Influencia del apoyo familiar y escolar en el compromiso conductual de los estudiantes. Análisis multinivel en un IES de compensación educativa

  1. Corchuelo Fernández, Celia 1
  2. Cejudo Cortés, Carmen María Aránzazu 1
  3. Tirado Morueta, Ramón 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Huelva
    info

    Universidad de Huelva

    Huelva, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03a1kt624

Revista:
Revista complutense de educación

ISSN: 1130-2496,  1988-2793

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 30

Número: 2

Páginas: 605-622

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/RCED.57883 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista complutense de educación

Resumen

El compromiso de los estudiantes con el aprendizaje y la escuela, dada su relación con el rendimiento y la carrera académica, no deja de ser un reto en cualquier sistema educativo, que mantiene el interés de la investigación socio-educativa. Esta realidad se ve aumentada cuando se pone el foco en centros educativos de compensación educativa. Se trata de centros que canalizan curricularmente a aquellos estudiantes que fracasan en otros centros, y que suelen estar en situación de riesgo de exclusión social. En consecuencia, los factores que influyen en el compromiso académico de los estudiantes, en este tipo de centros pueden identificarse de forma más evidente. El estudio que se presenta en este artículo se ubica en un IES de estas características, siendo sus objetivos: (a) identificar la medida en la que el apoyo familiar/escolar influye sobre el compromiso conductual (CC) de los estudiantes, y (b) ver la medida en la que el nivel educativo de la ESO (NE-ESO) modula esta influencia. En el estudio se implica a la totalidad de los estudiantes del IES, se aplica un cuestionario con una escala tipo Likert, y se realiza un análisis multinivel. Los resultados muestran una fuerte influencia del apoyo del profesorado sobre el compromiso conductual de los estudiantes con el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Asimismo, aunque en menor medida, resulta significativo el interés y participación de la familia en los asuntos escolares.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akey, T. M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. New York: MDRC. Recuperado de: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/419/full.pdf
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Alienation and the four worlds of childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 431-436.
  • Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N. & Kewal Ramani, A. (2010). Trends in high schools dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009 (NCES 2012-006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Recuperado de : http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L. & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: how engagement strategies in popular computer and video games and inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67-83. doi: 10.1007/BF02504866.
  • Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142. doi: 10.3102/00346543059002117
  • Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Finn, J. D. & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 141-162. doi: 10.3102/00028312029001141
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
  • Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out of school contexts: a multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 4, 327-335. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2011.607401
  • Fredricks, J. A. & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: a comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschy & C.Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (319-339). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37.
  • Fredricks, J. A. (2015). Academic engagement. In J. Wright (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (31-36). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26085-6.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M. T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A. & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5-15. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009
  • Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
  • Hospel, V. & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001.
  • Hughes, J. N. & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of teacherstudent support on elementary students’ peer acceptance: a prospective analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 465-480. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.001.
  • Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O. & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effort ful engagement, and achievement: a three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 1-14. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1.
  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J. & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39-51. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005.
  • Jang, H., Kim, E.-J. & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally-occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1175-1188. doi: 10.1037/a0028089.
  • Jang, H., Kim, E. J. & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27-38. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 141-151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
  • Ladd, G. W. & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 190-206. doi: 10.1037/a0013153.
  • Larson, R.W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170.
  • Larson, S. C. (2011). The effects of academic literacy instruction on engagement and conceptual understanding of biology in ninth grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aurora, IL: Aurora University.
  • Lee, W. & Reeve, J. (2012). Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement: Being in synch with students. Educational Psychology, 32, 727-747. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.732385.
  • Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270. doi: 10.2307/2112741.
  • 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. doi: 10.3102/00028312037001153.
  • Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement and academic achievement: An analysis of family resources available to the child. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (77-113). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Newmann, F. M. (1989a). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 34-36.
  • Newmann, F. M. (1989b). Student engagement in academic work: A conceptual model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50, 8-12.
  • Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G. & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achieve-ment in American secondary schools (11-39): New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579-595. doi: 10.1037/a0032690.
  • Reeve, J. & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.
  • Roorda, D. L. Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L. & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: a meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529. doi: 10.3102/0034654311421793.
  • Salmela-Aro, K. & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 137-151. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12018.
  • Sedlak, M. W. Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C. & Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling students short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Shernoff, D. J. & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high school classroom. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 73-87. doi: 10.1002/cd.26.
  • Shernoff, D. J. & Schmidt, J. A. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement achievement paradox among U.S. high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 564-580. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9241-z.
  • Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7089-2.
  • Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S. & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003.
  • Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571.
  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of educational psychology,100(4), 765.
  • Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York: Summit.
  • Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L. & Linn, J. S. (2016). The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008.
  • Zedan, R. (2010). New dimensions in the classroom climate. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 75-88. doi: 10.1007/s10984-009-9068-5.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-17. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet