Classroom and institutional differences account for little variance in engagement; nearly all variance is between students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2017: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Intraclass correlations from the fully unconditional model attributed 3.1% of engagement variance to classrooms and 4.1% to institutions, with 92.8% at the student level. → Gasiewski 2012

Evidence¶

Gasiewski 2012¶

Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From Gatekeeping to Engagement: A Multicontextual, Mixed Method Study of Student Academic Engagement in Introductory STEM Courses. Research in Higher Education, 53, 229–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9247-y

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Fully unconditional three-level HLM run to justify multilevel modeling. The authors conclude classrooms and institutions have a marginal effect and proceeded with a three-level model anyway because of interest in classroom climate; level 3 included only a random intercept given 15 institutions.

"These estimates suggested that 3.1 and 4.1% of the variance in academic engagement was attributable to differences across classrooms and institutions, respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Classroom-level ICCs for elementary test score gains range from 0.02 to 0.15 and school-level ICCs from 0.05 to 0.20, so classroom effects explain about 15 percent of gain-score variance — related
• Between-student differences explain a large fraction of CASED label variance, limiting what any clip-level visual model can learn — related
• Most variance in students' epistemic emotions was situational (within-person) fluctuation, with 18–37% due to between-person variability. — related
• Classroom membership accounts for 11% of variance in students' perceived competence, justifying multilevel analysis — related