View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Concept of Engagement in Physical Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Concept of Engagement in Physical Education
Language: English
Authors: Hastie, Peter A. (ORCID 0000-0002-3727-6006), Stringfellow, Andy (ORCID 0000-0001-9233-9201), Johnson, Jerraco L. (ORCID 0000-0001-8086-2679), Dixon, Cory E., Hollett, Nikki, Ward, Kurt (ORCID 0000-0002-8198-2063)
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2022 27(1):1-18.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Student Participation, Physical Education, Learner Engagement, Educational Research, Research Methodology, Student Behavior, Elementary Secondary Education, Self Determination, Predictor Variables
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1861231
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: The concept of engagement is a multidimensional construct that has long been used by researchers as a means of explaining student behaviour in classrooms and schools. However, the research using this construct within physical education has been particularly uneven. Purpose: The goal of this paper was to examine the application of the concept of student engagement with the research literature on physical education. Method: The scoping review was conducted using the boundaries of including the terms 'physical education' and 'engagement' in the title, being located specifically within physical education settings, and focused on student (rather than teacher) engagement. Results: Analysis of the corpus of papers led to the conclusion that studies could be grouped into five categories, with each differentiated by source, involvement of theory, methodology, definitions of engagement, and intended audience. These were given the following labels: (i) studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement (ii) figurative studies (iii) single dimension studies, (iv) qualitative studies, and (v) reviews and practitioner-oriented papers. Discussion: Given the considerable diversity in the application of the term engagement, it is recommended that future research in the field (no matter the intended audience), should consider the author's interpretation of the term formally somewhere in the introduction. In addition, it is proposed that future empirical research examining student engagement in physical education could also benefit from including evidence of both student self-perceptions about their engagement as well as observations of their in-class behaviours.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1323397
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGiKzf0kOiX69TUr6W0XjxPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMns6AdmNnDqcPoYwQIBEICBmwd3rryvQhqc7YjU2str8l3NhuM18m24qWm5zKUBPt_HOKBsM-AaG6W_vINg5cpSkI1Nr08P8DcMIxhrNfa29O2eI-ubkRy6ci9E4Xlxp3i8Yxv7Sb3Q-o9B57anu0Qx3evoiqB81m3gap9HTC7R_6tvYBoDAdILlkSDqJh4a4olKTXylC4u-XdYVR415fX1bXO1lwgNvF_ovOBB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0153952172;z3x01jan.22;2021Dec07.02:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0153952172-1">Examining the concept of engagement in physical education </title> <p>The concept of engagement is a multidimensional construct that has long been used by researchers as a means of explaining student behaviour in classrooms and schools. However, the research using this construct within physical education has been particularly uneven. The goal of this paper was to examine the application of the concept of student engagement with the research literature on physical education. The scoping review was conducted using the boundaries of including the terms 'physical education' and 'engagement' in the title, being located specifically within physical education settings, and focused on student (rather than teacher) engagement. Analysis of the corpus of papers led to the conclusion that studies could be grouped into five categories, with each differentiated by source, involvement of theory, methodology, definitions of engagement, and intended audience. These were given the following labels: (i) studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement (ii) figurative studies (iii) single dimension studies, (iv) qualitative studies, and (v) reviews and practitioner-oriented papers. Given the considerable diversity in the application of the term engagement, it is recommended that future research in the field (no matter the intended audience), should consider the author's interpretation of the term formally somewhere in the introduction. In addition, it is proposed that future empirical research examining student engagement in physical education could also benefit from including evidence of both student self-perceptions about their engagement as well as observations of their in-class behaviours.</p> <p>Keywords: Scoping review; sport pedagogy; student achievement and learning</p> <p>If we were to casually ask a random set of teachers whether a high priority is to have their students highly engaged in lessons, it would be fair to say they would reply with a resounding 'yes'. It would also be fair to say if we asked those teachers to provide a specific definition of 'engagement', there would be considerable variability in their responses. What is more likely would be examples of 'extensional definitions' (which try to list the objects/behaviours that a term describes; Lyons [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref1">49</reflink>]), or 'ostensive definitions' (which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples; Wittgenstein [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref2">100</reflink>]). Engagement, then, is similar to other constructs such as 'obscenity', described by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart as 'I know it when I see it' (<emph>Jacobellis v. Ohio</emph>[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref3">43</reflink>]). Nonetheless, while there are subtle differences in the manner in which 'being engaged' is conceptualized, it is clear that to be engaged is more than being involved or merely participating; it requires feelings and sense-making as well as activity (Harper and Quaye [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref4">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is the purpose of this paper to examine the concept of student engagement given that research has highlighted its critical role in student achievement and learning (Trowler and Trowler [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref5">90</reflink>]). That is, student engagement would seem critical for the achievement of the goals of physical education that are reflected in curriculum documents across the globe that described physically literate/educated individuals (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref6">91</reflink>]). That is, it is reasonable to expect that for an individual to achieve high levels of motor competence, accrue health-enhancing levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity, as well as knowledge related to fitness and movement performance, there would need to be a certain level of engagement in class activities. Indeed, a cursory literature search using the terms 'physical education' and 'engagement' produces over 3000 hits. That being said, within the <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> journal, only the paper by Van den Berghe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref7">92</reflink>]) provides a formal definition of engagement and includes measurement variables that target specific behaviours beyond physical activity counts or simple participation in class events.</p> <p>While early discussions of engagement were wide-ranging, more recently there has been a development of some consensus. Originally, researchers viewed engagement as academic and social success as it related to dropping out of school (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]). By consequence, studies seemed more concerned with student experiences of the school on a macro level, and examples of engagement included participation in extracurricular activities or involvement in school-sponsored events. Over time, the focus began to shift to student behaviour in the classroom, to where more recently, researchers have begun to examine student behaviour in classroom tasks and participation in academic work.</p> <p>As a starting point for this paper, we adhere to the Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]) notion that engagement is a multidimensional construct involving behavioural (effort and active involvement), cognitive (self-regulation and investment), and emotional (positive attitude and interest) aspects. Notwithstanding, however, it is essential to acknowledge that Reeve and Tseng ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref10">72</reflink>]) have noted that some students become so deeply involved in the lesson that they actually contribute to the evolution and growth of the lesson, a concept they labelled as 'agentic engagement.' More specifically, student actions indicating agentic engagement include expressing their preferences, asking questions, and letting the teacher know what they like, need, and want.</p> <p>What is missing within the sport pedagogy literature is an all-inclusive inquiry into the concept of student engagement, with the goal of examining how it is conceptualized, and to examine the extent, range and nature of research that has utilized the term. Given this goal, a scoping review (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]) was the preferred review procedure for this study. The scoping nature of such a review allows the researcher to 'map' the relevant literature and key concepts underpinning a specific topic (Anderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]) and is considered particularly advantageous when the topic under question is heterogeneous in nature (Mays, Roberts, and Popay [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref13">52</reflink>]). Given the open-ended nature of the term 'engagement', a scoping review, rather than a traditional systematic review, would seem highly appropriate. As McEvoy, MacPhail, and Heikinaro-Johansson ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref14">53</reflink>], 163) note, the intent of such a review is to 'determine what questions have been asked so far, how such questions have been asked and to what end'.</p> <p>Scoping reviews have become somewhat fashionable in the sport pedagogy literature of late, with topics including outsourcing of HPE (Sperka, Enright, and McCuaig [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref15">86</reflink>]), online and blended instruction (Killian, Kinder, and Woods [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref16">44</reflink>]), teacher socialization (Richards, Pennington, and Sinelnikov [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref17">74</reflink>]) and teacher satisfaction (Richards et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref18">75</reflink>]). In all of these studies, the goal was presented in terms of putting together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, with each additional piece resulting in a clearer picture of the central concept.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153952172-3">Review boundaries and selection criteria</hd> <p>In contrast to previous scoping reviews in sport pedagogy, the boundaries for this study were particularly broad. For example, there was no limit put on the date of publication and no limits placed on the publication language. Theoretical and conceptual papers, as well as those directed primarily to practicing teachers were also included.</p> <p>That being said, to make the data set manageable, and to yield a review that would help to provide scholars with a useful context when addressing student engagement in physical education, a number of selection criteria were put in place prior to searching the appropriate databases. Specifically, we searched for articles that (a) included the terms 'physical education' and 'engagement' in the title of the paper, (b) were located specifically within physical education settings (in contrast to after-school, school in general, or school sports settings), (c) included discussion of student engagement (in contrast those focusing exclusively on teacher engagement), and (d) excluded dissertations or government reports.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-4">Database search</hd> <p>The literature gathering process began with a search of the following electronic databases: SportDiscus, ERIC, PsychInfo, and MEDLINE. These databases were selected as they encompass a comprehensive catalogue of education and physical education literature. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the search strategy and screening of identified research for inclusion. The initial database search using the terms physical education and engagement resulted in 3471 papers. When these were delimited to both terms in the titles of papers, the result ended with 156 papers for potential inclusion in the review. A further 55 of these were excluded as they were not focusing on the teaching/learning process, but more on global aspects such as engagement in school. That is, they were not concerned with pedagogy in the sense in which it is conceptualized in this journal. Where the data did not include specific reference to students' engagement, these were also discarded. Samples include topics such as teachers' engagement in professional development (e.g. Sato and Haegele [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref19">79</reflink>]) or teaching practice (e.g. Leirhaug and MacPhail [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]). Finally, the limiting of papers to journal publications resulted in a final sample of 4 papers for inclusion in the final review. It should be acknowledged that the strict use of the English term 'engagement' potentially limits cases where other equivalent terms are used.</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 1. Flow diagram of the search strategy and screening of identified research.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-5">Data extraction</hd> <p>As the overall approach of the study was to provide an inclusive account of engagement, but keeping true to this notion of the challenge of representing the heterogeneous nature of its application, all papers were entered into a single table with five preliminary headings. In the first column, the paper and its outlet were included to provide an idea of the target audience, ranging from practicing teachers in schools or academic researchers. The second column included details of the participant population and context. The primary goal here was to provide evidence of the validity to the selection of papers in that they focused on young people in physical education. A secondary advantage of including this column is that it gives an idea of the sites where engagement research/topics have taken place. We were also interested in the theoretical foundations of these papers (column 3), and whether they were reported. These data give us an idea of how engagement was couched within the literature in the field of education and psychology. The fourth column provided an idea of whether the authors gave a formal definition of engagement, which would provide some idea of the extent to which authors followed the more regarded definition of engagement in the educational literature as an active, effortful, goal-directed interaction with one's learning environment (Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref21">84</reflink>]). Finally, we were interested in the extent to which papers measured engagement, particularly given Appleton's notion that it is a multidimensional construct. Details of any measures were included in the fifth column.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-6">Data analysis</hd> <p>Once the papers were organized into the original large table, they were subject to an inductive review and analysis that is typical in qualitative research. First, four of the authors who had spent a semester of doctoral coursework reading and reviewing academic literature on engagement were allocated 24 papers to read and catalogue. This allowed for each paper to be examined by two readers. For each paper, the following tasks were presented and data recorded in four columns: (i) did the paper formally define engagement (and if so, how)? (ii) which elements of engagement were referenced in the paper? (iii) was engagement formally measured? and if so, what instruments were used? (iv) if engagement was not measured with some form of psychometric test, how was it conceptualized? The first author, who had completed this process with all 48 papers, then collated the outcomes of these audit to determine the degree of agreement between his interpretation and those of the readers. Where discrepancies occurred, the paper was discussed and consensus reached.</p> <p>Once the data were entered into the tables, we used the scrutinizing technique identified by Ryan and Bernard ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref22">77</reflink>]) to discover themes. According to these authors, 'You know you have found a theme when you can answer the question, what is this expression an example of?' (<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref23">87</reflink>). This process was first completed within the columns of text (e.g. was there a formal definition), which was using mostly a priori characteristics. Analysis then moved across the columns of text. Here, we searched for 'repetitions' (topics that occur and reoccur), as well as 'similarities and differences' (what Glaser and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>] called the 'constant comparison method'). Finally, a more inductive process followed which involved testing possible combinations that led to integrating of categories and their definitions to form overarching themes.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-7">Results</hd> <p>Unlike previous scoping reviews in physical education that have presented their data in a single table, the analysis of the corpus of publications in this case led to the creation of five unique tables. While there are some consistencies across tables (source, theory and definitions of engagement), each is presented in a way that provides the reader with the most inclusive account of the papers that are represented and reflects the validity of the theme for that table. The belief was that summarizing engagement as presented in publications that addressed different audiences and used different methodologies would provide a more comprehensive and useful analysis than one which presented the literature set using a set of a priori categories. The tabular themes have been given the following labels: (i) studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement (ii) figurative studies (iii) single dimension studies, (iv) qualitative studies, and (v) reviews and practitioner-oriented papers.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-8">Studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement</hd> <p>The studies in Table 1 are similar in that they all have a formal definition of engagement in the introduction to the paper, and all use quantitative measures of engagement that have appeared previously in the literature. Of note, those definitions and measures recognize engagement as a multidimensional entity, including behaviour, cognitive and emotional dimensions, although not all of these were measured within all studies. In addition to a level of rigour in operationalizing engagement, each of the papers is grounded in a particular theoretical framework (predominantly self-determination theory). What is more disparate within this sample of studies, however, is the mix between self-report data (<emph>n</emph> = 7) and direct observation (<emph>n</emph> = 3), with three papers using both methods.</p> <p>Table 1. Studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Participants and context</td><td>Theoretical framework</td><td>Formal definition of engagement</td><td>Measurement of engagement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Aelterman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2012</xref>) <italic>J Sport Ex Psycol</italic></td><td>739 students 46 secondary school classes Flanders, Belgium</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>Students' active involvement in a task or activity as can be derived from their attention, effort, verbal participation, persistence and positive emotion</td><td>Observation system (from Reeve et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2004</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Bevans et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2010</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>2,018 students 5th–8th grades USA</td><td>Achievement goal theory</td><td>Composed of behavioural, affective, and cognitive indicators of students' investment in and connections to their academic environment</td><td>Student Engagement in Physical Education scale (from Resnick et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">1997</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Garn et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2017</xref>) <italic>Psyc Sport Ex</italic></td><td>202 students university undergraduates USA</td><td>Control-value theory</td><td>Active, effortful, goal-directed interaction with one's learning environment (Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>)</td><td>Behavioural engagement subscale, and emotional engagement subscale (from Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Otundo and Garn (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2019</xref>) <italic>Int J Educ Psyc</italic></td><td>388 students 5 middle schools USA</td><td>Interest theory Hidi & Renninger, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2006</xref></td><td>Active participation in classroom activities</td><td>Behavioural engagement subscale, and emotional engagement subscale (from Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Shen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2012</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>184 students 3 high schools USA</td><td>Self-System Model of Motivational Development</td><td>Active, goal-directed, persistent, and focused interactions with learning tasks. (behavioural and emotional dimensions)</td><td>The teacher-report engagement questionnaire (from Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>). Student self-report of behavioural and emotional engagement (from Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Van den Berghe et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr93">2015</xref>) <italic>J Sport Ex Psyc</italic></td><td>33 PE teachers, 2004 students high school Flanders, Belgium</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>The quality of a students' involvement with the endeavour of schooling and with the people, activities, goals, values, and places that compose it (Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>) (behavioural and emotional dimensions)</td><td>Dutch version of the student and teacher report of the engagement versus disaffection with learning scale (from Skinner et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2008</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Van den Berghe et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2016</xref>) <italic>PESP</italic></td><td>100 videotaped PE lessons randomly chosen out of an existing dataset Students 12–18 yrs. Flanders, Belgium</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>Students are engaged in a lesson when they listen to the teacher, enjoy doing the exercises, show effort and persistence, or answer the teacher's questions (Furrer and Skinner <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2003</xref>).</td><td>Single class-level score to each of the 5 items (scored 0-3): students listening, being energetic, persistent, having fun, and asking questions</td></tr><tr><td>Xiang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr101">2017</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>331 students aged 11–18 yrs. 4 public schools Turkey</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>Behavioural: students' effort, persistence and on-task behaviour demonstrated in learning Cognitive: students' perceived competence and application of self-regulation strategies Emotional: students' attitudes toward and interest and values in learning</td><td>Students' perceptions of behavioural, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement (from Ağbuğa et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Yoo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2015</xref>). <italic>Percept Motor Skill</italic></td><td>592 students middle school Korea</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>Students' active, goal-directed, persistent, and focused interactions with learning tasks (Shen et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2012</xref>)</td><td>The Engagement Questionnaire in PE (from Shen et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2012</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>It is this group of studies that most closely relates engagement to constructs of motivation. It is perhaps unsurprising to find that over half the papers are located in sports and exercise psychology journals. While all of them involve some variant of regression analysis (including multivariant and path analysis), the application of engagement varies between a predictor (<emph>n</emph> = 4) or outcome variable (<emph>n</emph> = 6), with one study (Van den Berghe et al. [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref25">92</reflink>]) examining the bidirectional relationship between engagement and need-supportive/need-thwarting teaching behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-9">Figurative studies</hd> <p>The papers in Table 2 do not provide formal and explicit definitions of engagement within their introductions. Rather, they have some formative or mimetic representation of the concept (<emph>n</emph> = 10) or never define or cross-reference engagement (<emph>n</emph> = 4). While lacking the formal definitions of engagement seen in Table 1, nearly all the papers in Table 2 (12/14) have a section within the method where they operationalize it. In the remaining two, the measure of engagement is inferred rather than made explicit.</p> <p>Table 2. Figurative studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Participants and context</td><td>Theoretical framework</td><td>Representation of engagement</td><td>Engagement measure (defined)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chatoupis and Vagenas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2017</xref>) <italic>Phys Educator</italic></td><td>60 ten-year-old students 3rd–5th grades Greece</td><td /><td>Amount of practice time</td><td>Number of practice trials (Goldberger & Gerney, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">1990</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Derri, Vasiliadou, and Kioumourtzoglou (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2015</xref>) <italic>Euro J Tch Ed</italic></td><td>32 elementary school physical education teachers 707 students 1st grade Greece</td><td /><td>Opportunities for appropriate practice</td><td>Student activity time, and practice trials (total and successful ones).</td></tr><tr><td>Gairns, Whipp, and Jackson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>). <italic>Frontiers in Psyc</italic></td><td>374 female students 7th–10th grades Australia</td><td>Self-determination theory Tripartite efficacy model</td><td>Linked to motivation</td><td>Single question to teachers: 'Over this week, what level of engagement has this student shown in your PE class?' [7-point Likert scale response]</td></tr><tr><td>Gao (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2009</xref>) <italic>J App Sport Psyc</italic></td><td>307 students 6th–8th grades USA</td><td>Expectancy-value model</td><td>Participation</td><td>4-item Likert scale questions (Daigle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2003</xref>).</td></tr><tr><td>Griffey and Housner (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">1991</xref>) <italic>RQES</italic></td><td>16 teachers 64 students elementary school USA</td><td /><td>Classroom behaviour (on-off task)</td><td>Anderson's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">1980</xref>) student engagement coding system. (on-, off-task, listening, waiting etc.).</td></tr><tr><td>Hirsch et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2016</xref>) <italic>J App Behav Anal</italic></td><td>21 students 2nd grade USA</td><td>Group contingencies to manage student behaviour ABAB design</td><td>Participation and on-task behaviour</td><td>5-sec momentary time sampling of the whole class</td></tr><tr><td>Silverman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">1985</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>102 students university undergraduates 5 classes USA</td><td /><td>Number, type, and quality of practice trials</td><td>Second-by-second recording using ALT-PE instrument</td></tr><tr><td>Silverman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">1985</xref>) <italic>RQES</italic></td><td>102 students university undergraduates 5 classes USA</td><td /><td>Number, type, and quality of practice trials</td><td>Second-by-second recording using ALT-PE instrument</td></tr><tr><td>Coledam and Ferraiol (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2017</xref>) <italic>Sao Paulo Med J</italic></td><td>737 students 10–17 years Brazil</td><td /><td>**</td><td>2 self-report questions: Did you participate in PE? How active were you?</td></tr><tr><td>Garn, Ware, and Solmon (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2011</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>105 students 9th – 10th grades USA</td><td>Achievement goal theory</td><td>**</td><td>Students' self-reported effort toward PE. (4 items from Guan et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2006</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Wilson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2012</xref>) <italic>Sport, Ex, & Perf Psych</italic></td><td>577 students 5th – 7th grades Canada</td><td>Transformational leadership theory</td><td>**</td><td>Engagement subscale from the student forms of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scale (ACES; DiPerna & Elliott, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2000</xref>) was adapted for use within PE</td></tr><tr><td>Xiang, Chen, and Gao (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">2013</xref>) Asian J Ex <italic>Sport Sci</italic></td><td>92 middle school and 83 high school students 6 schools Hong Kong</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>**</td><td>7 items adapted Guan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2006</xref>) assessed students' effort, persistence, and use of self-regulation strategies</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><bold>Engagement measure (inferred)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Bryan and Solmon (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2012</xref>) <italic>J Sport Behav</italic></td><td>114 students 6th – 8th grades USA</td><td>Self-determination theory, Mediating processes paradigm, Cognitive mediational paradigm</td><td>Linked to motivation</td><td>Self-reported PA and pedometers</td></tr><tr><td>Logan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2013</xref>) <italic>EPER</italic></td><td>25 children mean age 4.03 years USA</td><td>Achievement Goal Theory</td><td>Practice trials (as a measure of task persistence)</td><td>Number of skill attempts (practice trials)</td></tr><tr><td>Nye (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2010</xref>) <italic>VAHPERD J</italic></td><td>53 students 9th & 10th grades USA</td><td /><td>Willingness to make a psychological investment</td><td>Academic Learning Time in PE (ALT-PE)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 **Engagement was never defined or cross-referenced.</p> <p>Engagement in these papers is almost exclusively limited to the behavioural dimension. For example, five studies associated engagement with practice time/trials or opportunities for practice, while a further four focus on participation. By consequence, the measures of engagement in these studies involved a high percentage of direct observation protocols (66%). Even then, those that relied on self-report asked participants to rate their participation, or physical activity. Only two papers involving self-report included engagement elements reflecting more intentional elements such as effort or persistence.</p> <p>Papers in Table 2 were also less likely to be grounded in a theoretical framework (7/14). A further difference was greater variability in those frameworks. While self-determination theory was again the most frequent (3/7), other theories from psychology were also evident (e.g. achievement goal theory, mediating processes, or expectancy-values). As before, these studies (except for Logan et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]) appeared in sport and exercise science journals.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-10">Single dimension studies</hd> <p>The studies listed in Table 3 all focus on a single dimension of engagement, with the majority of these being on engagement in physical activity. Indeed, the term 'physical activity engagement' appears in the title of three of the five pieces. Even so, while physical activity is central to these studies, there was considerable divergence in its measurement, with observation systems, self-report and objective measures using accelerometers being used. What is consistent, however, is that engagement itself is never defined within the introduction and seems limited to either a proxy for participation (papers of Coolkens et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>] and Michaud et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref28">59</reflink>]), or as time spent in physical activity (those of Gaus, Gray, and Wendt [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>], Grasten and Watt [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]; and Gu, Solmon, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). The first papers were examining students' involvement in a particular physical activity intervention (either parkour or a team pentathlon), while those focusing on physical activity were more interested in predicting activity engagement from several hypothesized concepts (lesson organization, Gaus; motivational climate and goal orientations, Grasten; students' expectancy-related beliefs and task values; Gu).</p> <p>Table 3. Single dimension studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Participants and context</td><td>Theoretical framework</td><td>Formal definition of engagement</td><td>Measurement of engagement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Physical activity engagement</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Coolkens et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2018</xref>) <italic>RQES</italic></td><td>281 students 14 elementary schools Flanders, Belgium</td><td /><td>Used only as a term of participation</td><td>Voluntary participation and MVPA (observed)</td></tr><tr><td>Gaus, Gray, and Wendt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2007</xref>) <italic>TAHPERD J</italic></td><td>157 students 9th–10th grades USA</td><td /><td>Active engagement as described in the CDC data collection for PE manual</td><td>Minutes of PA and mins in each intensity level (observed)</td></tr><tr><td>Grasten and Watt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2016</xref>) <italic>Int J Ex Sci</italic></td><td>585 students 11–16 years-old Finland</td><td>Achievement goal theory</td><td>Engagement was specifically PA engagement</td><td>International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF).</td></tr><tr><td>Gu, Solmon, and Zhang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2012</xref>) <italic>Int J Sport Psyc</italic></td><td>228 students 6th–8th grades USA</td><td>Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choice</td><td>Engagement was specifically PA engagement</td><td>MVPA (accelerometers)</td></tr><tr><td>Michaud et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2012</xref>) <italic>PESP</italic></td><td>168 students 4 primary schools Canada</td><td /><td /><td>Pentathlon hours</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Cognitive engagement</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94">2019</xref>) <italic>EPER</italic></td><td>992 students 6th–8th grades USA</td><td /><td>Cognitive: The mental effort students spend in learning tasks (Chapman <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2003</xref>)</td><td>Students' performance in the cognitive tasks in the workbook, and students' cognitive engagement in each level of tasks</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr104">2009</xref>) <italic>Contemp Educ Psyc</italic></td><td>670 students 3rd grade 13 schools USA</td><td>Constructivism</td><td>Cognitive: The extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered (Chapman <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2003</xref>)</td><td>Students' performance on 20 core questions embedded in routine questions throughout the workbook</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Social engagement</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Oh, Ozturk, and Kozub (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2004</xref>). <italic>RE:view</italic></td><td>19 students 6–18 yrs. School for the blind USA</td><td /><td>Social engagement – defined as interaction with adults or peers</td><td>Observational tool that measures group and individual engagement (McWilliam <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">1990</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Similar to the studies examining physical activity, the two papers that focused on cognitive engagement also referenced the term in their titles. Both also used Chapman's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]) definition of cognitive engagement as the mental effort students spend in learning tasks, and were part of large-scale interventions exploring the outcomes of science-based health-related fitness physical education curricula.</p> <p>The paper by Oh, Ozturk, and Kozub ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref33">64</reflink>]) examined the social engagement of students with visual impairments during physical education lessons. Social engagement was considered as participating with others either in an interactive (interdependent play, talking, etc.) or noninteractive (parallel play, watching or listening) manner, and was then correlated with different levels of intensity of physical activity.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-11">Qualitative studies</hd> <p>The papers in Table 4 represent those using a qualitative methodology when exploring the concept of engagement. They adopt a broad spectrum of theoretical frameworks that reflect more eclectic topics than the quantitative papers, with theories that tend to be located more in the field of philosophy than in educational psychology. The second feature of these studies is a lack of formal definitions of engagement within the introductions, or a direct reference to engagement as a variable in the methods. Nonetheless, while these studies may not have a reference to engagement as a variable in the positivist sense, they clearly used qualitative means to capture engagement. As a case in point, in the article by Pang and Macdonald ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref34">66</reflink>]), the authors state that 'Interview questions focused on the young people' experiences in HPE and school sport and the factors that influence their perceptions and engagement.'</p> <p>Table 4. Qualitative studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Participants and Context</td><td>Theoretical Framework</td><td>Representation of engagement</td><td>Measurement of engagement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amade-Escot and Bennour (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2017</xref>) <italic>EPER</italic></td><td>22 female students 12th grade Tunisia</td><td>Joint action studies in didactics (JASD) Productive disciplinary engagement (PDE)</td><td>Learners participating in an interaction having a degree of intensity (Engle, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2011</xref>)</td><td>Neither defined nor inferred</td></tr><tr><td>Casey and Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2011</xref>) <italic>Asia-Pac J Health, Sport, Phys Educ</italic></td><td>27 students Year 7 Australia</td><td /><td>**</td><td>Neither defined nor inferred</td></tr><tr><td>Cothran and Ennis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2000</xref>) <italic>J Res Dev Ed</italic></td><td>4 physical education teachers and 51 students 3 high schools USA</td><td>Wehlage et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">1989</xref>) model</td><td>Willingness to make the psychological investment required to comprehend and master knowledge and skills (Wehlage et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">1989</xref>)</td><td>Class observations/field notes Interviews with a focus on involvement</td></tr><tr><td>Mitchell, Gray, and Inchley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2015</xref>) <italic>PESP</italic></td><td>5 girls secondary school Scotland</td><td>Self-determination theory</td><td>Taking part</td><td>Interviews that included participation, out-of-school sport and PA participation, activities liked/disliked in school PE</td></tr><tr><td>Pang and Macdonald (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2016</xref>) <italic>PESP</italic></td><td>12 students 8th–10th grades Australia</td><td>Bordieu's theory and Chinese Confucianism philosophy of 'Complementary difference'</td><td>Taking part</td><td>Interviews concerning factors affecting disengagement in PE</td></tr><tr><td>Petiot and Saury (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2019</xref>) <italic>PESP</italic></td><td>12 students middle School France</td><td>Course of action framework (Theureau, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr89">2006</xref>)</td><td>Composed of behavioural, cognitive and emotional dimensions Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2004</xref>)</td><td>Neither defined nor inferred References of pleasure and focus on learning in discussion</td></tr><tr><td>Quarmby, Sandford, and Elliot (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2019</xref>) <italic>SES</italic></td><td>4 adolescent males in care England</td><td>Bourdieuian lens</td><td>Taking part</td><td>Timelines, mind maps and drawings. Interviews reflecting on contexts and activities in which they dis/engaged in physical education</td></tr><tr><td>Whitley et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98">2017</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>3 students undergraduates in a PA-based service-learning course USA</td><td /><td>Participation</td><td>Program director's perceptions on the participant's engagement</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>On the surface, most papers were restricted to behavioural dimensions of engagement, although closer readings do reflect the idea that engaged children are active participants who exhibit high levels of positive emotionality and behavioural intensity. Nonetheless, this group of papers incorporated higher inference notions of engagement.</p> <p>A common feature of these papers was that they sought to first identify students who were (dis) engaged and then retrospectively examine aspects of their biographies with sport and physical education that led to this lack of involvement. In fact, half of the papers in this table included an examination of dis-engagement, and three had it as their focus. This was in contrast to quantitative papers which tend to focus on specific measures that were hypothesized to predict engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-12">Reviews and practitioner-oriented papers</hd> <p>The major difference between the papers in Table 5 and those in the previous four is that none of these involve the collection of data from a cohort of participants. Instead, they present reviews of research or offer strategies through which teachers can increase the engagement of their students during physical education lessons. By consequence, the second column in Table 5 no longer reflects the participants and context of a study but identifies the purpose and audience of the paper.</p> <p>Table 5. Reviews and practitioner-oriented papers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Type of paper</td><td>Theoretical framework</td><td>Definition of engagement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Curran and Standage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2017</xref>) <italic>JTPE</italic></td><td>Review</td><td>Self Determination Theory</td><td>Behavioural, emotional (Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2009</xref>) Also references cognitive and agentic</td></tr><tr><td>Ryan and Sinay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2019</xref>) <italic>Int J PE</italic></td><td>Review</td><td>Emancipatory theory Culturally relevant pedagogy</td><td>Participation in schools</td></tr><tr><td>Subramaniam (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr87">2009</xref>) <italic>Int J PE</italic></td><td>Review</td><td>Situational interest</td><td>Interest is linked to engagement</td></tr><tr><td>Brown (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2012</xref>) <italic>ACHPER Act Healthy Mag</italic></td><td>Practitioner paper</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Contant (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2015</xref>) <italic>Phys Ed Health Ed J</italic></td><td>Practitioner paper</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Martinek, Holland, and Seo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2018</xref>) <italic>RICYDE</italic></td><td>Practitioner paper</td><td /><td>Commensurate/proxy to motivation/effort</td></tr><tr><td>Pharez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2016</xref>) <italic>JOPERD</italic></td><td>Practitioner paper</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Solmon (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2006</xref>) <italic>JOPERD</italic></td><td>Practitioner paper</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The review by Curran and Standage ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]) stands alone in that it is directed to an academic audience, has a formal definition, and is grounded in a theoretical framework of self-determination theory. In this review, the authors provide a justification for a self-determination theory informed mediation model of physical education engagement and disaffection.</p> <p>In the other two reviews, Subramaniam ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref36">87</reflink>]) presents the key role situational interest plays as a motivator in enhancing student engagement in the learning process, while Ryan and Sinay ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref37">78</reflink>]) identify the importance of, and strategies for including disengaged Black elementary and secondary students within schools in general, and physical education in particular.</p> <p>Five papers in this table appear in journals where the primary audience is physical education practitioners. These articles could reasonably be classed as 'recommendation' papers, where the authors identify factors they believe impact the motivational levels of children and youth and hence promote engagement. Examples include offering students choice and differentiating tasks (Contant [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]), giving students voice and incorporating technology (Pharez [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref39">68</reflink>]), or creating a mastery motivational climate (Solmon [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref40">85</reflink>]). Nonetheless, within all of these papers, engagement is never formally operationalized and like many of the qualitative papers in Table 4, seems to come with an expectation that the reader will appreciate the intuitive sense of the term, rather than being given an operational definition.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-13">Summary findings</hd> <p>The 48 papers in this review were distributed across 31 different journals, with those associated with physical education (<emph>n</emph> = 30) being the most prominent, followed by submissions to sport and exercise psychology outlets (<emph>n</emph> = 13). Minor outlets included exercise science (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>) or non-subject specific educational journals (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>). The <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>) and <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>) were the most favoured options for authors in physical education, and together with the <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>) accounted for 50% of all papers. The remaining papers were distributed over 11 different journals. In contrast, the 13 papers located in sport and exercise psychology journals were distributed throughout 12 different publications.</p> <p>Across the 48 papers, 29 (60%) included a theoretical framework, with 15 different frameworks being referenced. Self-determination theory was by far the most popular, appearing in 10 studies. Of the remainder, only achievement goal theory (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>) was present in more than two studies. Forty of the papers in this review involved formal data collection, with self-reported engagement through surveys (<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>) being the most common. Direct observations by researchers appeared in 13. These observations included both momentary time sampling as well as counts of practice trials. Other forms of data collection were interviews with students (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>), reports or student engagement by teachers (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>), or documents such as drawings or workbooks.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the concept of student engagement with the literature of physical education, and the scoping review used to achieve this purse resulted in the generation of five tables encompassing 48 papers. Given the heterogeneous and ubiquitous nature of the term of engagement, it is not surprising that the review reveals a considerable diversity of the outlets of the research, the theoretical frameworks used to guide that research, and the different ways in which engagement is being conceptualized within the field of sport pedagogy. Nonetheless, there are a few recommendations for authors who chose to select 'engagement' as their frame of reference, be they either researchers in sport pedagogy or those who are writing more for practitioners as their audience. These form the basis of this discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-15">'Lay the table' for how engagement is considered</hd> <p>It is not the purpose of the authors of this paper to dictate how others should define engagement. However, we do see a particular utility in authors, no matter their outlet, providing/including their interpretation of the term formally somewhere in the introduction. As noted, in the 13 papers submitted to journals in exercise and sport psychology, this is done as a matter of course. It might be something that authors who are submitting to physical education journals might want to follow. While we are not requiring a formal definition that includes all of the dimensions of engagement, an outline of the concept in the initial parts of a paper helps to clarify the frame of reference. This in itself should be standard practice across all works in sport pedagogy as a matter of good scholarship. The added advantage of being more explicit concerning the conceptualization of engagement is that allows for a more sophisticated discussion of the findings of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-16">Expand the measures of engagement within studies</hd> <p>To date, student completed surveys and observational protocols have been used as the predominant sources of data on student engagement within physical education. However, no cases were identified that included the combination of these within the one study. Indeed, only the study of Cothran and Ennis ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]) combined class observations and fieldnotes with interviews, while there were two cases where both teacher and student self-reports are included (Shen et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref51">80</reflink>]; Van Den Berghe et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref52">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>We see the value of including multiple measures of engagement in a number of ways. First, multiple measures allow for a higher degree of concurrent validity within a study. For example, the data from a student self-report concerning their perceptions of involvement and effort (a behavioural measure), could be compared with their observed behaviour from some observational protocol. Second, multiple measures allow the researchers to more closely approximate their study with the idea of engagement as an active, effortful, goal-directed interaction with one's learning environment. One of the most limiting features of survey studies is that they tell us very little about what is happening 'inside the black box' – that site where the instructional process actually unfolds (in this case the level of active engagement). Likewise, most of the observational measures used to denote engagement in their review (e.g. practice trials or classroom behaviours), are not able to differentiate the observed behaviour from the intentionality that drives that behaviour (the goal-directed component).</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-17">Develop more representative measures of engagement for physical education research</hd> <p>The studies in this review that used self-report questionnaires were limited in three ways in terms of getting a complete account of students' engagement in physical education. First, some studies used items or subscales developed in classroom settings and applied them directly to physical education. As such, these surveys contained items less representative of the subject. As an example, the most prevalent scale in this review (Skinner et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref53">83</reflink>]) includes items such as 'When I'm in class, I participate in class discussions' and 'I try hard to do well in school'.</p> <p>Second, those who borrowed items from previously validated research in physical education and included acceptable factorial validity confirmatory factor analysis did not include all of the dimensions of engagement. Most are limited to behavioural and emotional items, and lack those inquiring about cognitive or agentic engagement. Finally, many of the studies used a limited number of items taken from larger surveys. For example, Bevans et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]) limited engagement to only three questions (how often did you try your best? how often did you look forward to class? and how often did you exercise hard enough to start sweating?). With these limitations in mind, physical education researchers would certainly benefit from the development of a survey with appropriate psychometric support that is validated with physical education students, and can measure their perceptions of engagement across four domains (agentic, behavioural, cognitive, emotional).</p> <p>Physical education researchers examining engagement as a psychometric property would also benefit from a behavioural observation tool that quantifies not only the extent to which students are either on or off-task, but one which makes judgements about the intensity and extent to which they demonstrate observably engaged effort. The closest we have at this point is the system used by Aelterman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]). These authors conducted a study to objectively measure students' physical activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. These authors observed videotapes of physical education classes, and trained observers rated students' <emph>overall</emph> engagement using five items and scored them from zero (never) to three (always). The five items included: 'The students pay attention during this physical education class', 'The students put effort in the activities and exercises', 'The student asks questions about the exercises', 'The students don't give up easily during challenging tasks', and 'The students seem to enjoy this physical education class.' Nonetheless, this observation system uses the class as the unit of analysis. What would be beneficial (particularly when student self-report is also recorded), is a tool similar to other observational systems in physical education (e.g. SOFIT; McKenzie, Sallis, and Nader [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref56">57</reflink>]) in which observers would follow individual students using a 10-second 'observe/record' protocol.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-18">Avoid using motivation and engagement interchangeably</hd> <p>In following the idea of engagement as a dynamic synergistic system of constructs, it is important <emph>not</emph> to equate engagement with motivation. This is particularly the case when one considers an individual can be motivated and still not display engagement (Connell and Wellborn [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]; Furrer and Skinner [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]). Rather, students' motivation might better be seen as a precursor to engagement as motivation is not enough for one to be engaged (Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; Lawson and Lawson [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]; Skinner et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref61">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these assertions, many researchers in physical education have used motivation and engagement interchangeably. For example, Maehr and Meyer ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref62">50</reflink>]) identified different components of motivation that include direction, intensity, persistence, and quality which add up to outcomes. This approach connected motivation to psychological mediators that include autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Hagger and Chatzisarantis [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]). This is in direct conflict with the belief that engagement implies how involved and active an individual is in a given task (Reeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref64">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-19">Possibilities for future research</hd> <p>The final section of this review presents three areas of research in sport pedagogy that might be strengthened by including measures of student engagement. These relate to topics that are particularly prominent within the current literature.</p> <p> <emph>Engagement as a dependent measure in model-based practice research</emph>. One notable feature of research on physical education since the turn of the century has been the ascendancy of interventions designed to change student outcomes (see Musard and Poggi [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref65">61</reflink>]; Silverman and Manson [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref66">82</reflink>]). Many of these have involved the application of pedagogical models in which students are expected to be active learners and are given the authority to make decisions within lessons. We now have reviews of the research on Sport Education (Hastie and Wallhead [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]), game-centred approaches (Harvey and Jarrett [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]), adventure-based learning (Sutherland and Legge [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref69">88</reflink>]), and responsibility-based programmes (Pozo, Grao-Cruces, and Pérez-Ordás [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref70">69</reflink>]). We suggest future interventions might include the question which asks whether students change their levels of engagement as a result of participation in a new form of physical education? Indeed, it may well be particularly interesting to investigate differences in student engagement from a multidimensional approach (and using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) as students experience these different instructional approaches.</p> <p> <emph>Research on teacher content knowledge</emph>. At the turn of the last century, the National Research Council ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref71">62</reflink>]) identified subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge as presage variables important to effective classroom instruction. In terms of these variables within physical education, Ward and his colleagues have shown that both content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are essential attributes that teachers bring to their lessons (e.g. Ward [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref72">95</reflink>]; Ward et al. [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref73">96</reflink>]). In essence, these authors concluded that student learning is significantly determined by the quality of the tasks they receive at both the individual and class level, both individually and collectively. What is relevant within this discussion is the suggestion from Ward ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref74">95</reflink>], 436) that 'if you introduce high-level content and also improve teacher knowledge and skill without changing student engagement, little change in student learning occurs'. To date, we have no studies that have examined student engagement in lessons where teachers have different levels of content knowledge, or whether changes in content knowledge can positively affect engagement.</p> <p> <emph>Research on physical activity</emph>. Data on student activity levels during physical education show significant variability across lesson contexts (McKenzie et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref75">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref76">56</reflink>]). While appreciating the impact of teachers' class management and instructional skills on physical activity and student learning, we suggest that having a concurrent measure of engagement during these types of studies would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how different instructional settings impact student activity behaviour. For example, while we know that fitness lessons (or lesson segments) generate the highest level of MVPA, they are also seen by students as a less attractive part of their physical education experience than participation in skill/game contexts in both elementary (McKenzie, Alcaraz, and Sallis [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref77">54</reflink>]) and secondary (Rikard and Banville [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref78">76</reflink>]) settings. The multidimensional analysis provided in this paper may well provide more specific details of the extent to which cognitive, emotional, agentic, or behavioural engagement are predictors of physical activity levels across contexts. This is particularly relevant given the number of studies that have used MVPA as a measure of engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-20">Final words</hd> <p>The review of the 48 papers included in this paper has confirmed that the scope of papers focusing on engagement is particularly widespread and diverse. There is a diversity of journal outlets, of target audiences, and in particular, in the ways that engagement itself is conceptualised and measured. Nonetheless, a key feature of quality research is the development of a logical 'chain of reasoning' (Lesh, Lovitts, and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>]) that moves from evidence to theory and back again. While in nearly all the papers in this review the reader has an <emph>intuitive</emph> understanding of the author's intentionality for using the term, the quality of most papers would be enhanced by authors acknowledging their taxonomy of 'engagement'. That is, providing an idea of engagement's <emph>taxis</emph> ('order', 'arrangement'), and <emph>nomos</emph> ('law' or 'science') would not only increase the scholarship of the work, but would encourage authors to determine if engagement is indeed the best term to use.</p> <hd id="AN0153952172-21">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0153952172-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref55" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aelterman, N., M. Vansteenkiste, H. Van Keer, L. Van Den Berghe, J. De Meyer, and L. Haerens. 2012. " Students' Objectively Measured Physical Activity Levels and Engagement as a Function of Between-Class and Between-Student Differences in Motivation Toward Physical Education." Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 34 : 457 – 480.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agbuga, B., P. Xiang, R. McBride, and X. Su. 2016. " Student Perceptions of Instructional Choices in Middle School Physical Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 : 138 – 148. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2015-0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref41" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amade-Escot, C., and N. Bennour. 2017. " Productive Disciplinary Engagement Within Didactical Transactions: A Case Study of Student Learning in Gymnastics." European Physical Education Review 23 : 279 – 296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref46" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, W. 1980. Analysis of Teaching Physical Education. St. Louis : Mosby.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, S., P. Allen, S. Peckham, et al. 2008. " Asking the Right Questions: Scoping Studies in the Commissioning of Research on the Organization and Delivery of Health Services." Health Research Policy and Systems 6 (7): 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Appleton, J. J., S. Christenson, and M. Furlong. 2008. " Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct." Psychology in the Schools 45 : 369 – 386.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Arksey, H., and L. O'Malley. 2005. " Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 : 19 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bevans, K., L. Fitzpatrick, B. Sanchez, and C. Forrest. 2010. " Individual and Instructional Determinants of Student Engagement in Physical Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29 : 399 – 416.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T. D. 2012. " Have We Lost Our Way? The Importance of Joyful and Meaningful Engagement in Physical Education." ACHPER Active and Healthy Magazine 19 : 9 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryan, C. L., and M. Solmon. 2012. " Student Motivation in Physical Education and Engagement in Physical Activity." Journal of Sport Behavior 35 : 267 – 285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, A., and B. Jones. 2011. " Using Digital Technology to Enhance Engagement in Physical Education." Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 2 : 51 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, E. 2003. " Alternative Approaches to Assessing Student Engagement Rates." Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 8 : 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatoupis, C. C., and G. Vagenas. 2017. " Effects of Two Practice Style Formats on Fifth Grade Students' Motor Skill Performance and Task Engagement." Physical Educator 74 : 220 – 238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coledam, D. H. C., and P. F. Ferraiol. 2017. " Engagement in Physical Education Classes and Health Among Young People: Does Sports Practice Matter? A Cross-Sectional Study." Sao Paulo Medical Journal 135 : 548 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, J. P., and J. Wellborn. 1991. " Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness: A Motivational Analysis of Self-System Processes." In The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 23. Self Processes and Development, edited by M. R. Gunnar and L. A. Sroufe, 43 – 77. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contant, R. 2015. " Just Dance! Boosting Engagement and Maximizing Learning in A PE Classroom." Physical and Health Education Journal 811 : 30 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coolkens, R., P. Ward, J. Seghers, and P. Iserbyt. 2018. " Effects of Generalization of Engagement in Parkour from Physical Education to Recess on Physical Activity." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 89 : 429 – 439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cothran, D. J., and C. D. Ennis. 2000. " Building Bridges to Student Engagement: Communicating Respect and Care for Students in Urban High Schools." Journal of Research & Development in Education 33 : 106 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, T., and M. Standage. 2017. " Psychological Needs and the Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers as Key Facilitators." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 : 262 – 276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daigle, K. G. 2003. Gender Differences in Participation of Physical Activities: A Comprehensive Model Approach. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derri, V., O. Vasiliadou, and E. Kioumourtzoglou. 2015. " The Effects of a Short-Term Professional Development Program on Physical Education Teachers' Behaviour and Students' Engagement in Learning." European Journal of Teacher Education 38 : 234 – 262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiPerna, J. C., and S. N. Elliott. 2000. Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engle, R. A. 2011. " The Productive Disciplinary Engagement Framework: Origins, Key Concepts and Developments." In Design Research on Learning and Thinking in Educational Settings: Enhancing Intellectual Growth and Functioning, edited by D. Y. Dai, 161 – 200. London : Taylor and Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., P. Blumenfeld, and A. Paris. 2004. " School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence." Review of Educational Research 74 : 59 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furrer, C., and E. Skinner. 2003. " Sense of Relatedness as a Factor in Children's Academic Engagement and Performance." Journal of Educational Psychology 95 : 148 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gairns, F., P. R. Whipp, and B. Jackson. 2015. " Relational Perceptions in High School Physical Education: Teacher- and Peer-Related Predictors of Female Students' Motivation, Behavioral Engagement, and Social Anxiety." Frontiers in Psychology 6 : 850.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao, Z. 2009. " Students' Motivation, Engagement, Satisfaction, and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Physical Education." Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 21 (S1): S102 – S115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garn, A. C., K. Simonton, T. Dasingert, and A. Simonton. 2017. " Predicting Changes in Student Engagement in University Physical Education: Application of Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 29 : 93 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garn, A. C., D. R. Ware, and M. A. Solmon. 2011. " Student Engagement in High School Physical Education: Do Social Motivation Orientations Matter? " Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30 : 84 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaus, M. D., J. P. Gray, and J. C. Wendt. 2007. " Fitness Indicators, Activity Engagement, and Activity Intensity: A Comparison of Traditional and Block Scheduling in Physical Education." TAHPERD Journal 57 (3): 8 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberger, M., and P. Gerney. 1990. " Effects of Learner Use of Practice Time on Skill Acquisition of Fifth Grade Children." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 10 (1): 84 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.10.1.84</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY : Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grasten, A., and A. Watt. 2016. " Perceptions of Motivational Climate, Goal Orientations, and Light-to-Vigorous-Intensity Physical Activity Engagement of a Sample of Finnish Grade 5 to 9 Students." International Journal of Exercise Science 93 : 291 – 305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffey, D. C., and L. D. Housner. 1991. " Differences Between Experienced and Inexperienced Teachers' Planning Decisions, Interactions, Student Engagement, and Instructional Climate." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62 : 196 – 204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guan, J., P. Xiang, R. E. McBride, and A. Bruene. 2006. " Achievement Goals, Social Goals, and Students' Reported Persistence and Effort in High School Physical education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25 : 58 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gu, X., M. A. Solmon, and T. A. Zhang. 2012. " Using Expectancy-Value Model to Examine Students' Physical Activity Engagement and Cardiovascular Fitness in Physical Education." International Journal of Sport Psychology 43 : 385 – 402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagger, M. S., and N. Chatzisarantis. 2007. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Exercise and Sport. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper, S. R., and S. Quaye. 2009. " Beyond Sameness, with Engagement and Outcomes for All." In Student Engagement in Higher Education, edited by S. R. Harper and S. J. Quaye, 1 – 15. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, S., and K. Jarrett. 2014. " A Review of the Game-Centred Approaches to Teaching and Coaching Literature Since 2006." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19 : 278 – 300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., and T. Wallhead. 2016. " Models-Based Practice in Physical Education: The Case for Sport Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 : 390 – 399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hidi, S., and K. Ann Renninger. 2006. " The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development." Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 111 – 127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, S. E., S. Healy, J. P. Judge, and J. W. Lloyd. 2016. " Effects of an Interdependent Group Contingency on Engagement in Physical Education." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 49 : 975 – 979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobellis v. Ohio. 378 U.S. 184. 1964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killian, C. M., C. J. Kinder, and A. M. Woods. 2019. " Online and Blended Instruction in K-12 Physical Education: A Scoping Review." Kinesiology Review 8 : 110 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, M. A., and H. Lawson. 2013. " New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement Research, Policy, and Practice." Review of Educational Research 83 : 432 – 479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leirhaug, P. E., and A. MacPhail. 2015. " 'It's the Other Assessment That is the Key': Three Norwegian Physical Education Teachers' Engagement (or not) with Assessment for Learning." Sport, Education and Society 20 : 624 – 640.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesh, R. A., B. Lovitts, and A. E. Kelly. 2000. " Purposes and Assumptions of This Book." In Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, edited by A. E. Kelly, and R. A. Lesh, 17 – 34. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, S., L. Robinson, E. K. Webster, and L. Barber. 2013. " Exploring Preschoolers' Engagement and Perceived Physical Competence in an Autonomy-Based Object Control Skill Intervention: A Preliminary Study." European Physical Education Review 19 : 302 – 314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol. I. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maehr, M. L., and H. Meyer. 1997. " Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We've Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go." Educational Psychology Review 9 : 371 – 409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinek, T., B. Holland, and G. Seo. 2018. " Understanding Physical Activity Engagement in Students: Skills, Values, and Hope." [Entender La Participación de la Actividad Física en los Estudiantes: Conocimientos, Valores y Esperanza]." RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte 15 : 88 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mays, N., E. Roberts, and J. Popay. 2001. " Synthesising Research Evidence." In Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Method, edited by N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, and N. Black, 188 – 220. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEvoy, E., A. MacPhail, and P. Heikinaro-Johansson. 2015. " Physical Education Teacher Educators: A 25-Year Scoping Review of Literature." Teaching and Teacher Education 51 : 162 – 181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie, T. L., J. Alcaraz, and J. Sallis. 1994. " Assessing Children's Liking for Activity Units in an Elementary School Physical Education Curriculum." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13 : 206 – 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie, T. L., H. Feldman, S. Woods, K. Romero, V. Dahlstrom, E. Stone, ... D. Harsha. 1995. " Children's Activity Levels and Lesson Context During Third-Grade Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66 : 184 – 193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie, T. L., S. Marshall, J. Sallis, and C. Conway. 2000. " Student Activity Levels, Lesson Context, and Teacher Behavior During Middle School Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71 : 249 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie, T. L., J. Sallis, and P. Nader. 1992. " SOFIT: System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 11 : 195 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWilliam, R. A. 1990. The Engagement Check. Chapel Hill, NC : Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaud, V., L. Nadeau, D. Martel, J. Gagnon, and P. Godbout. 2012. " The Effect of Team Pentathlon on Ten-to Eleven-Year-Old Children's' Engagement in Physical Activity." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 17 : 543 – 562.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, F., S. Gray, and J. Inchley. 2015. " 'This Choice Thing Really Works ... '. Changes in Experiences and Engagement of Adolescent Girls in Physical Education Classes During a School-Based Physical Activity Programme." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20 : 593 – 611.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musard, M., and M. Poggi. 2015. " Intervention in Physical Education and Sport: Trends and Developments in a Decade of Francophone Research." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20 : 250 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School – Expanded Edition. Washington, DC : The National academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nye, S. B. 2010. " Effects of the Tactical Games Approach on Student Engagement in a Sport Education Badminton Season." VAHPERD Journal 31 : 19 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oh, H. K., M. A. Ozturk, and F. M. Kozub. 2004. " Physical Activity and Social Engagement Patterns During Physical Education of Youth with Visual Impairments." RE:view 36 : 39 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otundo, J. O., and A. C. Garn. 2019. " Student Interest and Engagement in Middle School Physical Education: Examining the Role of Needs Supportive Teaching." International Journal of Educational Psychology 8 : 137 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pang, B., and D. Macdonald. 2016. " Understanding Young Chinese Australian's DisEngagement in Health and Physical Education and School Sport." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 : 441 – 458.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petiot, O., and J. Saury. 2019. " 'Swim Like a Knife Slipping on Fresh Cream'. The Role of Metaphors in Struggling Students' Engagement with Learning Activities in Physical Education." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24 : 478 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pharez, E. S. 2016. " Enjoyment Fosters Engagement: The Key to Involving Middle School Students in Physical Education and Physical Activity." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 87 : 24 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pozo, P., A. Grao-Cruces, and R. Pérez-Ordás. 2018. " Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model-Based Programmes in Physical Education: A Systematic Review." European Physical Education Review 24 : 56 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quarmby, T., R. Sandford, and E. Elliot. 2019. " 'I Actually Used to Like PE, But Not Now': Understanding Care-Experienced Young People's Dis Engagement with Physical Education." Sport, Education and Society 24 : 714 – 726.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J., H. Jang, D. Carrell, S. Jeon, and J. Barch. 2004. " Enhancing Students' Engagement by Increasing Teachers' Autonomy Support." Motivation and Emotion 28 : 147 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J., and C.-M. Tseng. 2011. " Agency as a Fourth Aspect of Students' Engagement During Learning Activities." Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 : 257 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick, M. D., P. S. Bearman, R. W. Blum, K. E. Bauman, K. M. Harris, J. Jones, et al. 1997. " Protecting Adolescents from Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health." Journal of the American Medical Association 278 : 823 – 832.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K. A. R., C. G. Pennington, and O. A. Sinelnikov. 2019. " Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: A Scoping Review of Literature." Kinesiology Review 8 : 86 – 99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K. A. R., N. Washburn, R. L. Carson, and M. A. Hemphill. 2017. " A 30-Year Scoping Review of the Physical Education Teacher Satisfaction Literature." Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 69 : 494 – 514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rikard, L. G., and D. Banville. 2006. " High School Student Attitudes About Physical Education." Sport, Education and Society 11 : 385 – 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, G. W., and H. R. Bernard. 2003. " Techniques to Identify Themes." Field Methods 15 : 85 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, T. G., and E. Sinay. 2019. " Black Student Achievement, Engagement and Inclusion in Physical Education." International Journal of Physical Education 56 (2): 20 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sato, T., and J. A. Haegele. 2018. " Physical Educators' Engagement in Online Adapted Physical Education Graduate Professional Development." Professional Development in Education 44 : 272 – 286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, B., N. McCaughtry, J. Martin, M. Fahlman, and A. Garn. 2012. " Urban High-School Girls' Sense of Relatedness and Their Engagement in Physical Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31 : 231 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, S. 1985. " Student Characteristics Mediating Engagement-Outcome Relationships in Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 56 : 66 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, S., and M. Manson. 2003. " Research on Teaching in Physical Education Doctoral Dissertations: A Detailed Investigation of Focus, Method, and Analysis." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22 : 280 – 297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E., C. Furrer, G. Marchand, and T. Kindermann. 2008. " Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? " Journal of Educational Psychology 100 : 765 – 781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., T. Kindermann, and C. Furrer. 2009. " A Motivational Perspective on Engagement and Disaffection: Conceptualization and Assessment of Children's Behavioral and Emotional Participation in Academic Activities in the Classroom." Educational and Psychological Measurement 69 : 493 – 525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solmon, M. A. 2006. " Creating a Motivational Climate to Foster Engagement in Physical Education." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 77 (8): 15 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sperka, L., E. Enright, and L. McCuaig. 2018. " Brokering and Bridging Knowledge in Health and Physical Education: A Critical Discourse Analysis of One External Provider's Curriculum." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23 : 328 – 343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subramaniam, P. R. 2009. " Motivational Effects of Interest on Student Engagement and Learning in Physical Education: A Review." International Journal of Physical Education 46 (2): 11 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutherland, S., and M. Legge. 2016. " The Possibilities of 'Doing' Outdoor and/or Adventure Education in Physical Education/Teacher Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 : 299 – 312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theureau, J. 2006. Le cours d'action: méthode développée [The Course of Action: Developed Methods]. Toulouse : Octares.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trowler, P., and V. Trowler. 2010. Student Engagement: Executive Summary. York : The Higher Education Academy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2014. World-wide Survey of School Physical Education. Paris : UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Berghe, L., G. Cardon, I. Tallir, D. Kirk, and L. Haerens. 2016. " Dynamics of Need-Supportive and Need-Thwarting Teaching Behavior: The Bidirectional Relationship with Student Engagement and Disengagement in the Beginning of a Lesson." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 : 653 – 670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Den Berghe, L., I. B. Tallir, G. Cardon, N. Aelterman, and L. Haerens. 2015. " Student Dis Engagement and Need-Supportive Teaching Behavior: A Multi-Informant and Multilevel Approach." Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 37 : 353 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., A. Chen, R. Schweighardt, T. Zhang, S. Wells, and C. Ennis. 2019. " The Nature of Learning Tasks and Knowledge Acquisition: The Role of Cognitive Engagement in Physical Education." European Physical Education Review 25 : 293 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P. 2013. " The Role of Content Knowledge in Conceptions of Teaching Effectiveness in Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84 : 431 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., I. Kim, B. Ko, and W. Li. 2015. " Effects of Improving Teachers' Content Knowledge on Teaching and Student Learning in Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86 : 130 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehlage, G. G., R. A. Rutter, G. A. Smith, N. Lesko, and R. R. Fernandez. 1989. Reducing the Risk: Schools as Communities of Support. New York, NY : The Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley, M. A., D. Walsh, L. Hayden, and D. Gould. 2017. " Narratives of Experiential Learning: Students' Engagement in a Physical Activity-Based Service-Learning Course." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 : 419 – 429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, A. J., Y. Liu, S. E. Keith, A. H. Wilson, L. E. Kermer, B. D. Zumbo, and M. R. Beauchamp. 2012. " "Transformational Teaching and Child Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Motivation, and Engagement in Elementary School Physical Education." Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology 14 : 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wittgenstein, L. 2001 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford : Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiang, P., B. Ağbuğa, J. Liu, and R. E. McBride. 2017. " Relatedness Need Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Engagement in Secondary School Physical Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 : 340 – 352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiang, P., S. Chen, and Z. Gao. 2013. " Instructional Choices and Student Engagement in Physical Education." Asian Journal of Exercise and Sports Science 101 : 90 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoo, J. 2015. " Perceived Autonomy Support and Behavioral Engagement in Physical Education: A Conditional Process Model of Positive Emotion and Autonomous Motivation." Perceptual and Motor Skills 120 (3): 731 – 746.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, X., A. Chen, C. Ennis, H. Sun, C. Hopple, M. Bonello, M. Bae, and S. Kim. 2009. " Situational Interest, Cognitive Engagement, and Achievement in Physical Education." Contemporary Educational Psychology 34 : 221 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Peter A. Hastie; Andy Stringfellow; Jerraco L. Johnson; Cory E. Dixon; Nikki Hollett and Kurt Ward</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref79"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1323397
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Concept of Engagement in Physical Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hastie%2C+Peter+A%2E%22">Hastie, Peter A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3727-6006">0000-0002-3727-6006</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stringfellow%2C+Andy%22">Stringfellow, Andy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9233-9201">0000-0001-9233-9201</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnson%2C+Jerraco+L%2E%22">Johnson, Jerraco L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8086-2679">0000-0001-8086-2679</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dixon%2C+Cory+E%2E%22">Dixon, Cory E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hollett%2C+Nikki%22">Hollett, Nikki</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ward%2C+Kurt%22">Ward, Kurt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-2063">0000-0002-8198-2063</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2022 27(1):1-18.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1861231
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The concept of engagement is a multidimensional construct that has long been used by researchers as a means of explaining student behaviour in classrooms and schools. However, the research using this construct within physical education has been particularly uneven. Purpose: The goal of this paper was to examine the application of the concept of student engagement with the research literature on physical education. Method: The scoping review was conducted using the boundaries of including the terms 'physical education' and 'engagement' in the title, being located specifically within physical education settings, and focused on student (rather than teacher) engagement. Results: Analysis of the corpus of papers led to the conclusion that studies could be grouped into five categories, with each differentiated by source, involvement of theory, methodology, definitions of engagement, and intended audience. These were given the following labels: (i) studies involving operational and multi-dimensional definitions of engagement (ii) figurative studies (iii) single dimension studies, (iv) qualitative studies, and (v) reviews and practitioner-oriented papers. Discussion: Given the considerable diversity in the application of the term engagement, it is recommended that future research in the field (no matter the intended audience), should consider the author's interpretation of the term formally somewhere in the introduction. In addition, it is proposed that future empirical research examining student engagement in physical education could also benefit from including evidence of both student self-perceptions about their engagement as well as observations of their in-class behaviours.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1323397
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1323397
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1861231
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Concept of Engagement in Physical Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hastie, Peter A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stringfellow, Andy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnson, Jerraco L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dixon, Cory E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hollett, Nikki
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ward, Kurt
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1