Learning: Research and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlrp20

Engagement and compliance in education today

Alan English

To cite this article: Alan English (2022) Engagement and compliance in education today,
Learning: Research and Practice, 8:2, 139-147, DOI: 10.1080/23735082.2022.2085771
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2022.2085771

Published online: 20 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 224

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlrp20
LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
2022, VOL. 8, NO. 2, 139–147
https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2022.2085771

SHORT REPORT

Engagement and compliance in education today

Alan English
Department of Education, Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Student engagement is one of the most important factors of an Received 1 September 2021
effective classroom throughout the P-16 spectrum. Of late, many Accepted 26 May 2022
have attempted to define engagement and establish best practices KEYWORDS
for maximising it in the classroom. In the process, a number of Engagement; compliance;
sources have implied or encouraged a false dichotomy between P-16 education; agentic
engagement and compliance. This engagement vs compliance engagement; behavioural
dichotomy is neither supported by current research nor practically engagment
applicable to instructors. Here, the author works to briefly define
student engagement, discuss what research has thus far indicated
about the relationship between engagement and compliance, offer
educators suggestions for best practices when pursuing engage­
ment and compliance in the classroom, and suggest what future
lines of research could provide useful advancements of knowledge.

Engagement and compliance in education today

Student engagement is one of the most promising lines of research in P-16 education
today; as it has been positively associated with academic performance (Archambault &
Dupéré, 2017; Chen et al., 2020; Fredricks, 2014; Lee, 2014; Suárez et al., 2019) and
negatively associated with delinquency, truancy, dropping out, and substance abuse
(Archambault et al., 2009; Fredricks, 2014; Virtanen et al., 2014; Wang & Fredricks,
2014). What’s more, unlike many factors that influence academic achievement (such as
socio-economic status or geographic region) engagement seems to be highly malleable
(Chen et al., 2020; Hart et al., 2011; Lee, 2014). Based on the promise of student
engagement research, a number of authors have recently produced works aimed at
encouraging instructors to consider the differences between student engagement and
compliance, how their teaching practices encourage one over the other, and what the
implications of this might be on student performance. While these works’ efforts to
encourage and challenge instructors to maximise engagement in their classrooms are
certainly well intended, with titles like “Engagement vs Compliance”, they imply, or
outrightly encourage, a false dichotomy between engagement and compliance. Such
a conceptualisation is neither in line with current research nor practically-useful to
instructors. Therefore, it is my aim here to briefly define student engagement and provide
clarity as to its currently-understood relationship between student engagement and
compliance.

CONTACT Alan English Englishae@bethanylb.edu Department of Education, Bethany College, 335 E Swensson
St, Lindsborg, Kansas 67456
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
140 A. ENGLISH

What is engagement?
One of the greatest challenges to engagement research is the number of competing
conceptualisations and theories of engagement and its relevant components (Lawson,
2017). Still, some ground has been made in unifying our collective understanding of
engagement as a construct. Many researchers have come to view engagement as something
akin to the “outward manifestation of motivation” (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012, p. 22). There is
widespread agreement that engagement mediates between students’ contextual factors and
academic performance (Virtanen et al., 2014). Finally, engagement is also almost uni­
versally viewed by researchers as multi-faceted in nature. Traditionally, engagement has
been categorised into three categories: behavioural, cognitive, and emotional. Behavioural
engagement includes a student’s participation and conduct in both curricular and extra­
curricular activities at school. Emotional engagement encompasses a student’s positive
emotions (enjoyment or happiness) as opposed to negative emotions (boredom or sad­
ness) experienced at school. Finally, cognitive engagement describes a student’s willingness
to expend energy while working to master a challenging academic concept (Fredricks,
2014; Fredricks et al., 2004). While this three-tiered model of engagement has gained
widespread following, other researchers have added additional categories. Perhaps most
interesting and promising is the inclusion of agentic engagement, in which a student is
capable of actively enhancing the learning environment by asking questions or providing
input (Reeve, 2013). There is evidence that, when including agentic engagement into
a behavioural, cognitive, and emotional conceptualisation of engagement, student engage­
ment fully mediates motivation and achievement (Reeve, 2012).
Regardless of the precise definition or theory one is inclined to adopt, student
engagement is among the most promising lines of research in education today.
Enhanced student engagement has been associated with higher academic performance
(Archambault & Dupéré, 2017; Chen et al., 2020; Fredricks, 2014, p. 14; Lee, 2014; Suárez
et al., 2019) while disengagement has been associated with delinquency, truancy, drop­
ping out, and substance abuse (Archambault et al., 2009; Fredricks, 2014, p. 14; Virtanen
et al., 2014; Wang & Fredricks, 2014). The importance of these results is further
magnified by research results that indicate the malleability of student engagement
(Chen et al., 2020; Hart et al., 2011; Lee, 2014). Understandably, based on the promising
results of student engagement research, much of the focus has now shifted to under­
standing how instructors can maximise their students’ engagement. Part of these efforts
has gone towards distinguishing between student engagement and student compliance.
This distinction is, in part, useful. Engaged students are invested into their education,
finding it meaningful and rewarding. They actively participate in the learning process
and utilise learning strategies aimed at mastering the course content. Compliant students,
on the other hand, fail to develop a deep investment into their coursework. While they
follow rules and participate when asked, their learning strategies are typically focused on
getting the necessary grade or fulfiling the requirements of an assignment, as opposed to
learning (Fredricks., 2014,). Any experienced instructor has experienced both engage­
ment and compliance in their classroom and knows that engagement should be the goal.
Nevertheless, the engagement vs compliance dichotomy is an oversimplification that fails
to be supported by current engagement research nor is useful to classroom teachers.
 LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 141

Compliance is engagement
Part of the problem in the engagement vs compliance dichotomy is a matter of semantics.
Compliance itself has developed an unnecessarily-negative connotation, conjuring images
of medieval, authoritarian-style education. This is not the case. Compliance is a student’s
conscious choice to adhere to school/classroom expectations of them. This is distinct from
obedience, which is typically based on a hierarchical relationship and out of interest of
seeking rewards or avoiding punishment (Song et al., 2012), which is atypical of
a functional classroom. If, however, a student chooses to follow a classroom expectation
out of interest in maintaining a cohesive classroom environment, a belief that the
expectation is just, a desire to please the teacher, or interest in maintaining a pro-social
appearance in front of their peers, they are being compliant to that expectation. This is
a necessary component of a school and classroom environment being conducive to
learning and is the very purpose for which schools and classrooms have rules whatsoever.
Rather than fear of punishment, a student’s compliance to a school expectation may often
be out of interest in the lesson at hand or respect for a particular instructor based on
a previously-established relationship. These motivations for compliance are commonplace
in highly-effective classrooms. Indeed, in these scenarios, students are compliant because
they are engaged, putting the conceptualisation of an engagement vs compliance dichot­
omy into question.
The falsehood of the engagement vs compliance dichotomy is further demonstrated by
the fact that researchers have widely included compliance within behavioural engage­
ment, as measured by on-task behaviour (Fredricks et al., 2004), adherence to school
rules (Archambault et al., 2009; Fredricks, 2014; Fredricks et al., 2011; Nguyen et al.,
2018), avoidance of disruptive behaviour (Fredricks, 2014; Lee, 2014), and bringing
books and materials to class (Fredricks, 2014). The inclusion of compliance within
behavioural engagement has led some to consider behavioural engagement as the “lesser”
of the commonly-cited engagement categories. This is unfounded. Behavioural engage­
ment has been associated with a number of positive outcomes (Archambault & Dupéré,
2017; Archambault et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2020; Wang & Fredricks, 2014), none of
which is a surprise to instructors who know that students who attend class, adhere to
expectations of them, find ways to be involved in class, and participate in extra-curricular
activities (all common measures of behavioural engagement) are more successful in
school. Behavioural engagement has also been demonstrated to partly mediate between
emotional engagement and student reading performance (Lee, 2014). Finally, there is
evidence to suggest that behavioural engagement is a better predictor of academic
achievement than emotional engagement (Lee, 2014) and that a decrease in behavioural
engagement is a stronger predictor of high school dropout than that of cognitive or
emotional engagement (Archambault et al., 2009; Wang & Fredricks, 2014). This demon­
strates that high levels of a broadly-conceptualised behavioural engagement are essential
for individual and communal success in school.
142 A. ENGLISH

Engagement is tiered and malleable

Despite the important role that compliance, as a marker of behavioural engagement,
plays in student achievement, clearly not all engagement is created equally. Any effective
instructor would prioritise that his or her students find the course deeply meaningful and
rewarding rather than that they are exclusively compliant to classroom expectations.
Based on this reality, researchers widely view student engagement as being capable of
varying in intensity (Archambault & Dupéré, 2017; Archambault et al., 2009; Fredricks
et al., 2004). This variability has led some researchers to attempt to categorise levels of
engagement. For example, Nguyen et al. (2018) categorised learners as actively engaged,
passively engaged, and disengaged. Fredricks et al. (2004) differentiated between sub­
stantive and procedural engagement. Regardless of the specific structure used, it is
apparent that a student’s engagement can vary in degree.
It is also apparent that a student’s level of engagement can vary over time. As
engagement has been demonstrated to be a malleable characteristic (Chen et al., 2020;
Fredricks et al., 2004; Lee, 2014), it appears as though students who are experiencing low
levels of engagement can become more engaged when they experience academic success
(Chen et al., 2020). A number of contextual factors that have also demonstrated the
ability to promote student engagement including relevance of content (Assor et al., 2002),
student choice (Fredricks, 2014), lessons that are hands-on, challenging, and authentic
(Marks, 2000), and meaningful relationships in the classroom (Engels et al., 2016).
Additionally, students are more behaviourally and cognitively engaged when their
teachers provide clear instruction, helpful support, and constructive feedback (Jang
et al., 2010). This malleable characteristic suggests that even low levels of engagement
(say from the student who is exclusively compliant in the classroom) should be seen as
having the potential, if the contextual factors within the instructor’s control are opti­
mised, to grow into deeper, more meaningful levels of engagement rather than categori­
cally distinct from engagement. Malleability is what makes engagement such a promising
line of research in education (Lee, 2014). Unlike so many other traits which can influence
students’ academic success (such as socio-economic status, degree of parental support, or
IQ), engagement can be enhanced over a course of time in all students by manipulating
factors in the classroom that are under the instructor’s control.

Differentiating between categories of engagement

A final difficulty in the engagement/compliance dichotomy is that compliance,
a commonly-used component of behavioural engagement, is often problematic to dis­
tinguish from other categories of engagement. Part of this difficulty lies in the fact that
there is no single, widely accepted definition of engagement and each of its components.
From one researcher to the next, there is considerable overlap of the definitions of terms
(Fredricks et al., 2004; Fredricks et al., 2016). Moreover, insufficient research on the
multiple facets of student engagement has been conducted to be able to reliably conclude
how a student experiences behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement
concurrently (Fredricks, 2016; Wang & Fredricks, 2014). Behavioural engagement, which
by definition encompasses a student’s observable behaviours, is more-readily observed
and therefore more commonly studied than other components of engagement (Nguyen
 LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 143

et al., 2018). Studying behavioural engagement alone or student engagement as a single

characteristic is, however, insufficient. Research indicates that there is no single model for
student engagement. Behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement can all alter
independently of each other (Archambault & Dupéré, 2017; Archambault et al., 2009;
Wang & Degol, 2014). For example, Archambault et al. (2009) found that 25.7% of high
school students (early partially declining group, late partial declining group, and late
generally inclining group) displayed engagement profiles in which behavioural engage­
ment dramatically changed in relation to emotional and cognitive engagement. This is to
suggest that it would be an error for a classroom teacher, or for that matter an observing
researcher, to presume that observable characteristics of engagement (behavioural) were
a complete profile of a student’s level of engagement. Indeed, even a methodologically-
sound instrument should be completed multiple times throughout a research period
before a true picture of a student’s engagement can be obtained.
Furthermore, many student engagement research instruments are still unable to
reliably differentiate between engagement categories. The most common method of
measurement is self-reports, which are chronically unreliable (Poltavski et al., 2018;
Saeedi et al., 2020). Many engagement instruments have displayed validity concerns
and have inconsistently utilised items measuring behaviour, cognitive, and emotional
engagement, making meta-analysis problematic or impossible (Nguyen et al., 2018).
Based on these shortcomings, instructors should be cautioned from concluding what
components of engagement a student is experiencing at a given moment and adjusting
instruction accordingly. For example, a student’s compliance to instructions (behavioural
engagement) may be readily observable while the level of cognitive engagement may be
considerably higher or lower than the instructor might presuppose.

Practical implications
Despite the common narrative that compliance is telling of ineffective instruction and/or
insufficient learning, teachers would do well to expect and reward compliance, which is
nothing more than the wilful adherence to classroom expectations. This is a practical,
prosocial behaviour as well as a prerequisite to an optimal learning environment.
Teachers should not feel as though they have to choose between engagement and
compliance.
When compliance is observed, particularly from a chronically non-compliant student,
teachers should be prepared with a small-scale reward, such as vocal praise rather than
see it as an inadequacy of their classroom management or pedagogical implementation or
(worse yet) an inherent flaw in the student. Compliance occurs for a host of reasons
including interest in the content area, a meaningful relationship with the teacher, and
avoidance of negative consequences, the latter of which has been particularly demonised
as evidence that teachers should avoid expectations of compliance or view compliance as
a less desirable classroom characteristic. This is false. Compliance is widely included as an
aspect of behavioural engagement (Archambault et al., 2009; Fredricks et al., 2004, 2011;
Lee, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2018), which has been associated with a host of positive student
outcomes (Archambault & Dupéré, 2017; Archambault et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2020;
Wang & Fredricks, 2014). What’s more, a student’s motivation for compliance is often
144 A. ENGLISH

multifaceted and unclear to an outward observation. Teachers should refrain from

assuming a student’s compliance is purely out of a motivation to avoid negative
consequence.
Instead, teachers should be encouraged to have rules and expectations in their class­
rooms that are clearly explained, enforceable, realistic, and promote a productive learn­
ing environment. Adherence to these expectations should be rewarded. Conversely,
specific consequences, which are also explained ahead of time, should be administered
when rules are violated. These consequences should be consistently administered, as mild
as possible to effectively discouraged the unacceptable behaviour, and (if possible)
natural consequences that are relevant to the misbehaviour (Garrett, 2014; Smith &
Dearborn, 2016). In addition, teachers should see exclusively-compliant students as low-
level engagement students who hold the potential for greater engagement if engagement-
promoting strategies are implemented. Examples include providing student choice in
lessons (Danley & Williams, 2020; Fredricks, 2014), designing lessons that are hands-on,
challenging, and authentic (Marks, 2000), striving to develop strong relationships in the
classroom (Engels et al., 2016), exposing students to relevant content (Assor et al., 2002),
and providing clear directions, helpful support, and constructive feedback (Jang et al.,
2010). While the complexity of students’ lives and finite resources at a teacher’s disposal
make it impossible for teachers to always engage all students, teachers can positively
influence the contextual factors of the learning environment, which seem to have
a reciprocal relationship with student engagement (Reeve, 2013). In doing so, the class­
room will see a collective increase in engagement and (as an aspect of behavioural
engagement) compliance.

Conclusion and implications for future research

Student engagement is arguably one of the most exciting aspects of educational research
today, as high levels of engagement have been associated with a host of positive out­
comes. In an effort to encourage instructors to practice strategies proven to increase
student engagement (and perhaps in an effort to simplify a complex body of research),
a number of writers have sought to construct a dichotomy between engagement and
compliance. In part, this is a coherent strategy. Compliance alone is not a useful marker
of an effective classroom and no effective instructor would be satisfied with a classroom
full of exclusively-compliant students. Still, this does not mean that engagement and
compliance are oppositional in nature, and compliance is not deserving of the stigma that
has been developed around it. Researchers have long-included compliance as
a component of behavioural engagement, which has been associated with a host of
positive outcomes. In fact, student compliance is an integral part of creating a climate
conducive to learning in the classroom.
Future steps are needed to advance our knowledge of student engagement and
compliance and improve instruction across P-16 education. First, further research
implicitly highlighting compliance as a component of behavioural engagement would
work to counter the negative connotation that compliance has developed. Much is yet
understood about how a student experiences behavioural, cognitive, emotional, and
(particularly) agentic engagement concurrently, and research on this multi-faceted
nature of engagement (again, explicitly measuring compliance) would be helpful.
 LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 145

It is also as of yet unclear to what extent the relationships between engagement,

compliance, and student outcomes are culturally-driven. The status of teachers/profes­
sors as well as proper conduct in intergenerational relationships vary widely from one
culture to another. No study in this review of literature has aimed to determine if
behavioural engagement (and therefore compliance) plays a different role in student
outcomes in various settings and cultures.
Finally, more research is needed regarding what factors an instructor or school can
influence to increase student engagement. For example, there is evidence that suggests
that secondary students are more engaged in elective courses (Nguyen et al., 2018). It is
unclear, however, how this may translate into higher education. College students “elect”
a major, thus choosing the body of coursework which will then be required. “Electives”,
however, are by definition outside of this body of required coursework which they elected
into. In this literature review, no research data was found on college students’ levels of
engagement in an elective course as compared to a degree requirement course. Such data,
however, may justify some departments to restructure the makeup of their programmes.
Research also suggests that implementing student choice within a course can increase
student engagement (Danley & Williams, 2020; Fredricks, 2014). It is yet unclear,
however, if student choice can influence behavioural, cognitive, emotional, and agentic
engagement differently or how an instructor can most effectively implement student
choice to maximise student engagement.
In addition to further research, we as educators need to be mindful of how we think
and speak of engagement and compliance. In reality, we need our students to be
compliant because non-compliance amounts to chaos. We also need our students to be
engaged. In crafting a message to P-16 instructors, teacher educators, and pre-service
teachers, we need to be mindful that compliance is part of engagement, engagement is
a malleable characteristic, and a student’s level of engagement may not always be readily
apparent for observation. In a continual effort to reform pedagogical best practices and
increase student engagement, instructors should be encouraged to pursue both compli­
ance and engagement in their students.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Alan English http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4967-2409

References
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and
cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9),
408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x
Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive
engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 188–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931
146 A. ENGLISH

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-
enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students‘ engagement in schoolwork.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709902158883
Chen, J., Huebner, E., & Tian, L. (2020). Longitudinal relations between hope and academic
achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learning and
Individual Differences, 78, 101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824
Danley, A., & Williams, C. (2020). Choice in learning: Differentiating instruction in the college
classroom. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 15, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.46504/
15202005da
Engels, M., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, P., Claes, S.,
Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher-
student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of
Youth Adolescence. 45(6), 1192–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state
of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543074001059
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring
student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments.
Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at SERVE CenterUNC. 098.
Fredricks, J. (2014). Eight Myths of Student Disengagement. Corwin.
Fredricks, J., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment:
Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43,
1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Garrett, T. (2014). Effective classroom management: The essentials. Teachers College Press.
Hart, S., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. (2011). The student engagement in schools questionnaire
(SESQ) and the teacher engagement report form-new (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary
evidence. Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 67–79.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy
support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Lawson, M. (2017). Commentary: Bridging student engagement research and practice. School
Psychology International, 38(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317708010
Lee, J. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it
a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00220671.2013.807491
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,
middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153
Nguyen, T., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement:
Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research,
111(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220359
Poltavski, D., Van Eck, R., Winger, A., & Honts, C. (2018). Using a polygraph system for
evaluation of the social desirability response bias in self-report measures of aggression.
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 43(4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-
018-9414-4
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In
S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschley, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer Science+Business Media.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for them­
selves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
 LEARNING: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 147

Saeedi, Z., Ghorbani, N., Sarafraz, M., & Shoar, T. (2020). A bias of self-reports among repressors:
Examining the evidence for the validity of self-relevant and health-relevant personal reports.
International Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12560
Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and
everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschley, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research
on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer Science+Business Media.
Smith, R., & Dearborn, G. (2016). Conscious classroom management: Unlocking the secrets of great
teaching (Conscious Teaching LLC).
song, G., Ma, Q., Wu, F., & Li, L. (2012). The psychological explanation of conformity. Social
Behavior and Personality, 40(8), 1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.8.1365
Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Estévez, I., Ferradás, M., Guisande, M., & Rodríguez, S. (2019). Individual
precursors of student homework behavioral engagement: The role of intrinsic motivation,
perceived homework utility and homework attitude. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00941
Virtanen, T., Lerkkanen, M., Poikkeus, A., & Kuorelahti, M. (2014). Student behavioral engage­
ment as a mediator between teacher, family, and peer support and school truancy. Learning and
Individual Differences, 36, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.09.001
Wang, M., & Fredricks, J. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem
behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85(2), 722–737. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138
Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student
engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12073