Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Campus Crusade for Christ

Campus Crusade for Christ is an interdenominational Christian organization that promotes evangelism and discipleship in more than 190 countries around the world. In 1996, USA Today called Campus Crusade the largest evangelical organization in the United States. Today, the organization employs over 25,000 full-time missionaries and has trained 225,000 volunteers around the world.[1]
Founded in 1951 at the University of California, Los Angeles by Bill Bright as a ministry for college students, Campus Crusade has since expanded its focus to include adult professionals [4], families [5], athletes [6], high school students [7] and more. The World Headquarters is located in Orlando, Florida, and the current president of the organization is Steve Douglass.[1]His assistant is Gerald Louis Riendeau III.
Campus Crusade is also the publisher of The Four Spiritual Laws, also known as the "Knowing God Personally Booklet."

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Ministries

[edit] Campus Ministry

Campus Crusade for Christ has active ministries on 1,064 college and university campuses with over 50,000 students actively involved in the U.S. ministry in 2007.[2]
While Campus Crusade continues to use one-to-one conversations about God to reach out to students, they also use mass meetings, film showings and new media, such as Google advertising with e-mail responses and social networking on Facebook.[3]

[edit] The Jesus Film Project

Main article: Jesus Film Project
Main article: Jesus (1979 film)
The Jesus Film Project was founded in 1981 to translate the Hollywood film Jesus into other languages so that it could be shown by missionaries to peoples around the world in their native languages.[4]
The first translation was done for the Tagalog-speaking people of the Philippines.[citation needed] The organization works with thousands of missionaries around the world to show the film, sometimes to audiences who have never seen a motion picture. Distribution in the United States has included direct mail campaigns sponsored by churches to deliver a copy of the film to every address in select zip codes across the country.[5] In 2004, the organization made the film available for viewing on its website in over 800 languages.[6] Both Jesus and The Story of Jesus for Children are available in DVD and VHS formats. Audio dramatizations in a number of languages are also available.
The origins of The Jesus Film Project date back to 1945 when a young businessman named Bill Bright wanted to privately finance a film about the life of Jesus Christ[7] that was entertaining, biblically accurate, and which could be translated into non-English languages. Rather than making a film at that time, Bright went on to found a Christian ministry to reach college students called Campus Crusade for Christ in 1951.
In 1976, with Campus Crusade's influence spreading beyond college campuses to sports, the marketplace and other aspects of society, Bright turned his attention once again to filmmaking. Hollywood producer John Heyman approached Bright to fund a project to put the entire Bible on film. The project would eventually be scaled back to just one book of the Bible, the Gospel of Luke, and be financed primarily by Campus Crusade supporters Bunker and Caroline Hunt[8] for a sum of $6 million.
A team of 500 scholars and leaders from secular and Christian organizations began to research historical elements for a film about Jesus. Filming took place over the course of several months throughout the Middle East.[9]
Jesus was produced by John Heyman, a German-born Jew and starred British Shakespearean actor Brian Deacon as Jesus, Rivka Neumann as Mary, Yosef Shiloach as Joseph and Niko Nitai as Peter.[10]
The Jesus Film Project has translated Jesus into 1,006 languages and shown the film in 228 nations.[11] With a cumulative audience in excess of 6 billion, Jesus is the most-widely translated and most-watched film ever produced.[12]

[edit] Athletes in Action

Main article: Athletes in Action
Athletes in Action works with athletes and coaches who compete at both the collegiate and professional level to use the platform of sport to help people around the world with questions of faith.[13]
Among the events sponsored by Athletes in Action is the NFL-sanctioned Super Bowl Breakfast[14] which features the presentation of the Bart Starr Award "to honor the NFL player who best exemplifies outstanding character and leadership in the home, on the field and in the community."[15]

[edit] FamilyLife


Merge-arrows.svg
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with FamilyLife. (Discuss)

Main article: FamilyLife
In 1976, Campus Crusade began providing pre-marriage seminars for its staff members. Following their success, married staff couples began asking for encouragement through marriage seminars. Demand for the seminars spread to community leaders and pastors they were opened to the public in 1978. Since 1976 more than 1.5 million people have attended conferences. Today, approximately 100 "FamilyLife: Weekend to Remember" conferences annually held in almost every major city in America. FamilyLife offers multiple resources like the HomeBuilders Couples Series, HomeBuilders Parenting Series, Resurrection Eggs, and What God Wants for Christmas.[16]
FamilyLife president Dennis Rainey hosts the daily FamilyLife Today radio broadcast.[17]

[edit] Josh McDowell

Main article: Josh McDowell
In 1964, Josh McDowell became a traveling representative of Campus Crusade for Christ International addressing campus groups about the Christian faith. Over the years his ministry has focused on Christian apologetics, youth issues such as relationships and sexuality, and international humanitarian aid.[18]
McDowell's writings have concentrated on addressing challenges to belief, questions posed by non-Christians, doubts about faith, and non-Christian religions. Notable works include Evidence That Demands A Verdict, The Resurrection Factor, He Walked Among Us, More Than A Carpenter and The Da Vinci Code: A Quest for Answers. McDowell has arranged his arguments by pleading for a cumulative case of evidences, such as archaeological discoveries, the extant manuscripts of the biblical texts, fulfilled prophecies, and the miracle of the resurrection.[citation needed]

[edit] Other ministries

The Christian Embassy is a Campus Crusade ministry with offices in a number cities around the world. Its United Nations office is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization.[19] Another office located in Washington, D.C., is geared towards the diplomatic community, including presidential employees, members and the staff of the United States Congress, and workers in The Pentagon. Its alleged influence among the military and in national politics has attracted attention from the media.[20][21]
Global Aid Network (GAiN) is the humanitarian aid arm of Campus Crusade for Christ.[citation needed] In 2007-2008 fiscal year GAiN distributed over $30 million worth of aid to countries all over the world.[citation needed] Global Aid Network exists to bring the message of God's love through tangible ways. GAiN is able to partner with many countries around the world, because of the wide network of Campus Crusade for Christ.[citation needed] GAiN also has several mission trips that go on year-round.[citation needed]

[edit] Military Ministry

The Military Ministry was started by Bright in 1966 and originally led by retired Colonel Glen Jones.[22] In July 2009 Christianity Today noted the organization's Bridges to Healing Ministry, which specifically addresses the issue of PTSD.[23] The Baltimore Chronicle in December 2007 published an article "Military Evangelism Deeper, Wider Than First Thought" that was critical of Military Ministries as well as other Christian evangelism organizations.[24]
Posted by at No comments:

Student Global AIDS Campaign

The Student Global AIDS Campaign (SGAC) is an advocacy group with more than 85 chapters at high schools, colleges, and universities across the United States. The group is committed to bringing an end to HIV and AIDS in the U.S. and around the world, and uses a wide variety of tactics to achieve its goals, including education on campuses, letter-writing and calling campaigns to decision-makers, public demonstrations, media work, and other activist tactics.
The organization often describes its mission in the short hand 'Fund the Fight, Treat the People, Drop the Debt, Stop the Spread'. The fuller vision statement is: "We envision a world in which AIDS is no longer a death sentence, in which economics and geography do not determine access to life-saving drugs, and where every woman, man, and child has the knowledge, means, and rights to protect her- or himself from infection." The campaign has therefore pushed for access to antiretroviral drugs, the elimination of third world debt, reform of global trade rules, and access to condoms.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Major events & recent successes

  • "Kick Coke Off Campus": SGAC joined with other AIDS activists to pressure Coca-Cola to treat its HIV+ workers in its African bottling plants
  • Bake Sale for the Global Fund: where SGACers sold brownies for $1 billion in front of representatives' and senators' offices to try to raise the money Congress wasn’t giving to the Global Fund
  • 04.Stop.AIDS: a loose network of HIV and AIDS activists, many of them SGACers, who went to presidential candidates' events and asked pointed questions until every Democratic Party candidate adopted a progressive platform on global AIDS (President George W. Bush refused to talk with the activists or allow them into events)
  • Student March Against AIDS: on February 26, 2005, SGAC held the second largest HIV and AIDS mobilization in U.S. history. More than 4,000 students and young people from around the country ralied together in DC for the Student March Against AIDS.
  • Gilead Sciences Corporate Campaign: in spring 2006, SGAC took on its second corporate campaign, this time targeting the marketers of second-line AIDS drugs who had failed to make those medicines accessible to lower and middle income countries. The company Gilead Sciences eventually made major consessions to make its drug Tenofovir more available and allow generic competition.
  • In the fall of 2006, SGAC began an expanded campaign focused on pushing for Universal Access to AIDS Treatment by the year 2010.[1]

[edit] History & founding

In February 2001, the Student Global AIDS Campaign and its parent organization, Global Justice, were founded simultaneously by students at Harvard and the Kennedy School of Government who saw the untapped potential of students to advocate political and social change on global HIV and AIDS and other issues of global justice. Global Justice became officially incorporated as a 501 (c)(3) organization, with the Student Global AIDS Campaign as its first campaign.
The first conference was a New England regional conference hosted by Harvard in the fall of 2001. That spring and the next fall regional conferences were also held at Indiana University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Williams College. In the spring of 2003, SGAC organized its first national conference (hosted by George Washington University), which was attended by more than 500 students from around the country.
As SGAC’s chapter base has grown so has its capacity for effective advocacy. SGAC’s first large rally was held in Boston in the spring of 2002 to demand that Senator John Kerry (who had declared himself the Senate AIDS leader) significantly increase the amount of funding for the Global Fund in the bill he was then writing.

[edit] Structure

SGAC is a youth- and student-led organization organized into chapters based at high schools or universities. There is a national Steering Committee (SC) of students from across the country. Elected by SGAC members for one-year terms, SC members deal with the day to day operation of the campaign and fill roles ranging from media coordination to outreach work. Decisions are made by consensus.

[edit] The Steering Committee 2008-2009


NamePositionSchoolEmail
Will NeviusNational Student OrganizerWillamette Universitywill.nevius@fightglobalaids.org
Caiti SchroeringChapter Development CoordinatorDenison Universitycaiti.schroering@fightglobalaids.org
David NortonCommunications and Technology CoordinatorUniversity of Oxforddavid.norton@fightglobalaids.org
Adeel ChaudhryPartnerships CoordinatorIndiana University-Bloomingtonadeel.chaudhry@fightglobalaids.org
Chris PlatanoGrassroots Action CoordinatorWillamette Universitychris.platano@fightglobalaids.org
Rachel GrayPolicy CoordinatorIndiana University-Bloomingtonrachel.gray@fightglobalaids.org
Michael HenrichHigh School CoordinatorLower Merion High Schoolmichael.henrich@fightglobalaids.org
Alexsis ReganNew England Regional OrganizerSaint Michael's Collegealexsis.regan@fightglobalaids.org
Jeremy CroweSoutheast Regional OrganizerUniversity of Memphisjeremy.crowe@fightglobalaids.org
Madeleine AmdurMidwest Regional OrganizerDenison Universitymadeleine.amdur@fightglobalaids.org
Angela BinghamWestern Regional OrganizerWillamette Universityangela.bingham@fightglobalaids.org

[edit] Global Justice

The Student Global AIDS Campaign's parent organization, Global Justice, is also home to other student-led campaigns on global trade and child survival. Global Justice also employs the staff that work on the Student Global AIDS Campaign, including a full time national organizer, a shared executive director, and support/communications staff. Global Justice is governed by a board of directors which has included such activists and intellectuals as Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Farmer, and ACT UP co-founder Eric Sawyer, as well as students from each of the group's campaigns. There is also an emerging alumni group of previous leaders who have now graduated
Posted by at No comments:

Student engagement

Student engagement occurs when "students make a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning the formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating or internalizing it in their lives."[1] It is increasingly seen as an indicator of successful classroom instruction, and as a valued outcome of school reform. The phrase was identified in 1996 as "the latest buzzword in education circles."[2] Students are engaged when they are involved in their work, persist despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishing their work.[3] Student engagement also refers to a "student's willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process promoting higher level thinking for enduring understanding."[4] Student engagement is also a usefully ambiguous term that can be used to recognize the complexity of 'engagement' beyond the fragmented domains of cognition, behaviour, emotion or affect, and in doing so encompass the historically situated individual within their contextual variables (such as personal and familial circumstances) that at every moment influence how engaged an individual (or group) is in their learning.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Definitions

Student engagement is frequently used to, "depict students' willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending class, submitting required work, and following teachers' directions in class."[5] However, the term is also increasingly used to describe meaningful student involvement throughout the learning environment, including students participating curriculum design, classroom management and school building climate.[6] It is also often used to refer as much to student involvement in extra-curricular activities in the campus life of a school/college/university which are thought to have educational benefits as it is to student focus on their curricular studies.[7]
In a number of studies student engagement has been identified as a desirable trait in schools; however, there is little consensus among students and educators as to how to define it.[8] A number of studies have shown that student engagement overlaps with, but is not the same as, student motivation.[9]
Definitions usually include a psychological and behavioral component. Student engagement is used to discuss students' attitudes towards school, while student disengagement identifies withdrawing from school in any significant way.[10]

[edit] Requirements

Student engagement requires that teachers actively seek to create the conditions that foster this reaction. The first step to whole-school improvement in the area of student engagement is for the entire building faculty to share a definition of student engagement.[11] Other steps include clear articulation of learning criteria with clear, immediate, and constructive feedback; show students the skills they need to be successful are within their grasp by clearly and systematically demonstrating these skills, and; demonstrate engagement in learning as a valuable aspect of their personalities.[12]
Relationships between students and adults in schools, and among students themselves, are a critical factor of student engagement. This is especially true among students considered to be at-risk and without other positive adult interaction.[13] There are several strategies for developing these relationships, including acknowledging student voice, increasing intergenerational equity and sustaining youth-adult partnerships throughout the learning environment.[14] There have been multiple formats identified for this type of engagement.[15]
The National Survey of Student Engagement identifies dozens of everyday indicators of student engagement throughout colleges and universities.[16]

[edit] Indicators

The term "student engagement" has been used to depict students' willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending classes, submitting required work, and following teachers' directions in class.[17] That includes participating in the activities offered as part of the school program[18] and student participation in school reform activities[19].
[Students] who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest.[20]
Another study identified five indicators for student engagement in college. They included the level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching education experiences and a supportive learning environment.[21]
Indicators of the absence of student engagement include unexcused absences from classes, cheating on tests, and damaging school property.[22]
The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected [students] are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges... [they can] be bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom; they can be withdrawn from learning opportunities or even rebellious towards teachers and classmates.[23]

[edit] Measuring student engagement

Assessing student engagement is seen as an essential step towards a school becoming a successful proponent.[24] Critical educators have raised concerns that definitions and assessments of student engagement are often exclusive to the values represented by dominant groups within the learning environment where the analysis is conducted.[25]
There are several methods to measure student engagement. They include self-reporting, such as surveys, questionnaires, checklists and rating scales. Researchers also use direct observations, work sample analyses, and focused case studies.[22]
National Survey of Student Engagement http://nsse.iub.edu/
Community College Survey of Student Engagement http://www.ccsse.org/
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
Hope Survey for Schools http://hopesurvey.org

[edit] Increasing student engagement

Several methods have been demonstrated to promote higher levels of student engagement. Instructors can enhance student engagement by encouraging students to become more active participants in their education through setting and achieving goals and by providing collaborative opportunities for educational research, planning, teaching, evaluation, and decision-making.[26] Providing teachers with training on how to promote student autonomy was beneficial in enhancing student engagement by providing students with a more autonomous environment, rather than a controlling environment. [27] Another method of promoting student engagement is through the use of learning communities, a technique that has a group of students taking the same classes together. [28] By being part of a group taking the same classes, students show an increase in academic performance and collaborative skills. [29] Increasing student engagement is especially important at the university level in increasing student persistence. [30] It may also increase students’ mastery of challenging material. [31]

[edit] Learning communities

Main article: Learning community
One method that has been gaining popularity in University teaching is the creation or encouragement of learning communities (Zhao and Kuh 2004). Learning communities are widely recognized as an effective form of student engagement and consist of groups of students that often form with the intention of increasing learning experiences through shared experience. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) defined four different types of learning communities: 1. Curricular communities which consist of students co-enrolled in multiple courses in the same field of study. 2. Classroom learning communities that focus on group learning activities in the classroom. 3. Residential learning communities that are formed off-campus that provide out of the classroom learning and discussion opportunities. 4. Student-type learning communities that are created for special groups of students. Within learning communities, students are able to interact with peers who share similar interests and stimulate conversation about the topic. Such conversations are beneficial because they expose the members of the community to new ideas and methods. Students that are a part of such communities are therefore able to generate and construct their knowledge and understanding through inquisitive conversations with peers, as opposed to being given information by the instructor. This type of engagement in the field leads to a deep understanding of the material and gives the student a personal connection to the topic (Zhao and Kuh 2004).
Organizing classrooms into learning communities allows instructors to constantly gather evidence of student learning to inform and improve their professional practice. They use common assessments and make results from those assessments easily accessible and openly shared among members of the team in order to build on individual and team strengths and to identify and address areas of concern. Results are then used to identify students who are experiencing difficulty and need additional time and support for learning as well as students who are highly proficient and require enrichment and extension. Learning community programs also improve students' interpersonal dialogue, collaboration, and experiential learning within the context of diversity, these programs address a decreasing sense of community and connection and allow students to relate their college-level learning to larger personal and global questions.

[edit] School climate

Main article: School climate
The J. Erik Jonsson Community School (3 yeard-old-5th grade) in Dallas, TX has a simple formula for success: "Powerful Pedagogy + trusting relationships = student engagement" (Journal of Staff Develoment, 2008). The majority of research is done is early education (Pre-School-5th), but this sentiment rings equally true in higher education. Accplishing that end is near impossible in introductory, general education classes with class enrollments reaching up to 300 students at some schools but relationship-building is a skill that is under-appreciated in the "college experience".

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Newmann, F. (1992) Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. Teachers College Press. pp. 2–3.
  2. ^ Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design. Oryx/Greenwood. p. 37
  3. ^ Schlechty, P. (1994). "Increasing Student Engagement." Missouri Leadership Academy. p. 5.
  4. ^ Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). "The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation." Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. p. 294.
  5. ^ Chapman, E. (2003) "Assessing student engagement rates," ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. ERIC identifier: ED482269.
  6. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Guide to Students as Partners in School Change. Olympia, WA: SoundOut. Retrieved 2/20/08.
  7. '^ Donald Markwell (2007), A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing & Trinity College, University of Melbourne.
  8. ^ Farmer-Dougan, Farmer-Dougan and McKinney, K. (nd) "Examining Student Engagement at Illinois State University: An Exploratory Investigation." Center for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  9. ^ Sharan, S. Shachar, H. and Levine, T. (1999) The Innovative School: organization and instruction. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 85.
  10. ^ Willms, J.D. (2003) Student Engagement at School: a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. i.
  11. ^ Berardi, L. and Gerschick, T. (nd) "University Faculty Members' Perceptions of Student Engagement: An Interview Study. Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  12. ^ Strong, R. Silver, H. and Robinson, A. (1995) "What do students want (and what really motivates them)?" Educational Leadership. September. p. 25.
  13. ^ McCombs, B.L., & Pope, J.E. (1994). "Motivating hard to reach students." Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  14. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Stories of meaningful student involvement. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 19.
  15. ^ Schunk, D. and Meece, J. (1992) Student Perceptions in the Classroom. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 27.
  16. ^ (nd) Definitions. Longwood University. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  17. ^ Chapman, E. (2003). "Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved 7/2/07.
  18. ^ Natriello, G. (1984). "Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17 p. 14.
  19. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 4.
  20. ^ Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). "Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year." Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4). p. 572.
  21. ^ Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) p. 37
  22. ^ a b Chapman, E. (2003).
  23. ^ Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993).
  24. ^ (2005) "UTC working to enhance student engagement". University of Tennessee - Chattanooga. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  25. ^ Hurtado, S. (1999) "Reaffirming Educators Judgment: Educational Value of Diversity." Liberal Education, Spring, p. 28
  26. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Meaningful Student Involvement Guide to Students as Partners in School Change. Olympia, WA: SoundOut. Retrieved 10/20/10.
  27. ^ Reeve,J. ,Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. and Barch, J. 2004. Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’ Autonomy Support. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 28, 147-169.
  28. ^ Zhao, C. and G.D. Kuh. 2004. Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, 115-138.
  29. ^ Zhao, C. and G.D. Kuh. 2004. Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, 115-138.
  30. ^ Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M. and R. Shoup. 2008. Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol.79, 540-563.
  31. ^ Hake, R.R. 1997. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. Vol. 66, 64- 74.
Posted by at No comments:

Student engagement

Student engagement occurs when "students make a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning the formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating or internalizing it in their lives."[1] It is increasingly seen as an indicator of successful classroom instruction, and as a valued outcome of school reform. The phrase was identified in 1996 as "the latest buzzword in education circles."[2] Students are engaged when they are involved in their work, persist despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishing their work.[3] Student engagement also refers to a "student's willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process promoting higher level thinking for enduring understanding."[4] Student engagement is also a usefully ambiguous term that can be used to recognize the complexity of 'engagement' beyond the fragmented domains of cognition, behaviour, emotion or affect, and in doing so encompass the historically situated individual within their contextual variables (such as personal and familial circumstances) that at every moment influence how engaged an individual (or group) is in their learning.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Definitions

Student engagement is frequently used to, "depict students' willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending class, submitting required work, and following teachers' directions in class."[5] However, the term is also increasingly used to describe meaningful student involvement throughout the learning environment, including students participating curriculum design, classroom management and school building climate.[6] It is also often used to refer as much to student involvement in extra-curricular activities in the campus life of a school/college/university which are thought to have educational benefits as it is to student focus on their curricular studies.[7]
In a number of studies student engagement has been identified as a desirable trait in schools; however, there is little consensus among students and educators as to how to define it.[8] A number of studies have shown that student engagement overlaps with, but is not the same as, student motivation.[9]
Definitions usually include a psychological and behavioral component. Student engagement is used to discuss students' attitudes towards school, while student disengagement identifies withdrawing from school in any significant way.[10]

[edit] Requirements

Student engagement requires that teachers actively seek to create the conditions that foster this reaction. The first step to whole-school improvement in the area of student engagement is for the entire building faculty to share a definition of student engagement.[11] Other steps include clear articulation of learning criteria with clear, immediate, and constructive feedback; show students the skills they need to be successful are within their grasp by clearly and systematically demonstrating these skills, and; demonstrate engagement in learning as a valuable aspect of their personalities.[12]
Relationships between students and adults in schools, and among students themselves, are a critical factor of student engagement. This is especially true among students considered to be at-risk and without other positive adult interaction.[13] There are several strategies for developing these relationships, including acknowledging student voice, increasing intergenerational equity and sustaining youth-adult partnerships throughout the learning environment.[14] There have been multiple formats identified for this type of engagement.[15]
The National Survey of Student Engagement identifies dozens of everyday indicators of student engagement throughout colleges and universities.[16]

[edit] Indicators

The term "student engagement" has been used to depict students' willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending classes, submitting required work, and following teachers' directions in class.[17] That includes participating in the activities offered as part of the school program[18] and student participation in school reform activities[19].
[Students] who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest.[20]
Another study identified five indicators for student engagement in college. They included the level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching education experiences and a supportive learning environment.[21]
Indicators of the absence of student engagement include unexcused absences from classes, cheating on tests, and damaging school property.[22]
The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected [students] are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges... [they can] be bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom; they can be withdrawn from learning opportunities or even rebellious towards teachers and classmates.[23]

[edit] Measuring student engagement

Assessing student engagement is seen as an essential step towards a school becoming a successful proponent.[24] Critical educators have raised concerns that definitions and assessments of student engagement are often exclusive to the values represented by dominant groups within the learning environment where the analysis is conducted.[25]
There are several methods to measure student engagement. They include self-reporting, such as surveys, questionnaires, checklists and rating scales. Researchers also use direct observations, work sample analyses, and focused case studies.[22]
National Survey of Student Engagement http://nsse.iub.edu/
Community College Survey of Student Engagement http://www.ccsse.org/
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
Hope Survey for Schools http://hopesurvey.org

[edit] Increasing student engagement

Several methods have been demonstrated to promote higher levels of student engagement. Instructors can enhance student engagement by encouraging students to become more active participants in their education through setting and achieving goals and by providing collaborative opportunities for educational research, planning, teaching, evaluation, and decision-making.[26] Providing teachers with training on how to promote student autonomy was beneficial in enhancing student engagement by providing students with a more autonomous environment, rather than a controlling environment. [27] Another method of promoting student engagement is through the use of learning communities, a technique that has a group of students taking the same classes together. [28] By being part of a group taking the same classes, students show an increase in academic performance and collaborative skills. [29] Increasing student engagement is especially important at the university level in increasing student persistence. [30] It may also increase students’ mastery of challenging material. [31]

[edit] Learning communities

Main article: Learning community
One method that has been gaining popularity in University teaching is the creation or encouragement of learning communities (Zhao and Kuh 2004). Learning communities are widely recognized as an effective form of student engagement and consist of groups of students that often form with the intention of increasing learning experiences through shared experience. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) defined four different types of learning communities: 1. Curricular communities which consist of students co-enrolled in multiple courses in the same field of study. 2. Classroom learning communities that focus on group learning activities in the classroom. 3. Residential learning communities that are formed off-campus that provide out of the classroom learning and discussion opportunities. 4. Student-type learning communities that are created for special groups of students. Within learning communities, students are able to interact with peers who share similar interests and stimulate conversation about the topic. Such conversations are beneficial because they expose the members of the community to new ideas and methods. Students that are a part of such communities are therefore able to generate and construct their knowledge and understanding through inquisitive conversations with peers, as opposed to being given information by the instructor. This type of engagement in the field leads to a deep understanding of the material and gives the student a personal connection to the topic (Zhao and Kuh 2004).
Organizing classrooms into learning communities allows instructors to constantly gather evidence of student learning to inform and improve their professional practice. They use common assessments and make results from those assessments easily accessible and openly shared among members of the team in order to build on individual and team strengths and to identify and address areas of concern. Results are then used to identify students who are experiencing difficulty and need additional time and support for learning as well as students who are highly proficient and require enrichment and extension. Learning community programs also improve students' interpersonal dialogue, collaboration, and experiential learning within the context of diversity, these programs address a decreasing sense of community and connection and allow students to relate their college-level learning to larger personal and global questions.

[edit] School climate

Main article: School climate
The J. Erik Jonsson Community School (3 yeard-old-5th grade) in Dallas, TX has a simple formula for success: "Powerful Pedagogy + trusting relationships = student engagement" (Journal of Staff Develoment, 2008). The majority of research is done is early education (Pre-School-5th), but this sentiment rings equally true in higher education. Accplishing that end is near impossible in introductory, general education classes with class enrollments reaching up to 300 students at some schools but relationship-building is a skill that is under-appreciated in the "college experience".

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Newmann, F. (1992) Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. Teachers College Press. pp. 2–3.
  2. ^ Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design. Oryx/Greenwood. p. 37
  3. ^ Schlechty, P. (1994). "Increasing Student Engagement." Missouri Leadership Academy. p. 5.
  4. ^ Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). "The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation." Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. p. 294.
  5. ^ Chapman, E. (2003) "Assessing student engagement rates," ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. ERIC identifier: ED482269.
  6. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Guide to Students as Partners in School Change. Olympia, WA: SoundOut. Retrieved 2/20/08.
  7. '^ Donald Markwell (2007), A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing & Trinity College, University of Melbourne.
  8. ^ Farmer-Dougan, Farmer-Dougan and McKinney, K. (nd) "Examining Student Engagement at Illinois State University: An Exploratory Investigation." Center for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  9. ^ Sharan, S. Shachar, H. and Levine, T. (1999) The Innovative School: organization and instruction. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 85.
  10. ^ Willms, J.D. (2003) Student Engagement at School: a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. i.
  11. ^ Berardi, L. and Gerschick, T. (nd) "University Faculty Members' Perceptions of Student Engagement: An Interview Study. Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  12. ^ Strong, R. Silver, H. and Robinson, A. (1995) "What do students want (and what really motivates them)?" Educational Leadership. September. p. 25.
  13. ^ McCombs, B.L., & Pope, J.E. (1994). "Motivating hard to reach students." Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  14. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Stories of meaningful student involvement. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 19.
  15. ^ Schunk, D. and Meece, J. (1992) Student Perceptions in the Classroom. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 27.
  16. ^ (nd) Definitions. Longwood University. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  17. ^ Chapman, E. (2003). "Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved 7/2/07.
  18. ^ Natriello, G. (1984). "Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17 p. 14.
  19. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 4.
  20. ^ Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). "Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year." Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4). p. 572.
  21. ^ Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) p. 37
  22. ^ a b Chapman, E. (2003).
  23. ^ Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993).
  24. ^ (2005) "UTC working to enhance student engagement". University of Tennessee - Chattanooga. Retrieved 7/2/07.
  25. ^ Hurtado, S. (1999) "Reaffirming Educators Judgment: Educational Value of Diversity." Liberal Education, Spring, p. 28
  26. ^ Fletcher, A. (2005) Meaningful Student Involvement Guide to Students as Partners in School Change. Olympia, WA: SoundOut. Retrieved 10/20/10.
  27. ^ Reeve,J. ,Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. and Barch, J. 2004. Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’ Autonomy Support. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 28, 147-169.
  28. ^ Zhao, C. and G.D. Kuh. 2004. Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, 115-138.
  29. ^ Zhao, C. and G.D. Kuh. 2004. Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, 115-138.
  30. ^ Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M. and R. Shoup. 2008. Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol.79, 540-563.
  31. ^ Hake, R.R. 1997. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. Vol. 66, 64- 74.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)