Advertisement

The Relevance of Student Engagement: The Impact of and Lessons Learned Implementing Check & Connect

  • Sandra L. ChristensonEmail author
  • Angie J. Pohl
Chapter
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The 2006 and 2015 What Works Clearinghouse reviews of dropout prevention programs found Check & Connect to have positive effects on staying and progressing in school. In this chapter, the student engagement intervention, Check & Connect, is described in terms of what it is (i.e., components and elements), how it is implemented (i.e., preparation and implementation steps), and its effectiveness with different samples of students in different educational settings. Lessons learned across the various implementations of Check & Connect with elementary and secondary students with and without disabilities in suburban and urban school districts conclude the chapter.

Keywords

Check & Connect Dropout prevention School completion Evidence-based intervention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Eileen Klemm, Check & Connect Program Manager at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, for her feedback and input on this chapter.

References

  1. Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & Connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95–113.Google Scholar
  2. August, G. J., Anderson, D., & Bloomquist, M. L. (1992). Competence enhancement training for children: An integrated child, parent, and school approach. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 175–192). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  3. Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Bruce, M., & Hornig Fox, J. (2012). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Civic Enterprises Everyone Graduates Center.Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Christenson, S. L. (2012). Check & Connect – Mentoring students for school success, Portland State University, invited address for the 2012 Summer Institute on youth mentoring, Community Series, July 26, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Christenson, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 378–393.Google Scholar
  7. Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2010a). Check & Connect: Enhancing school completion through student engagement. In E. Doll & J. Charvat (Eds.), Handbook of prevention science (pp. 327–348). New York: Routledge – Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (Eds.). (2010b). Handbook on school-family partnerships. New York: Routledge – Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1099–1120). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  10. Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Franklin, M. J. (1992). Home-school collaboration: Effects, issues, and opportunities. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 19–51). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  11. Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Lehr, C. A., & Godber, Y. (2001). Promoting successful school completion: Critical conceptual and methodological guidelines. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 468–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & Connect: A comprehensive student engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.Google Scholar
  13. Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L. & Sinclair, M. F. & Evelo, D. L. (1990–1995) Partnership for School Success: Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs for Junior High School Students in Special Education. (1990–1995). Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Research.Google Scholar
  14. Cleary, T. J. (Ed.). (2015). Self-regulated interventions with at-risk youth: Enhancing adaptability, performance, and well-being. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  15. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  17. Evelo, D., Sinclair, M., Hurley, C., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids in school: Using Check & Connect for dropout prevention. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.Google Scholar
  18. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frydenberg, E. (2008). Adolescent coping: Advances in theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guryan, J., Christenson, S., Claessen, A., Engel, M., Lai, I., Ludwig, J., … Turner, M. C. (2016). The effect of mentoring on school attendance and academic outcomes: A randomized evaluation of the Check & Connect program. In Institute for Policy Research, working paper series. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  21. Heppen, J. B., Zeiser, K., Holtzman, D. J., O’Cummings, M., Christenson, S., & Pohl, A. (2017). Efficacy of the Check & Connect mentoring program for at-risk general education high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345747.2017.1318990
  22. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy prevention during the elementary years: A replication study of the Check & Connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 9(3), 279–301.Google Scholar
  24. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard, B. R., Kjellstrand, E. K., & Thompson, A. M. (2014). Effects of Check and Connect on attendance, behavior, and academics: A randomized effectiveness trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(3), 296–309.Google Scholar
  27. Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2007). “Hill, skill, and will”: Executive function from a multiple intelligences perspective. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education: From theory to practice (pp. 19–38). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Novoa, C. M., Storm, K.J., Sumi, W.C., Fabrikant, N., Gracely, S., & Garcia, C. (2017). Student and mentor perspectives on student success in Check & Connect. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. Powers, K., Hagan, K., & Linn, M. (2017). A mixed method efficacy and fidelity study of Check and Connect. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 1019–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Moving from ‘context matters’ to engaged partnerships with families. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 1(2), 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinclair, M.F., & Kaibel, C. (2002). Dakota County: Secondary Check & Connect program. Program evaluation 2002 final summary report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Institute on Community Integration.Google Scholar
  33. Sinclair, M., & Kaibel, C. (2011). Bush Foundation: Check & Connect school completion initiative final report. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.Google Scholar
  34. Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D., & Hurley, C. (1998). Dropout prevention for high risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42.Google Scholar
  36. Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Strand, P. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (2014). Graduation outcomes for truant students: An evaluation of a school-based, court-engaged community truancy board with case management. Child & Youth Services Review, 43, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & McIntosh, K. (2008). Best practices in developing a broad-scale system of support for school-wide positive behavior support. In A. Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 765–780). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  40. What Works Clearinghouse. (2006). WWC intervention report: Check & Connect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  41. What Works Clearinghouse. (2015). Dropout prevention intervention report: Check & Connect. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_checkconnect_050515.pdf
  42. Yazzie-Mintz, E., & McCormick, K. (2012). Finding the humanity in the data: Understanding, measuring, and strengthening student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 743–762). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School DistrictBurnsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations