachers were pre-
dominantly female (N ¼ 25, 93%) and White (N ¼ 23, 85%). The 6th
grade teachers were predominantly female (N ¼ 21, 78%) and White
(N ¼ 25, 93%). Only students who returned signed permission from
parents were allowed to participate. The percentage of students
with parental consent averaged 84% and was similar at both grade
levels. The total sample (N ¼ 860) was comprised of students who
had data at both waves. Roughly half of our student sample was
female (51.1%) and there was heterogeneity of student ethnicity
across our sample (36% African American, 47% European American,
7% Hispanic and 9% other ethnic groups). For all of the variables in
our study, no differences were found between students who left
after the fall (i.e., missing data in the spring) compared with stu-
dents who participated in the fall and the spring.
Instructions and items were read aloud while students read
along and responded. Students were assured that the information
in the survey would be kept confidential. In addition, students were
told that filling out the survey was voluntary and that they could
stop at any time. We visited the schools one additional day to
administer make-ups for students who were absent for survey
administration. Survey administration was repeated about six
months later in the spring of the school year.
2.2. Measures
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). The CLASS is a
well-established observational measure of teaching practices in the
classroom (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). The CLASS is comprised
of three domains each with three or four dimensions, so 11 di-
mensions total related to teaching, each with a set of criteria to
score (see Table 1). The first domain of Emotional Supports
(a ¼ 0.83) contains three dimensions of Positive Climate (relation-
ships, affect, respect, communication), Negative Climate (punitive-
ness, sarcasm/disrespect, negativity), Sensitivity (awareness,
responsiveness, action to address problems, comfort), and Regard
for Student Perspectives (flexibility, support for autonomy, connec-
tions to current life, and meaningful peer interactions). The second
domain of Instructional Supports (a ¼ 0.77) is comprised of four
dimensions: Content Understanding (teachers help students un-
derstand both the broad framework and key ideas in an academic
discipline), Analysis and Problem Solving (promotion of higher-
order thinking skills, opportunities for application), Quality of
Feedback (feedback loops, encouragement of responses, explana-
tion of performance), and Instructional Dialogue (content-driven
exchanges, distributed talk and facilitation strategies). The third
domain of Classroom Organization (a ¼ .78) includes three di-
mensions: Behavior Management (clear expectations, proactiveness
and redirection), Productivity (maximized time use, efficient rou-
tines and transitions), and Instructional Learning Formats (engaging
approach that maximizes learning opportunities). The CLASS

Table 1
Classroom assessment scoring system domains and (class) dimensions (upper elementary version, grades 4e6; Pianta, Hamre & Mintz, 2010).

Domain Dimension Indications/Description

Emotional Positive Climate Relationships, Positive affect, Positive communications, and Respect
Support Negative Climatea Negative affect, Punitive control, and Disrespect
Teacher Sensitivity Awareness, Responsiveness, Effectiveness in addressing problems, and Student comfort
Regard for Student Flexibility and student focus, Connections to current life, Support for student autonomy and leadership, and Meaningful peer
Perspectives interactions

Instructional Content Understanding Depth of understanding, Communication of concepts and procedures, Background knowledge and misconceptions,
Support Transmission of content knowledge and procedures, and Opportunity for practice of procedures and skills
Analysis and Problem Inquiry & Analysis, Opportunities for novel application, and Metacognition
Solvingb
Quality of Feedback Feedback loops, Scaffolding, Building on student responses, and Encouragement and affirmation
Instructional Dialogue Cumulative, content-driven exchanges, Distributed talk, and Facilitation strategies

Classroom Behavior Management Clear expectations, Proactive, Effective redirection of misbehavior, and Student behavior
Organization Productivity Maximizing learning time, Routines, Transitions, and Preparation
Instructional Learning Learning targets/organization, Variety of modalities, strategies, and materials, Active facilitation, and Effective engagement
Formats*

Note 1. The domain and dimension changes outlined above have been made to the CLASS since Hafen and colleagues' (2015) study. This table represents the CLASS teaching
dimensions during our data collection, and we used Pianta, Hamre & Mintz's (2010) conceptualization of the CLASS dimensions and domains.
Note 2. In addition to the 11 dimensions outlined above, there is one CLASS dimension, Student Engagement, that does not fall under any other domains and is not considered
an indicator of teaching practices.
a
Domain Changes: Negative Climate became part of Classroom Organization and Instructional Learning Formats became part of Instructional Supports.
b
Dimension Change: Analysis and Problem Solving has been renamed to Analysis and Inquiry.
6 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936

Table 2
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations between Student Gender, Race, and Student Behavioral and Emotional Engagement.

Emotional D Emotional Behavioral D Behavioral

Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement
Correlations Correlations Correlations Correlations

M SD Fall Spring Fall Spring

Gender (male 0.49 0.50 -.01 .00 .05 -.09** -.08* .02
students ¼ 1)
Black students 0.38 0.49 .06y .00 -.06y -.02 -.03 -.01
White students 0.49 0.50 -.08* -.03 .05 .01 .02 .00
Latino students 0.08 0.27 .00 -.01 -.02 .02 -.03 -.03
Asian students 0.06 0.24 .02 .05 .03 .00 .04 .05
D Emotional Engagement 0.21 1.02 -.38*** .50*** -.17*** .31*** .51***
D Behavioral Engagement 0.15 0.77 -.11** .34*** -.36*** .58***

Note 1. D represents the difference between fall and spring engagement, M represents mean, and SD represents standard deviation.
Note 2. “D Emotional Engagement Correlation” and “D Behavioral Engagement Correlation” show the correlations between demographic variables and the difference between
mean fall and spring emotional engagement.
Note 3. Correlations between emotional and behavioral engagement and changes in engagement ranged from .40 to .65, and are all p<.001.
yp<.1, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

observational measure can be used for any subject matter and
across elementary school subjects. Each dimension of the CLASS is
rated on a scale from 1 to 7 by certified observers. The scoring does
not factor in aspects of the classroom outside of the teaching
practices in relation to their students (e.g., there are no scores for
instructional materials, physical environment, or curriculum
adoption; Pianta & Hamre, 2009).
For the current study, observers visited classrooms on two
different days (but at the same time). During these observations the
entire lesson was observed and between four to six rating cycles
were completed. Each rating cycle consisted of a 15 minute
observation of classroom practices followed by a 5 to 10 minute
time period where the observers rated the 11 CLASS dimensions.
The length of the lessons varied from 48 min to an hour. The eleven
dimensions were averaged to produce scores on the three domains
as outlined above.
Student Engagement. We adapted an established 10-item self-
report measure of student engagement to assess behavioral and
emotional engagement in the classroom (Skinner et al., 2009). For
behavioral engagement, items assessed the extent to which stu-
dents try hard, participate in classroom activities, exert effort, pay
attention, and persist. For example, items included “I try hard to do
well in math/science class” and “I pay attention in my math/science
class.” For emotional engagement, items assessed the extent to
which students enjoyed and had positive feelings related to their
experiences in their class. For example, items included, “When we
work on something in math/science class, I feel interested” and “I
enjoy learning new things in my math/science class.”
All items were answered on a 5-point Likert response scale
(1 ¼ not at all true of me, 3 ¼ somewhat true, and 5 ¼ very true of
me). The scores ranged from 1 to 5 with a 5 indicating more or
positive behavioral or emotional engagement. The validity of this
measure has been demonstrated in research showing that students
who rate themselves high on engagement are more likely to be
identified by their teacher as engaged (Skinner et al., 2009). Our
measure of behavioral engagement was reliable in the current
sample (six items, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .86 at Wave 1 and 0.89 at
Wave 2) as well as the measure of emotional engagement (four
items, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .89 at Wave 1 and 0.92 at Wave 2).
2.3. Analytical procedure
Given that the students were nested within classrooms, and
therefore dependent observations, we used multilevel modeling,
specifically two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). First, we ran a fully unconditional
model with spring engagement as the outcome to calculate the
intraclass correlation (ICC) as a measure of the amount of variance
that existed between classrooms. Next, in Model 1 (see Table 4), we
introduced fall engagement in order to model change, and student
demographics (gender and race). In subsequent models, we added
class-level predictors using a stepwise approach in order to avoid
instability due to multicollinearity as reported in prior research
(Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2015). We included in the model the
dimension of CLASS that showed the highest, significant effect if
added to the model as a single additional predictor, hence reflecting
the strongest predictor of change. In a subsequent step, we
inspected the potential of further CLASS dimensions to significantly
add to the prediction of change after the first predictor was
included. This process of adding predictors continued until addi-
tional predictors did not significantly predict engagement and the
model fit did not improve (e.g., the Chi-square change between the
prior and current model was non-significant), emulating standard
“stepwise” procedures in regression analysis in software packages
(e.g., SPSS). This analytic approach has the advantage that it doc-
uments at every step the potential instability of regression co-
efficients for predictors already in the model. We ran these
stepwise models separately for behavioral engagement and
emotional engagement.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations are displayed
in Table 2 (student level variables) and Table 3 (classroom level
variables). For student level variables, gender and race were not
correlated with changes in either type of engagement from fall to
spring. For classroom level variables, eight of the 11 dimensions of
the CLASS across all three broader domains were significantly
correlated with classroom aggregates of student behavioral
engagement in the spring. Quality of Feedback and Regard for Stu-
dent Perspectives were significantly correlated with the change in
classroom aggregates of student behavioral engagement from fall to
spring. For emotional engagement, three dimensions of the CLASS
observations (Positive Climate, Teacher Sensitivity, Regard for Stu-
dent Perspectives) were correlated with aggregates of student
emotional engagement in the spring. Regard for Student Perspec-
tives was significantly correlated with the change in classroom ag-
gregates of student emotional engagement from fall to spring.
 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936 7

