Narrative-based intervention in elementary school: impact on students' basic psychological needs-satisfaction and classroom engagement

Universidade do M inho Escola de Psicologia Rafaela Fidalgo Peseta Narrative-based intervention in elementary school: Impact on students' basic psychological needs-satisfaction and classroom engagement junho de 2022 UMinho | 2022 Rafaela Peseta Narrative-based intervention in elementary school: Impact on students' basic psychological needs-satisfaction and classroom engagement Rafaela Fidalgo Peseta Narrative-based intervention in elementary school: Impact on students' basic psychological needs-satisfaction and classroom engagement Dissertação de Mestrado Mestrado Integrado em Psicologia Trabalho efetuado sob a orientação do Professor Doutor Pedro Rosário e da Doutora Jennifer Cunha Universidade do M inho Escola de Psicologia junho de 2022 ii DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho. Licença concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ iii Acknowledgments To my teacher and supervisor, Pedro Rosário, for all the support and dedication throughout this year. For teaching me the art of questioning and reflection. To my co-supervisor, Jennifer Cunha, for all her help, availability, and advice. Thank you for helping me learn and grow. To GUIA, for welcoming me so well during this journey. To my friends at the university, Ana and Patrícia, for always accompanying and supporting me. For all the nights of study and all the moments of fun. To Joana and André, for all their advice and concern. Thank you for giving more life and meaning to this path. To my "GUIA" friends, Beatriz, and Daniela, for sharing ideas, doubts, and insecurities, and especially for all the good moments we had this year. To my parents, for the education they gave me, and for providing me the opportunity to study. To my grandparents, for being my safe harbor. For raising me so well and always caring for me. To my sister, for all the strength she has given me. This journey wouldn’t be the same without her encouragement and support. To my uncles, for always supporting me. Thank you for all the trips and all the good moments, this journey wouldn't be the same without you. iv STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho. University of Minho, 06/06/2022 Full name: Rafaela Fidalgo Peseta Assinatura: ___________________________________ v Intervenção baseada na narrativa no 1.º ciclo: Impacto na satisfação das necessidades psicológicas básicas e no envolvimento na sala de aula dos alunos Resumo A literatura tem reportado uma diminuição do envolvimento dos alunos ao longo da escolarização, enfatizando a sua importância para o desempenho académico imediato e subsequente, rendimento e conclusão escolar. De acordo com a Teoria da Autodeterminação, um ambiente de aprendizagem de apoio facilita a aprendizagem autorregulada dos estudantes devido à satisfação das suas necessidades psicológicas básicas, levando a um maior envolvimento. Deste modo, o presente estudo tem como objetivo avaliar o impacto de um programa de promoção de estratégias de autorregulação, implementado por professores, na satisfação das necessidades psicológicas básicas e no envolvimento em sala de aula dos alunos do 1.º ciclo. O programa utilizou a estória-ferramenta, Sarilhos do Amarelo , e incluiu 90 alunos do 4.º ano com idades compreendidas entre os oito e os 12 anos. O grupo de comparação incluiu 99 alunos do 4.º ano. O estudo seguiu um desenho quasi-experimental, com dados recolhidos antes e depois da intervenção. No final da intervenção, o grupo experimental reportou maior competência percebida e envolvimento na sala de aula do que o grupo de comparação. Espera-se que os resultados do presente estudo apoiem os esforços dos investigadores e educadores em proporcionar um ambiente de aprendizagem promotor de sucesso académico, incentivar cursos de formação de professores em autorregulação da aprendizagem, e promover a infusão curricular de programas baseados na evidência de promoção na autorregulação. Palavras-chave: necessidades psicológicas básicas, envolvimento em sala de aula, alunos do 1.º ciclo, intervenção baseada na narrativa, aprendizagem autorregulada vi Narrative-based intervention in elementary school: Impact on students’ basic psychological needssatisfaction and classroom engagement Abstract Literature on engagement has reported a decrease throughout schooling, emphasizing its importance to immediate and subsequent academic performance, achievement, and school completion. According to Self-determination Theory, a supportive learning environment facilitates students’ self-regulated learning (SRL) owing to the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs leading to increased student engagement. Thereupon, the current study aims to assess the impact of a self-regulation intervention program, applied by teachers, on students’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and classroom engagement in elementary school. The program used a story tool, Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations, and included 90 fourth-grade students with ages ranging from eight to 12 years old. The comparison group included 99 fourth-grade students. The study followed a quasi-experimental design, with data collected prior to and after the intervention. At the end of the intervention, the experimental group reported higher perceived competence and classroom engagement than the comparison group. Results of the present study are expected to support researchers' and educators’ efforts to provide a learning environment likely to foster academic success, encourage teacher training courses in SRL, and promote the curricular infusion of SRL evidenced-based programs. Keywords: basic psychological needs, classroom engagement, elementary students, narrativebased intervention, self-regulated learning vii Index Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Engagement: definition and empirical evidence ............................................................................... 9 Basic psychological needs and engagement .................................................................................. 10 Engagement and self-regulation .................................................................................................... 11 Purpose of the study ..................................................................................................................... 12 Method ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Context and Participants ............................................................................................................... 13 Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 14 Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations narrative-based intervention ...................................................... 14 The SRL Model ......................................................................................................................... 15 Session Structure ..................................................................................................................... 16 Treatment Integrity ................................................................................................................... 16 Instruments and Measures ........................................................................................................... 17 Personal data ........................................................................................................................... 17 Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction ....................................................................................... 17 Classroom engagement ............................................................................................................ 17 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................ 18 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................................... 28 References ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Figures Index Figure 1. Graphical representation of levels of Perceived Autonomy over the two moments ................. 22 Figure 2. Graphical representation of levels of Perceived Competence over the two moments ............. 22 Figure 3. Graphical representation of levels of Perceived Relatedness over the two moments .............. 23 Figure 4. Graphical representation of levels of Behavioral Engagement over the two moments ............ 24 Figure 5. Graphical representation of levels of Emotional Engagement over the two moments ............ 24 Figure 6. Graphical representation of levels of Cognitive Engagement over the two moments .............. 25 Figure 7. Graphical representation of levels of Agentic Engagement over the two moments ................. 25 14 In the case of the current study, one group of public schools situated in the south of Portugal selected the Rainbow Reference Methodology to address the educational needs of the institution. In this sense, the experimental group of the current study sample is comprised of 90 students, ages ranging between eight and 12 years old ( M = 9.27, SD = .517), enrolled in the group of schools that applied to Gulbenkian Academies of Knowledge. Participants in this condition were enrolled in four classes. Following the agreement made with Gulbenkian Academies of Knowledge , each institution is responsible to select a comparison group to assess the impact of the Reference Methodology used. In this context, the coordinator of the Gulbenkian Academy of Knowledge contacted the school administrator of another public group of schools with similar sociodemographic characteristics. The comparison group was comprised of 99 students, ages ranging between eight and 12 years old ( M = 9.20, SD = .477) enrolled in six classes. In total, the participants were 189 fourth-grade students (98 girls) with ages ranging between eight and 12 years old ( M = 9.23, SD = .49). Parents/legal guardians of the participant children enrolled in the intervention and comparison group gave their written informed consent. Procedure Participants in both groups followed the national curriculum for the fourth-grade. The comparison group did not engage in the intervention and followed the curriculum as usual. To date, the teachers of the students in this condition had not enroll in training on SRL strategies. The experimental group enrolled in ten 60-minute sessions on a weekly basis from March to June. The intervention program was rooted in a story-tool, Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations (Rosário et al., 2007b), and was carried out in the classroom setting. Every week one or two chapters of the book were read out loud, and students were invited to discuss the experiences of the rainbow colors and the SRL processes underlining them. The discussion was guided by the implementer and the in-class questioning followed the three types of knowledge (i.e., declarative, procedural, and conditional; Rosário et al., 2019). Data were collected by a research assistant in the classroom context. Data from classroom engagement and basic psychological needs measures were collected prior to the beginning of the program (i.e., pretest) and at the end of the program (i.e., posttest). The intervention program was implemented by the schoolteachers who, prior to the intervention enrolled in a 50-hour training program focused on motivational and SRL theoretical frameworks. The implementation of the intervention was monitored by the research team through videoconference monthly sessions. Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations narrative-based intervention The current intervention program is based on the story-tool Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations (Rosário et al., 2007b) which narrates the adventures experienced by the colors while looking for their 15 friend Yellow , who disappeared unexpectedly. The intervention program aims to promote children under 10 years old SRL strategies (e.g., goal setting, time management, and help to seek; Azevedo et al., 2022; Rosário et al., 2004; Rosário, Núñez, et al., 2019). Based on a social cognitive approach, the intervention program defends that students’ self-regulation and motivation are influenced by the learning environments and contextual variables (Rosário et al., 2007a). Narratives are important educational tools very useful to structure life events (Bruner, 1986). In this line of reasoning, Rosário’s research team (Azevedo et al., 2022; Cunha et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2019, 2021; Rosário et al., 2016; Tuero et al., 2022) launched a research line investigating the use of stories as tools to help students organize and understand experiences through narratives and train a wide range of SRL strategies. The stories play an essential role in children’s development; therefore inviting students to look at the characters and story plot (e.g., analyzing and reflecting on the problem-solving strategies displayed by the characters) is expected to help them learn and grow (Rosário et al., 2007a). According to Azevedo et al. (2022), story-tools present students with the opportunity to learn and discuss problem-solving strategies and challenges presented in contexts distinct from theirs, but while discussing the story plot and the strategies used by the characters, students are encouraged to transfer the contents acquired to their own learning context and life. For example, one of the chapters narrows the story of a bird-teacher who encouraged bird-students to fly; with wings closed birds do not fly, used to say the bird-teacher. In class, students are expected to transfer the strategies learned in this chapter to their regular school activities (e.g., writing a composition, and solving math problems; Rosário et al., 2017, 2019). This proximity with the characters’ challenges fosters children's discussion with peers about the distinct options and strategies to be followed, and enhances the development of a positive attitude towards the strategic contents instigated by the narrative (Rosário et al., 2017). The SRL strategies incorporated in the narrative are taught to students, who are encouraged to apply what they've learned to the challenges in their daily life; hopefully, these efforts translate to children's positive involvement in learning (Schunk, 1998). For example, Downer et al. (2007) reported that teachers who organize their classes to encourage students to develop critical thinking (e.g., prediction, analysis, comparison) and build a deep understanding of concepts, are more capable of holding their attention and interest in class than those teachers who focused the instruction on basic and rote skills. Therefore, the intervention of the present study was implemented by the schoolteachers based on the assumption that it could be promising to have SRL programs as part of the national curriculum. The SRL Model 16 The model underlining the Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations (Rosário et al., 2007b) story-tool is the PLEE (i.e., planning, execution, evaluation) cyclical model of Rosário et al. (2004), which is addressed in each chapter of the story. The PLEE model is based on Zimmerman’s cyclical model, which comprises three phases: forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2000). The forethought phase comprehends an analysis of tasks and motivational beliefs, which means, the definition of goals, self-efficacy, and orientation towards those same goals. The second phase, the performance phase, integrates self-control and self-observation skills, which translate into self-instruction, time management, and metacognitive monitoring. Finally, the self-reflection phase comprises self-judgment and self-reaction. PLEE adds a recursive nature to Zimmerman’s model. In each of the PLEE phases, individuals are expected to plan, execute, and evaluate their behaviors (e.g., during the planning phase, besides thinking and designing a plan, individuals are expected to set it, and afterward evaluate this plan of action against their self-set goals; Rosário et al., 2004; Rosário & Polydoro, 2012). This model comprises three recursive phases: i) planning, in which students must think about what they want to do and how and when they will do it; setting a plan for this purpose; ii) the execution phase is displayed when the plan is put into practice; and iii) the evaluation phase, which describes the efforts to analyze the outputs against the self-set goals. Importantly, each phase of learning informs the subsequent phase, resetting the self-regulated learning cycle. Session Structure In the current study, each session began with the scenario arrangement, followed by a review of the content delivered in the previous session (i.e., reviewing prior events of the story and lessons learned). Subsequently, participants were invited to read one or two chapters of the book out loud and explore and discuss the experiences of the rainbow colors and the SRL processes underlining them. Finally, there was a practical activity and take-home message. As previously mentioned, in-class discussions were grounded on the three types of knowledge: declarative (i.e., What is?), procedural (i.e., How?), and conditional (i.e., When? Where? Why?; Rosário et al., 2017, 2019). This protocol allowed students to reflect on the narrative as well as on the behaviors, feelings, and accomplishments of the characters, attributing meaning and structure to their learnings while developing prospective applications of these strategies in their daily lives. Treatment Integrity To assure the integrity of the intervention, after each session, the implementer teacher evaluated the adherence to protocol by filling in a session sheet (i.e., grid with all steps of the session and open space records of the difficulties faced, and notes about students’ participation and aspects needed to improve), which they had to send to the research team by email. The adherence to protocol and the 17 performance of the implementers was monitored through the analysis of the session sheets and the monthly discussions via videoconference with the research team. In these sessions, teachers had the opportunity to discuss doubts, challenges, and difficulties experienced in the intervention process. The research team provided support to the teachers’ educational needs. Instruments and Measures Personal data Participants were asked about their gender and age. Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction In order to assess each dimension of the basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) items reported in previous studies were used (Jang et al., 2012, 2016; Reeve & Sickenius, 1994). Students answered this measure through a 5-points Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; Jang et al., 2016). The autonomy dimension was evaluated through five items (e.g., “In this class, I feel free”; Jang et al., 2012). The competence dimension was evaluated through six items (e.g., “In this class, I feel successful in terms of completing difficult tasks and projects”; Jang et al., 2016; Reeve & Sickenius, 1994). Finally, the relatedness dimension was evaluated through four items (e.g., “I feel a close sense of connection with people in this class”; Jang et al., 2016; Reeve & Sickenius, 1994). Items were originally written in English, therefore, a back-to-back professional translation was made to adapt the measure to the Portuguese context. Then the scale was fulfilled by a group of five children in order to check for comprehension. These children did not participate in the intervention study. Two items were changed to accommodate children’s understanding. For example, the item “In this class, I feel competent” was changed to “In this class, I feel that I can do the tasks”. The scale has shown high internal consistency in previous studies (Jang et al., 2012, 2016) and in the present study, the scores on this measure were also internally consistent (i.e., autonomy: α = .75, competence: α = .83, relatedness: α = .76). Classroom engagement Classroom engagement was assessed as a multidimensional construct featuring behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic dimensions. Participants answered the 19 items adapted from the engagement measure of Jang et al. (2016) using a 5-points Likert response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This measure focuses on students' effort, attention, and commitment when initiating and participating in classroom learning activities as well as on their emotions throughout those activities (Jang et al., 2016). Behavioral, emotional, and agentic dimensions of engagement were assessed with five items each (e.g., “When I'm in this class, I listen very carefully.”, “When we work on something in 18 this class, I feel interested.”, and “I let my teacher know what I need and want.”, respectively), while cognitive engagement was assessed by four items (e.g., “When reading for this class, I try to explain the key concepts in my own words.”; Jang et al., 2016). The items were also originally written in English, and back-to-back translated to adapt the measure to the Portuguese context. Then the scale was fulfilled by a group of five children in order to check comprehension. These children did not participate in the intervention study. Three items were changed to accommodate children’s understanding. For example, the item “I let my teacher know what I need and want” was changed to “I let my teacher know what helps me learn”. This scale has shown strong psychometric properties in previous investigations (Jang et al., 2016) and in the present study, the scores on this measure were also internally consistent (i.e., behavioral engagement: α = .81, emotional engagement: α = .82, cognitive engagement: α = .80, agentic engagement: α = .77). Data analysis The present study analyzed the impact of Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations (Rosário et al., 2007b) narrative-based intervention (i.e., independent variable) on students’ basic psychological needs (i.e., dependent variable) and classroom engagement (i.e., dependent variable). As the three dimensions of basic psychological needs and the four dimensions of engagement are related (Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000) a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed for each construct. Since data was collected at two different times (i.e., pretest and posttest) this MANOVA included repeated measures (Field, 2009). Firstly, an exploratory analysis was performed to verify the assumptions required to conduct MANOVA (Field, 2009). The statistical analyses were run using the quantitative data processing program IBM SPSS version 27.0. The effect size was calculated using the partial eta-squared coefficient (η2 p ) as described in Piñeiro et al. (2019). The coefficient values were interpreted through the Cohen (1988) benchmarks: null effect: η2 p < 0.01 (d < 0.09); small effect: η2 p = 0.01 to η2 p = 0.058 (d = 0.10 – d = 0.49); medium effect: η2 p = 0.059 to η2 p = 0.137 (d = 0.50 – d = 0.79); and large effect: η2 p ≥ 0.138 (d ≥ 0.80). Results Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics of all dependent variables of interest to the current study (i.e., basic psychological needs and engagement dimensions) in the pretest and posttest. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine whether there were any differences between the two groups at the pretest. No statistically significant differences were found, which allows inferring any differences in the experimental group in the posttest can be due to the intervention. 19 Table 1 Descriptive statistics Experimental group Comparison group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Perceived Autonomy M 3.53 3.70 3.47 3.65 SD .78 .75 .93 .95 Perceived Competence M 4.08 4.42 4.17 4.20 SD .60 .71 .69 .76 Perceived Relatedness M 4.32 4.36 4.38 4.37 SD .62 .90 .56 .69 Behavioral Engagement M 4.25 4.41 4.30 4.20 SD .57 .60 .55 .69 Emotional Engagement M 4.27 4.372 4.35 4.20 SD .60 .719 .60 .76 Cognitive Engagement M 3.86 4.21 4.04 3.92 SD .800 .79 .80 .93 Agentic Engagement M 3.86 4.15 4.01 3.91 SD .69 .80 .819 .98 Table 2 displays the correlations between the dependent variables. All the variables were positively correlated at .05 or .01 p values, except for autonomy (pretest) with relation to relatedness (posttest), behavioral engagement (posttest), emotional engagement (posttest), and cognitive engagement (pretest), also cognitive engagement (pretest) with relation to cognitive engagement (posttest). Significant Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from .16 to .82. 20 Table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1.Perceived Autonomy 1 - .28** .50** .17* .35** .10 .30** .13 .34** .12 .38 .16* .46** .24** 2 - .30** .68** .26** .50** .27** .44** .36** .42** .35** .55** .39** .55** 2.Perceived Competence 1 - .38** .48** .23** .63** .32** .60** .27** .63** .41** .65** .39** 2 - .31** .63** .38** .61** .40** .59** .37** .70** .39** .67** 3. Perceived Relatedness 1 - .45** .34** .25** .38** .32** .43** .33** .45** .41** 2 - .25** .46** .248** .44** .25** .46** .29** .51** 4.Behavioral Engagement 1 - .57** .67** .38** .58** .36** .55 .35** 2 - .46** .75** .43** .56** .37** .55** 5.Emotional Engagement 1 - .51** .63** .42** .60** .44** 2 - .39** .66** .40** .61** 6.Cognitive Engagement 1 - .49 .73** .50** 2 - .52** .82** 7.Agentic Engagement 1 - .63** 2 - * p < .05. ** p < .01. 21 Regarding basic psychological needs, as displayed in Table 3, results indicate no statistically significant multivariate group effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .991, F (3, 175) = .536, p = .658, η2 p = .009, a statistically significant multivariate time effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .926, F (3, 175) = 4.677, p = .004, η2 p = .074, and a statistically significant multivariate group x time interaction effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .942, F (3, 175) = 3.578, p = .015, η2 p = .058 (see also Figures 1-3). Table 3 Summary of basic psychological needs univariate analyses of repeated measures Group effect Time effect Time x Group effect F p F p F p Perceived autonomy .23 .63 5.28 <.05 .00 .95 Perceived competence .55 .46 10.41 <.001 6.99 <.01 Perceived relatedness .14 .70 .08 .78 .18 .67 Univariate results revealed that of the three basic psychological needs, perceived relatedness had no statistically significant effects (see also Figure 3). On the other hand, a significant effect of time on perceived autonomy was found, F (1, 177) = 5.81, p < .05, η2 p = .029. Data also showed a significant effect of time, F (1, 177) = 10.405, p < .001, η2p = .056, and group x time interaction, F (1, 177) = 6.994, p < .01, η2 p = .038, in perceived competence. Regarding these variables, pairwise comparisons revealed that from pretest to posttest, students in the experimental group reported higher perceived competence (see also Figure 2). Pairwise comparisons also revealed that both groups increased perceived autonomy over time, although in the posttest the groups did not differ (see also Figure 1). 22 Figure 1 Graphical representation of the levels of Perceived Autonomy over the two moments Figure 2 Graphical representation of the levels of Perceived Competence over the two moments 23 Figure 3 Graphical representation of the levels of Perceived Relatedness over the two moments Concerning engagement, Table 4 shows no statistically significant multivariate group effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .993, F (4, 174) = .295, p = .881, η2 p = .007, no statistically significant multivariate time effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .955, F (4, 174) = 2.032, p = .092, η2 p = .045, and a statistically significant multivariate group x time interaction effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .899, F (4, 174) = 4.898, p = .001, η2 p = .101. Table 4 Summary of engagement univariate analyses of repeated measures Group effect Time effect Time x Group effect F p F p F p Behavioral Engagement 1.10 .30 .62 .43 9.74 <.01 Emotional Engagement .31 .58 .21 .65 6.11 <.05 Cognitive Engagement .24 .63 3.99 <.05 14.51 <.001 Agentic Engagement .20 .66 3.20 .08 13.59 <.001 Univariate results showed significant effect of time, F (1, 177) = 3.985, p < .05, η2 p = .022, and group x time interaction, F (1, 177) = 14.514, p < .001, η2 p = .076, in cognitive engagement. Data also reported a significant effect of group x time interaction in behavioral engagement, F (1, 177) = 9.743, p < .01, η2 p = .052, emotional engagement, F (1, 177) = 6.111, p < .05, η2 p = .033, and agentic engagement, F (1, 30 Learning and Individual Differences , 8 (3), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10416080(96)90013-8 Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review , 3 (2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003 Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning , 3 (3), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How Do Classroom Conditions and Children’s Risk for School Problems Contribute to Children’s Behavioral Engagement in Learning? School Psychology Review , 36 (3), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087938 Estévez, I., Rodríguez-Llorente, C., Piñeiro, I., González-Suárez, R., & Valle, A. (2021). School Engagement, Academic Achievement, and Self-Regulated Learning. Sustainability , 13 (6), 3011. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063011 Field, A. P. (2009). Non-Sadistical Methods for Teaching Statistics. In Teaching Psychology in Higher Education (pp. 134–163). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444320732.ch6 Finn, J. D. (1993). School Engagement & Students at Risk . https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED362322 Fitzpatrick, C. (2012). Ready or Not: Kindergarten Classroom Engagement as an Indicator of Child School Readiness. South African Journal of Childhood Education , 2 (1), 1–32. Fredricks, J. A., Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2019). Interventions for Student Engagement: Overview and State of the Field. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Student Engagement Interventions (pp. 1–11). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00001-2 Gutiérrez, M., & Tomás, J. M. (2019). The role of perceived autonomy support in predicting university students’ academic success mediated by academic self-efficacy and school engagement. Educational Psychology , 39 (6), 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1566519 Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research , 66 (2), 99–136. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099 Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting 31 Effect Sizes in Research. Child Development Perspectives , 2 (3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x Hofkens, T. L., & Ruzek, E. (2019). Measuring Student Engagement to Inform Effective Interventions in Schools. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Student Engagement Interventions (pp. 309–324). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-813413-9.00021-8 Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1 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 (4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002 Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues , 64 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x 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 Martins, J., Cunha, J., Lopes, S., Moreira, T., & Rosário, P. (2022). School Engagement in Elementary School: A Systematic Review of 35 Years of Research. Educational Psychology Review , 34 (2), 793–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09642-5 McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 21 (4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.003 Medicine, I. of, & Council, N. R. (2003). Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn . National Academies Press. Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools . Teachers College Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED371047 Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom:Applying 32 self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education , 7 (2), 133– 144. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318 Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 (4), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781 Pereira, A., Miranda, S., Teixeira, S., Mesquita, S., Zanatta, C., & Rosário, P. (2021). Promote Selective Attention in 4th-Grade Students: Lessons Learned from a School-Based Intervention on SelfRegulation. Children , 8 (3), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8030182 Pereira, A., Rosario, P., Lopes, S., Moreira, T., Magalhaes, P., Carlos Nunez, J., Vallejo, G., & Sampaio, A. (2019). Promoting School Engagement in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Narrative Based Program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (19), 3634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193634 Perry, N. E., Lisaingo, S., Yee, N., Parent, N., Wan, X., & Muis, K. (2020). Collaborating with teachers to design and implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context of authentic classroom writing tasks. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 27 (4), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1801576 Piñeiro, I., Estévez, I., Freire, C., de Caso, A., Souto, A., & González-Sanmamed, M. (2019). The Role of Prior Achievement as an Antecedent to Student Homework Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 . https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00140 Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7 Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 (2), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034934 Reeve, J., & Sickenius, B. (1994). Development and Validation of a Brief Measure of the Three Psychological Needs Underlying Intrinsic Motivation: The Afs Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 54 (2), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002025 Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences , 17 (2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010 33 Rosário, P., Högemann, J., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Rodríguez, C., & Fuentes, S. (2019). The impact of three types of writing intervention on students’ writing quality. PLOS ONE , 14 (7), e0218099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099 Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda. (2007a). Auto-regulação em crianças sub 10: Projecto Sarilhos do Amarelo [Self-Regulation among Children aged under 10: Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations Project] . Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2007b). Sarilhos do Amarelo [Yellow’s Trials and Tribulations] . Porto Editora. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Magalhães, P., Fuentes, S., Magalhães, C., & Busing, K. (2019). Improving College Students’ Critical Thinking through the use of a Story Tool for Self-Regulated Learning Training. In E. Manalo (Ed.), Deeper Learning, Dialogic Learning, and Critical Thinking (pp. 193208). Routledge. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, C., Cerezo, R., Fernández, E., Tuero, E., & Högemann, J. (2017). Analysis of Instructional Programs in Different Academic Levels for Improving Self-Regulated Learning SRL through Written Text. In R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design Principles for Teaching Effective Writing (Vol. 34, pp. 201–231). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_010 Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., Nunes, A. R., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: A story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 47 , 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005 Rosário, P., Pérez, J. C. N., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2004). Stories that show how to study and how to learn: An experience in the Portuguese school system. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology , 14. Rosário, P., & Polydoro, S. A. J. (2012). Capitanear o aprender: Promoção da autorregulação da aprendizagem no contexto escolar . Casa do Psicólogo. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55 (1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 61 , 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 34 Schuitema, J., Peetsma, T., & van der Veen, I. (2016). Longitudinal relations between perceived autonomy and social support from teachers and students’ self-regulated learning and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences , 49 , 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.006 Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of mathematical skills with modeling. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 137–159). Guilford Publications. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping, and Everyday Resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-20187_2 Tuero, E., nez, J. C. N., Vallejo, G., Fernández, M. P., Añ’on, F. J., Moreira, T., Martins, J., & Rosário, P. (2022). Short and Long-Term Effects on Academic Performance of a School-Based Training in Self-Regulation Learning: A Three-Level Experimental Study. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889201 Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. Journal of Management , 42 (5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School. American Educational Research Journal , 47 (3), 633– 662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209 Whitebread, D., Mercer, N., Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2013). Self-regulation and Dialogue in Primary Classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education - Current Trends No. 10 . British Psychological Society. http://publications.eng.cam.ac.uk/739542/ Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of Students on Engagement: A Report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. In Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University . Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495758 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. 35 R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7 36 Appendix