The Impact of the Learning Environment

on Student Engagement in High School

Classrooms
DAVID J. SHERNOFF
Northern Illinois University

STEPHEN M. TONKS
Northern Illinois University

BRETT ANDERSON
University of Minnesota

This chapter presents a study that investigated characteristics of the learning environ-
ment predicting for student engagement in public high school classrooms. Students in
seven high school classrooms in five different subject areas were observed and videoed
in order to predict their engagement as measured by the experience sampling method
(ESM).

Aptly illustrated by many of the chapters in this volume, some of the most
common and colorful examples of engagement in learning occur in in-
novative private school, alternative public school, and out-of-school time
models. On the other hand, mainstream public education is frequently
characterized as emphasizing efficiency, monolithic teaching practices, a
narrow curricula devoid of meaning to the real lives of students, and oth-
er correlates of widespread student disengagement (Darling-Hammond,
1997; Goodlad, 1984). Even within public high school classes, the engage-
ment that does exist appears to be greater in nonacademic than in aca-
demic courses (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003).
Thus, it would be natural to draw the conclusion that engagement cannot,

National Society for the Study of Education, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 166-177
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
 Impact of Learning Environment 167

or at least does not, commonly occur in public school courses of core

academic subjects. We question the wisdom of resting on this assumption;
further, we believe the importance of this question warrants empirical in-
vestigation. In this chapter, we investigate motivational characteristics of
the learning environment influencing students’ immediate reactions in
terms of student engagement in public high school classrooms and ask
not only, “Does engagement occur in public high school classrooms?” but
also, “Under what conditions?” The study presented herein thus focuses
on theoretically and empirically supported features of the learning envi-
ronment and their influences on student engagement.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND ENGAGEMENT

WITH LEARNING

To gain some theoretical guidance from educational psychology, a use-

ful question is not, “what is learning?” but “where is learning?” Vygotsky
(1978) and others illustrated that learning is a social and transactional
process occurring between individuals, mediated through language and
other cultural tools, in the context of a sociohistorically influenced envi-
ronment. Much of contemporary educational psychology has followed in
this constructivist tradition, highlighting the reciprocal, situated, and col-
laborative nature of learning within authentic contexts and learning com-
munities (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999;
Rogoff, 1990, 1995, 2003; Scardamalia, 1989; Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve,
& Messina, 2009). If engagement with learning arises from the reciprocal
interaction between learners and a learning environment as suggested by
contemporary educational psychology, then teachers’ potency to engage
students may lie in their ability to create, shape, and influence the whole
learning environment.
Furthermore, this constructivist-based perspective would suggest that a
holistic approach to studying engaging environments is needed. Dominat-
ed by surveys to measure individual constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, goal ori-
entations, etc.), rather than characteristics of learning environments (e.g.,
interactions, relationships, and learning communities), research methods
to investigate how learners become motivated and engaged in learning
have lagged behind contemporary theory in educational psychology. This
is only one of perhaps several reasons that research on learning environ-
ments, including social and relational classroom climates, has arguably
not received due attention by researchers (Allodi, 2010).
There are some studies, especially by Pianta and colleagues (e.g., Ga-
zelle, 2006; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003),
168 National Society for the Study of Education

that focus on the effectiveness of teacher behaviors on classroom climate.

However, much of this work to date has been conducted with early child-
hood, prekindergarten, and elementary classrooms. Not only is similar
work in middle schools and high schools underrepresented, but because
motivational issues become more salient in the adolescent years, there is
an increased need for work of this nature that focuses on motivational
dimensions of the learning environment.
In the current study, our perspective and expectations were informed
by research on optimal learning environments, or learning environments
empirically shown to foster engagement (Shernoff, 2012, 2013). The pri-
mary feature of optimal learning environments is believed to be environ-
mental complexity, in which environmental challenge and environmental
support are combined. The challenge dimension typically features clear
prescriptions for meaningful and goal-directed action by presenting a task
to be completed or a challenge to be mastered. These sorts of skill-build-
ing tasks usually involve an optimal level of challenge that is appropriate
for the learner’s skills and the use of domain-specific tools or technologies
in the process of fashioning products (as in the arts) or solving problems
(as in the sciences). In addition, the importance of the task is evident,
and the goals are clear (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). In the classroom, environmental challenge may
be stimulated by the assessment of skills, learning, and/or performance.
Key to the challenge dimension is an attitude of and high expectations for
mastery, competency, and/or success.
The support dimension represents the provision of resources necessary
for meeting challenges, including competence, emotional, and relational
support. These features include motivational supports for students’ au-
tonomy (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004),
interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), and intrinsic motivation (Sansone &
Harackiewicz, 2000); opportunities for activity and interactivity in which
respected members have roles and occasions to make contributions
(Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Scardamalia, 1989; Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 1996; Zhang et al., 2009); and performance feedback or in-
structional scaffolding (Meyer & Smithenry, this Yearbook).

THE STUDY

In this study, we investigated the following research question: What is

the influence of research-based dimensions of the learning environ-
ment on students’ engagement while participating in that environment?
Student engagement in high school classes was captured by the experi-
ence sampling method (ESM) and linked to instructional episodes and
 Impact of Learning Environment 169

corresponding characteristics of the learning environment assessed from

videoed classroom observations. We observed seven ninth through 12th
grade class sessions in a variety of core subjects: English, math, science,
social studies, and Spanish. A total of five teachers and 140 students in two
schools (referred to as School A and School B) participated in the study.
In terms of the student sample, 36% were in the ninth grade, 11% in 10th
grade, 37% in 11th grade, and 16% in 12th grade; 60% were female; 86%
were Caucasian, 6% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 3% African American; and
13% received free or reduced lunch.
The procedure of the study was as follows. Student participants first com-
pleted a high school background survey that solicited age and grade level,
gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, self-reported grades, and
educational aspirations. Each class session was videoed in its entirety by
two video cameras, one focused on the teacher and the other on a focus
group of four to five conveniently located students. The ESM was admin-
istered in each class observed (see Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi,
2007, for reliability and validity information). Each class was divided into
two groups. In an alternating fashion (i.e., first Group A, then Group B,
repeated as necessary), students in each group were signaled by a prepro-
grammed wristwatch worn by a researcher–observer and prompted to com-
plete a brief survey on their experiences at the moment just before the sig-
nal. At School A, each group was signaled twice during each 50-min class,
and at School B, each group was signaled three times during each 86-min
class. Following each signal, students completed the Record of Experience
(RoE), which took approximately 4–5 min to complete. It included items
for which participants rated their engagement, perceptions of the activ-
ity, and their subjective mood state on Likert-type response scales ranging
from zero (not at all) to five (very much). Based on flow theory, engage-
ment was a composite of items on concentration, interest, and enjoyment
as utilized in previous studies (a = .75; see Shernoff, 2012, in press).
Two researchers coded the classroom videos, focusing on observations of
classroom interactions preceding each ESM signal. The unit of analysis for
coding was the learning environment as a whole (as opposed to the teacher
or the students), coded for those dimensions expected to facilitate engage-
ment in learning. For this purpose, an observational assessment instrument
for the learning environment was created. Dimensions were based on a
thorough review of the literature on student engagement, learning environ-
ments, and classroom climate (e.g., American Psychological Association,
Learner-Centered Principles Work Group of the American Psychological As-
sociation's Board of Educational Affairs, 1997; Brophy & Good, 1986; Fraser,
1998; Larson, 2011; Reeve et al., 2004; Shernoff, 2010, in press; Skinner &
Belmont, 1993; Turner, 2010; Urdan & Turner, 2005; Zedan, 2010). Fourteen
170 National Society for the Study of Education

dimensions of the learning environment emerged: (1) environmental com-

plexity global rating (environmental challenge and support), (2) environ-
mental challenge global rating, (3) environmental support global rating,
(4) the teacher’s direct role/classroom direction and management; five
environmental challenge dimensions, namely (5) importance/relevance of
the activity, (6) complex situated tasks, (7) clear goals, (8) emphasis on con-
cept and language development, (9) the presence of assessment; and five
environmental support dimensions, namely (10) support for motivation and
engagement, (11) positive relationships, (12) interactivity and transactional
learning, (13) performance feedback, and (14) activity level. These dimen-
sions were assessed by the observational instrument designed by Shernoff,
Tonks, Anderson, and Dortch (2011) called the Optimal Learning Environ-
ment—Observational Log and Assessment (OLE-OLA).1 Each dimension
of the OLE-OLA was rated on a seven-point scale following the procedure
and general rating categories of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). Numerous subcomponents were
considered for the rating of each dimension.
Characteristics of the learning environment were coded for each of the
instructional episodes preceding each of the beeps (n = 27 episodes). Fol-
lowing the system outlined for the CLASS, interrater agreement of the
OLE-OLA was approximately .72. An Optimal Learning Environment
Scale (OLES) was created from the 14 dimensions of the learning environ-
ment. Data were analyzed with the Rasch Model (Rasch, 1960) computer
program RUMM2030 (RUMMLab 2007) for this purpose. Internal reli-
ability of the scale was high (a = .88), and there was ample evidence of con-
tent, substantive, structural, generalizable, and interpretability aspects of
validity (see Cavanagh, 2011; Messick, 1995; Wolfe & Smith 2007a, 2007b).
The resulting Rasch measure, which appeared to represent environmen-
tal complexity (due to inclusion of a variety of both environmental chal-
lenge and environmental support dimensions), was significantly related to
students’ perceptions of involvement, contributing ideas, positive affect,
engagement, challenge, skill use, clear goals, feeling accepted, and effort.
This preliminary analysis finding supported the proposition that en-
vironmental complexity is likely the chief attribute of optimal learning
environments in which students’ involvement, engagement, self-efficacy,
and sense of participation are simultaneously heightened. In complex
environments, students were significantly but appropriately challenged
with complex tasks and high teacher expectations and were also given the
supports to be successful, including competence, motivational, relational,
and social and emotional supports. Thus, optimal learning environments
were those that created several simultaneous conditions theorized to stim-
ulate flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and the sociocognitive
 Impact of Learning Environment 171

construction of knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Scardamalia & Bereiter,

1996). These conditions included task complexity, the use of materials, op-
timal challenge, high teacher expectations, positive teacher–student and
peer relationships, clearly expressed goals for the activity, teacher moni-
toring and feedback/scaffolding, and teacher enthusiasm and creativity.
The teacher and class combined to form a highly influential megafactor
in the study, which we sought to account for statistically. Several class-level
variables were highly overlapping because the seven classes observed were
all in different subjects (with the exception that two were English); and
all subjects were taught by different teachers, with one exception (one
teacher taught classes in both sociology and geography). Because we con-
sidered the two English classes taught by the same teacher to be similar,
we used school subject, representing the six subjects in the seven observed
classes, as the class/subject/teacher megafactor. Although we could con-
trol for this factor statistically, our inability to disentangle or distinguish
among the independent influences of class, subject, and teacher was a
limitation of the study that we hope to address in the future with larger
class, teacher, and school samples.
Due to the nested nature of the data, such that 332 self-reports were
nested within 140 students and 27 instructional episodes, multilevel mod-
els (or HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 2002) were used for analyses. In addi-
tion, because the data were hierarchically structured, but that structure
created an imperfect hierarchy (i.e., each self-report belonged uniquely
to one individual and one instructional episode, but neither were nested
in the other), cross-classified models were used (Snijders & Bosker, 2012).

FINDINGS

A fully unconditional cross-classified model (i.e., with no predictors) re-

vealed that 16% of the variation in engagement were from mean differ-
ences between instructional episodes, 38% were from mean differences
between individuals, and 46% were within-episode and within-person
variation explained by neither factor. The variance component of the
cross-classified instructional episode factor was significantly greater than
zero (X2 = 91.79, p < .001), indicating significant variation in engagement
across instructional episodes; engagement also significantly varied across
individuals (X2 = 312.19, p < .001). However, the residual variance among
episodes after including all 14 dimensions of the learning environment
in a single model was zero, suggesting that, together, the 14 dimensions
explained 100% of the variation in engagement among episodes.
The Rasch measure from the OLES was a significant predictor of
172 National Society for the Study of Education

engagement (Γ= 0.14, t = 2.39, p < .05) after controlling for the effects
of class/subject/teacher and person-level background characteristics
(i.e., grade level, gender, race/ethnicity, low socioeconomic status, grade
in course, and honors student). The effect size of 0.59 was moderate. A
composite of only the five environmental challenge dimensions (i.e., im-
portance, complex tasks, clear goals, concept and language development,
and assessment, a = .82), as well as a composite of the five environmental
support dimensions (i.e., motivation support, positive relations, interac-
tivity, feedback, and activity level, a = .81), was also a significant predictor
after controls.
The influence of each dimension of the learning environment was also
analyzed separately while controlling for the effects of class/subject/
teacher and person-level background characteristics. Results are pre-
sented in Table 1. They revealed that our superordinate global rating
of environmental complexity (combination of environmental challenge
and support) was a positive predictor of engagement, as were both the
global ratings of environmental challenge and support. The sizes of the
effects for the global ratings of environmental complexity and support
were large; the effect size was moderate to large for environmental chal-
lenge. Specific dimensions that were significantly related to engagement
included: support for motivation, importance of the activity, clear goals,
and feedback. The size of the effect for task importance was large, and the
sizes of the remaining effects were moderate to large.
Positive relationships was also a significant predictor without controlling
for class/subject/teacher (while still controlling for person-level factors).

Table 1. Significant and Nonsignificant Dimensions of the Learning Environment Predict-

ing Engagement

Environmental complexity (global rating)**

Challenge dimension (global rating)** Support dimension (global rating)**
Task importance*** Motivational support **
Complex tasks (e.g., with materials) Positive relationships+
Clear goals* Interactivity
Assessment Feedback*
Conceptual/language development Activity Level
Challenge composite (a = .82)* Support composite (a = .81)*
Teacher effectiveness++

Note. Significant predictors of engagement are in bold.

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
+
Significant without controlling for class/teacher/subject.
++
Significant without controlling for class/teacher/subject at p < .10.
 Impact of Learning Environment 173

Thus, positive relationships was a significant predictor of engagement

across instructional episodes, but one accounted for by the specific teach-
er. This suggests that the teacher is a likely a large factor in the relational
tenor of the class, which makes intuitive sense. Similarly, the teacher’s di-
rect role was also significant after removing the control for class/subject/
teacher, although only at p < .10 (an increase of alpha to .10 may be con-
sidered justified when predicting variation among instructional episodes,
in which N = 27).

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that engagement does vary greatly in traditional public
schools. Even though only 16% of the variation in engagement is attribut-
able to mean differences between instructional episodes, that variation
is significant and is largely accounted for by properties of the learning
environment. In addition, students’ engagement as well as perceptions of
involvement, contributing ideas, positive affect, engagement, challenge,
skill use, clear goals, feeling accepted, and effort were all influenced by en-
vironmental complexity, in which environmental challenge and support
are simultaneously present.
Optimal learning environments appeared to be marked by environmen-
tal complexity and frequently created through structured tasks in individ-
ual or small group work with teacher monitoring. For example, we found
that engagement was, on average, relatively high during teacher presenta-
tions; however, an instructional practice that greatly enhanced engage-
ment during presentations was teacher instructions directing concurrent
student action (e.g., solving board problems with a calculator simultane-
ously with the teacher or answering content-related questions). Another
feature of optimal learning environments was cognitive apprenticeship,
in which the teacher modeled and made explicit the thinking processes
required for complex problem solving. Such conditions provided strong
scripts or prescriptions for directing student action or expression. Simulta-
neously, students felt emotionally supported through a positive relational
tone often created by very subtle use of positive feedback and affirmation,
expressions of student interest, and use of humor.
The teacher’s direct role of presenting material, providing instruction,
and managing time was marginally related to engagement; yet, for all the
time teachers spend preparing for this direct role, it was no stronger an
influence on students’ engagement than their indirect role in shaping
the motivational and relational environment of the classroom, especially
with respect to providing environmental challenges and supports (e.g.,
setting the emotional tone, providing activities stimulating purposeful
174 National Society for the Study of Education

and challenging action, utilizing a seating layout conducive to purpose

interaction, providing evaluation criteria, creating feedback loops, etc.).
When students believe that what they are doing is important and has clear
goals, they are more likely to interact with interest and absorb what is avail-
able in the classroom environment. When they additionally are supported
to reach those goals, both emotionally (e.g., via support for autonomy
and intrinsic interests and feeling understood by teachers and peers) and
with timely performance feedback, they adopt attitudes characterized by
excitement, fun, and interest in learning.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

Theoretically centering on optimal learning environments will contribute

to classroom-based theories of engagement and learning that are of direct
utility to teachers. Educators and researchers have focused on curriculum
and assessment without fully exploring the extent to which features of the
learning environment are proximally related to engagement and learn-
ing. Identifying environmental dimensions that promote engagement has
the potential to enhance high school instruction and learning for the ben-
efit of both teachers and students. Foundational perspectives on motiva-
tion and contemporary theories of educational psychology continue to
push our thinking with respect to design and implementation of learning
environments that promote engagement and positive experiences likely
to advance student learning.

Notes

1. We regret that the full version of the instrument including subcomponents

and definitions of each dimension, which is still under development, could not be
included in this chapter due to space restrictions.

References
Allodi, M. W. (2010). The meaning of social climate of learning environments: Some
reasons why we do not care enough about it. Learning Environments Research, 13, 89–104.
doi:10.1007/s10984-010-9072-9
American Psychological Association, Learner-Centered Principles Work Group of the
American Psychological Association's Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-
centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Retrieved from the
American Psychological Association website: http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/
learner-centered.pdf
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). London: Collier
Macmillan.
 Impact of Learning Environment 175

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cavanagh, R. F. (2011). Establishing the validity of rating scale instrumentation in learning
environment investigations. In R. F. Cavanagh & R. F. Waugh (Eds.), Applications of Rasch
measurement in learning environments research (pp. 77–100). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and
applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.
Gazelle, H. (2006). Class climate moderates peer relations and emotional adjustment
in children with an early history of anxious solitude: A child X environment model.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 1179–1192. doi:1649.42.6.1179
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-
grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development,
76, 949–967. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method:
Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Larson, S. C. (2011). The effects of academic literacy instruction on engagement and conceptual
understanding of biology in ninth grade students. Aurora, IL: Aurora University.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from
persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American
Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.741
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collabortive learning contexts. Theory
into Practice, 41, 26–32. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101-5
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and
children. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 7: Educational
psychology (pp. 199–234). New York: Wiley.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system:
Manual K–3. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: MESA
Press.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during
a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.98.1.209
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement
by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.
176 National Society for the Study of Education

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in a social context. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Development through participation in sociocultural activity. New Directions
for Child Development, 45–65. doi:10.1002/cd.23219956707
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RUMMLab. (2007). Rasch unidimnesional measurement model. Perth, Australia: RUMMLab.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for
optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Scardamalia, M. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational
Leadership, 54, 6–10.
Shernoff, D. J. (2010). The experience of student engagement in high school classrooms: Influences
and effects on long-term outcomes. Saarbruken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Engagement and positive youth development: Creating optimal
learning environments. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), The APA
Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 195–220). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York:
Springer.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
Shernoff, D. J., Tonks, S., Anderson, B., & Dortch, C. (2011, April). Linking instructional
practices with student engagement from moment to moment in high school classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
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, 571–581. doi:10.1037/a0012840
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analyses (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Turner, J. C. (2010, May). Understanding classroom research and its contributions to our understanding
of motivation to learn. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver, CO.
Urdan, T. C., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. In A. J. Elliot
& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 297–317). New York:
Guilford.
Vygotsky, L. (Ed.). (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007a). Instrument development tools and activities for measure
validation using Rasch models: Part 1—Instrument development tools. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 8(1), 97–123.
Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007b). Instrument development tools and activities for
measure validation using Rasch models: Part II—Validation activities. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 8(2), 294–234.
Zedan, R. (2010). New dimensions in the classroom climate. Learning Environments Research,
13, 75–88. doi:10.1007/s10984-009-9068-5
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive
responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18,
7–44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676
 Impact of Learning Environment 177

DAVID J. SHERNOFF is visiting associate professor at Rutgers University

and associate professor of educational psychology at Northern Illinois
University. His research interests include student motivation and engag-
ing learning environments, engagement in educational video games, and
mentoring. Recent publications include the 2013 book, Optimal Learn-
ing Environments to Promote Student Engagement (Springer), and the book
chapter, "Engagement and positive youth development: Creating optimal
learning environments” which appeared in the (2012) APA Educational
Psychology Handbook.

STEPHEN M. TONKS is an associate professor of educational psychol-

ogy at Northern Illinois University whose research interests include stu-
dent motivation, reading engagement, and cultural influences, especially
in Japan. A recent (2011) publication (with A. Taboada) is “Developing
self-regulated readers through instruction for reading engagement” in the
Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (Routledge).

BRETT ANDERSON received his M.S.Ed. in educational psychology from

Northern Illinois University and currently works in the Behavioral Health
Services Department of the University of Minnesota Medical Center. His
research interests include student engagement and motivation, positive
youth development, and well-being. A recently chapter published in the
APA book Activities for Teaching Positive Psychology was “Flow and optimal
learning environments” (2013, with David J. Shernoff).