Table 3
Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations between the 11 CLASS Dimensions of Teaching Practices and Classroom Aggregates of Student Engagement.

Emotional D Emotional Behavioral D Behavioral

Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement
Correlations Correlations Correlations Correlations

M SD Fall Spring Fall Spring

Emotional Support
Positive Climate 4.57 1.09 .22 .32* -.11 .15 .34* -.27y
Negative Climate 1.94 0.95 -.13 -.21 .09 -.20 -.38** .26y
Teacher Sensitivity 3.88 1.07 .19 .29* -.11 .15 .34** -.27
Regard for Student Perspectives 2.76 1.13 .13 .42** -.34* .26y .45** -.28*
Classroom Organization
Behavior Management 4.88 1.10 .15 .21 -.07 .31* .41** -.18
Productivity 4.53 0.96 .16 .27y -.12 .22 .40** -.27y
Instructional Learning Formats 3.76 0.75 .01 .08 -.08 -.02 .13 -.19
Classroom Organization
Content Understanding 3.52 1.04 .06 .06 .01 .05 .24y -.25y
Analysis and Problem Solving 1.98 0.93 .16 .20 -.04 .20 .171 .01
Quality of Feedback 3.11 0.84 .08 .25y -.21 .12 .38** -.36**
Instructional Dialogue 2.79 0.99 .23y .27y -.03 .27* .38** -.19

Note. D represents the difference between fall and spring engagement, M represents mean, and SD represents standard deviation.
yp < .1, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

3.2. Multilevel analyses results Student Perspective.

Null and Covariate Model: For spring engagement, 5% of the
variance of behavioral engagement and 9% of the variance of
emotional engagement was attributable to between-classroom
differences. The covariate model (see Models 1 in Table 4) refers
to models with spring engagement predicted by fall engagement,
gender, and race. In the covariate model, we established that fall
engagement predicted spring engagement for both types (behav-
ioral engagement g ¼ 0.70, p < .001 and emotional engagement
g ¼ 0.64, p < .001). The proportion of classroom variance was
accounted for by covariates was 62%. Gender and race did not
significantly predict spring engagement when controlling for fall
levels; however, we kept them in subsequent models as controls.
Behavioral engagement. Our HLM exploratory analysis run for
Model 1 of behavioral engagement the CLASS dimension with the
highest t-value was for Quality of Feedback (b ¼ 0.04, SE ¼ 0.01,
t ¼ 3.581; see Table S1 in the online Supporting Information). As
shown in Table 4 Model 2, teachers’ Quality of Feedback was hence
included in the next step and is a strong predictor of behavioral
engagement, b ¼ 0.12, SE ¼ 0.04, t ¼ 3.43, p < .001. After including
Quality of Feedback, Productivity, the second highest original po-
tential predictor with b ¼ 0.01, SE ¼ 0.00, t ¼ 1.56,1 was not a sig-
nificant predictor of behavioral engagement above and beyond
teachers’ Quality of Feedback; however, there was a marginally
significant trend, b ¼ 0.05, SE ¼ 0.03, t ¼ 1.87, p ¼ .068.
Emotional engagement. For emotional engagement, the Model
1 HLM exploratory analysis revealed Regard for Student Perspective
as the CLASS dimension with the highest t-value (b ¼ 0.06,
SE ¼ 0.02, t ¼ 3.321; see Table S2 in the online Supporting Infor-
mation). As shown in Table 4 Model 2, Regard for Student
Perspective significantly predicts emotional engagement in the
spring when controlling for fall engagement. Instructional Learning
Formats, which had the second highest t-value as potential addi-
tional predictor in Model 1 was not a significant predictor of
emotional engagement above and beyond Regard for Student
Perspective. Consistently, as seen in Model 3, adding Instructional
Learning Formats did not improve the model fit. We conclude that
there were no additional dimensions of the CLASS that significantly
predict emotional engagement above and beyond Regard for
1
p values are not generated in HLM exploratory analyses.
Additional findings. Across all models, we controlled for gender
and race as fixed effect. After controlling for prior engagement,
neither effect was significant.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to use standardized classroom
observations of specific teaching practices to predict changes in
early adolescent emotional and behavioral engagement from fall to
spring. Overall, the Quality of Feedback was the strongest predictor
of student behavioral engagement and Regard for Student
Perspective was the strongest predictor of student emotional
engagement.
While several practices were positively associated with change
in behavioral engagement, Quality of Feedback and Productivity
explained nearly all of the predictive power of the CLASS di-
mensions for behavioral engagement. Given our exploratory
approach and Brophy’s (2010) work on motivation to learn, it is not
surprising that teachers’ Quality of Feedback, a dimension of
Instructional Support, was the strongest predictor of behavioral
engagement. Our findings align well with Pianta and Hamre’s
(2009) framework that outlines Quality of Feedback as a teacher’s
ability to scaffold content and build on student responses for stu-
dent learning. It is also not surprising that teachers’ Productivity, a
dimension of Classroom Organization, was the second strongest
predictors of behavioral engagement. This parallels Rimm-
Kaufmann et al. s’ (2015) finding that Classroom Organization pre-
dicts observer reports of student behavioral engagement.
The strong relationship between Quality of Feedback and
behavioral engagement does not mean that other strengths of the
instruction are irrelevant. However, for increasing behavioral
engagement, our results suggest that when observers see high
quality in the way teachers give feedback, the instruction tends to
be strong in other observed dimensions as well. Overall, our find-
ings for behavioral engagement suggest that teachers’ ability to
scaffold lessons and offer constructive feedback is most likely to
increase students’ participation, effort, and focus in classroom
learning tasks from fall to spring. Along with these findings, Pro-
ductivity and Regard for Student Perspective are also likely to
predict behavioral engagement based on our exploratory analyses,
and they are likely to be working in conjunction with Quality of
Feedback.
 8
Table 4
Multilevel Models for the CLASS Teaching Practices Predicting Changes in Emotional and Behavioral Engagement from Fall to Spring.

S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936

 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
Change in student emotional engagement was largely predicted
by teachers’ Regard for Student Perspective. Different from
behavioral engagement, other dimensions of the CLASS did not
predict emotional engagement above and beyond this critical
predictor. Our results relate to Rimm-Kaufmann and colleagues'
(2015) findings that Emotional Support predicted engagement,
since teachers’ Regard for Student Perspectiveda dimension of
Emotional Supportdwas the strongest and only significant predic-
tor of emotional engagement when looking at multiple dimensions.
According to Pianta et al. (2012), this association means that
teachers’ consideration of students’ autonomy needs and promo-
tion of meaningful peer interactions supports students’ enjoyment
in classroom learning tasks. These findings for emotional engage-
ment were expected, given the motivational needs outlined by
Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theorydautonomy,
competence, and belongingness dparallel the CLASS’s dimension
of Regard for Student Perspective. However, we were surprised that
we did not find links between dimensions within the Classroom
Organization domain, since Rimm-Kaufmann et al. (2015) found
emotional engagement was related to both Emotional Support and
Classroom Organization.
When interpreting these findings, it is important to consider the
extent to which different types of engagement are amenable to
teacher influence; to what extent can teachers shape students’
behaviors in their math class versus their feelings about their math
class? Our preliminary analyses provided evidence that classroom
differences in behavioral engagement were better explained by the
CLASS than classroom difference in emotional engagement. An
estimated 17% of the between-classroom variance for emotional
engagement was explained by Regard for Student Perspective and
Instructional Delivery Formats, while 30% of the between-
classroom variance for behavioral engagement was explained by
Quality of Feedback and Productivity. Moreover, the correlations of
CLASS dimensions with emotional engagement are systematically
lower than the correlations with behavioral engagement. From
these findings, our study suggests that observed teaching practices
are better designed to explain changes in behavioral engagement
than changes in emotional engagement. Students’ behavioral
engagement is part of the social interactions of the classroom itself
and therefore logically related to the visible teaching practices or
interactions with the students, while emotional engagement is a
more private attitude towards the learning process that might not
be immediately visible and hence less reliably observed.
Overall, our study reaffirms the importance of specifically
examining what teachers are doing to support student effort and
enjoyment during learning activities. Most importantly, this sup-
ports the need to have observational tools to more clearly assess
practices, as many student-report measures have a tendency to
have a halo effect, where students will rate a teacher highly across
all teaching practices neglecting to differentiate across aspects of
teaching, whereas third-party observations delineate between
teaching practices that support distinct types of student engage-
ment. For example, if a teacher has students who appear to enjoy
time in math but are failing to participate in more cognitively
challenging ways, the teacher may want to consider focusing their
attention on the types of feedback offered to students. Yet a teacher
whose students are working hard but failing to enjoy learning tasks
may want to focus primarily on greater attunement with students’
needs and taking students’ voices into consideration.
While the three dimensions of the CLASS allow for parsimony in
research studies, examining the 11 teaching dimensions of the
CLASS allowed for a more nuanced understanding of what predicts
behavioral and emotional engagement. Although our study does
not address concerns over the validity of the three larger domains
of the Teaching Through Interactions framework, a closer
9
examination of the dimensions of the CLASS may offer insights that
can support educators in targeting their professional development
goals towards bolstering behavioral and/or emotional engagement.
Our findings support current intervention efforts to increase stu-
dent engagement. For example, the developers of the CLASS and
their colleagues’ intervention, MyTeachingPartner, could use these
findings as they evaluate teachers across all 11 dimensions of the
CLASS and suggests targeted areas for improvement (Hafen et al.,
2015).
4.1. Strength and limitations
Among the strengths of this study was our focus on under-
standing changes in student engagement over the course of a
school year. This accounts for the individual student characteristics
that predict student engagement prior to them entering the
classroom. Another strength of the study was our racially diverse
sample of students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds,
predominantly middle to lower income students.
Despite these strengths, the study was limited by our inability to
assess student engagement more than twice in a given school year.
We also did not collect data to assess the stability of the observed
teaching practices, and this study was limited by only having fall
observations of teaching practices. Nonetheless, our findings par-
allel Rimm-Kaufmann et al. s’ (2015) work looking at three time
points. Further research should assess engagement and teaching
practices several times throughout the year in order to test Finn’s
(1989) participation-identification model because this would
offer evidence for the reciprocal effects between behavioral and
emotional engagement in relation to teacher practices. We were
also limited in only assessing two types of engagement. Future
work may also consider additional types of engagement, including
academic, agentic, affective, social, and cognitive engagement
(Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Prior work has noted the impor-
tance of peers for both behavioral and emotional engagement
(Kindermann, 2016). Thus, additional research may also consider
the role of peer dynamics alongside teaching practices. This is
especially important during adolescence given the importance of
peer influence for student engagement (Shin & Ryan, 2014).
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from this study
was that distinct practices can be leveraged by teachers to support
distinct types of student engagement. Quality of Feedback and
Productivity can be leveraged to support student behavioral
engagement, and Regard for Student Perspective can be leveraged
to support student emotional engagement. Depending upon
teaching goals and learning objectives, a teacher may want to pri-
oritize facilitation of student enjoyment in learning activities
instead of prioritizing facilitation of student effort and focus on
learning tasks. While these objectives are reciprocal according to
Finn’s (1989) participation-identification model, our study can
support teachers in targeting practices to areas that need the most
attention as well as catering instruction to their engagement pri-
orities for students. With this in mind, observed teaching practices
are better able to measure behavioral engagement than emotional
engagement. This work paves the way for intervention work to
equip teachers with the tools that best align with their needs and
explore less common ways of assessing teaching-practices (e.g.,
third party observations) as they relate to student engagement.
Author note
Thank you to all of the teachers and students who participated
in the Classroom and Peer Ecologies (CAPE) project. We would like
to acknowledge the original funding source provided by the
Spender Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article
10 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
should be addressed to Sarah E. McKellar, Combined Program in
Education and Psychology, 610 E. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI
48109; Email: smckella@umich.edu.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102936.
References
Abbott-Chapman, J., Martin, K., Ollington, N., Venn, A., Dwyer, T., & Gall, S. (2014).
The longitudinal association of childhood school engagement with adult
educational and occupational achievement: Findings from an Australian na-
tional study. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 102e120. https://
doi.org/10.1002/berj.3031.
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. (2013). Obser-
vations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school class-
rooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring
system–secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76e97.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261e271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.
3.261.
Bihler, L.-M., Agache, A., Kohl, K., Willard, J. A., & Leyendecker, B. (2018). Factor
analysis of the classroom assessment scoring system replicates the three
domain structure and reveals no support for the bifactor model in German
preschools. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01232.
Brophy, J. E. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4324/9780203858318.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In
M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376e391)
(New York: McMillan).
Burniske, J., & Meibaum, D. (2012). The use of student perceptual data as a measure of
teaching effectiveness (Briefing paper from the Texas Comprehensive Center).
Austin, TX: SEDL. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/txcc/resources/briefs/
number_8/index.php.
Chase, P. A., Warren, D. J. A., & Lerner, R. M. (2015). School engagement, academic
achievement, and positive youth development. In P. E. Bowers, J. G. Geldhof,
K. S. Johnson, J. L. Hilliard, M. R. Hershberg, V. J. Lerner, et al. (Eds.), Promoting
positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H study (pp. 57e70). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2016). Teaching and teacher education: Absence and presence
in AERA presidential addresses. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 92e99. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639040.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research:
The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2e11.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe
(Eds.), Self processes and development (pp. 43e77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates, Inc.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An
integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171e200. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership,
68(4), 35e39.
Deemer, S., & Hanich, L. B. (2005). Using achievement goal theory to translate
evidence-based principles into practice in educational psychology. The Clearing
House, 78(5), 197e201.
Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of
Research in Education, 5(1), 163e198. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0091732X005001163.
Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71e75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al.
(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psy-
chologist, 48(2), 90e101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during
adolescence: Schools as developmental contexts. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 21(1), 225e241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x.
Epstein, J. (1988). Effective schools or effective students? Dealing with diversity. In
R. Haskins, & B. MacRae (Eds.), Policies for America’s public schools: Teacher eq-
uity indicators (pp. 89e126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2),
117e142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it
matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research
on student engagement (pp. 97e131). New York, NY, US: Springer Science þ
Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303e315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209351.
Fredricks, J. A., Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2019). Interventions for student
engagement: Overview and state of the field. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, &
S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions (pp.
1e11). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00001-2.
Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2010). Changes in efficacy
beliefs in mathematics across the transition to middle school: Examining the
effects of perceived teacher and parent goal emphases. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(1), 102e114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017590.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s aca-
demic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
148e162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.
Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students’ achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining
the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adoles-
cence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2008.04.002.
Hafen, C. A., Hamre, B. K., Allen, J. P., Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R. C. (2015).
Teaching through interactions in secondary school classrooms: Revisiting the
factor structure and practical application of the classroom assessment scoring
systemesecondary. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5e6), 651e680. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0272431614537117.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M.,
et al. (2013). Teaching through interactions. The Elementary School Journal,
113(4), 461e487.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of defi-
nitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School
Psychologist, 8(1), 7e27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893.
Kindermann, T. A. (2016). Peer group influences on students’ academic motivation.
In K. R. Wentzel, & G. B. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school
contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 31e47).
NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student
engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research,
83(3), 432e479.
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: Inter-
national Journal, 46(3), 517e528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports
on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231e259. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom
effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 365e397. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831207308230.
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and
improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage
capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109e119. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X09332374.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and
engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of
classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365e386). New York, NY, US:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2010). Classroom assessment scoring system
(CLASS): Elementary 4e6 manual. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring
System (CLASS). Charlottesville: VA: University of Virginia.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879e903. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A. D., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S., Bohn, C., Mohan, L., & Hogan, K.
(2003). Teaching processes in elementary and secondary education. In
W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational
psychology (pp. 153e175). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.. https://doi.
org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0708
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacherestudent
relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 87(2), 345e387. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669434.
Quin, D., Hemphill, S. A., & Heerde, J. A. (2017). Associations between teaching
quality and secondary students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engage-
ment in school. Social Psychology of Education: International Journal, 20(4),
807e829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9401-2.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods. SAGE Publications Inc.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness:
Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In
S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 3e19). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-
4614-2018-7.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom
emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700e712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268.
 S.E. McKellar et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020) 102936
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015).
To what extent do teacherestudent interaction quality and student gender
contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170e185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037252.
Roehrig, G. H., Johnson, C. C., Moore, T. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2015). Integrated STEM
education. In C. C. Johnson, & T. A. Sondergeld (Eds.), STEM road map (pp.
35e50). Routledge.
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016).
How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of
perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and
Instruction, 42, 95e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68e78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadaya, K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory. Eu-
ropean Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 60e67. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1015-5759/a000091.
Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Early adolescent friendships and academic adjust-
ment: Examining selection and influence processes with longitudinal social
network analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50(11), 2462e2472. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0037922.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal ef-
fects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571e581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.85.4.571.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on
11
engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s
behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493e525. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013164408323233.
Ulmanen, S., Soini, T., Pyha €lto
€, K., & Pietarinen, J. (2014). Strategies for academic
engagement perceived by Finnish sixth and eighth graders. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 44(3), 425e443. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.921281.
Virtanen, T. E., Pakarinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Siekkinen, M., &
Nurmi, J.-E. (2018). A validation study of classroom assessment scoring
systemesecondary in the Finnish school context. The Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 38(6), 849e880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617699944.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of
social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high
school. Child Development, 83, 877e895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.
2012.01745.x.
Westergård, E., Ertesvåg, S. K., & Rafaelsen, F. (2018). A preliminary validity of the
classroom assessment scoring system in Norwegian lower-secondary schools.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1e19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00313831.2017.1415964.
Wetzel, C. G., Wilson, T. D., & Kort, J. (1981). The halo effect revisited: Forewarned is
not forearmed. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 427e439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90049-4.
Weyns, T., Colpin, H., De Laet, S., Engels, M., & Verschueren, K. (2018). Teacher
support, peer acceptance, and engagement in the classroom: A three-wave
longitudinal study in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(6),
1139e1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0774-5.