This presentation illustrates the research process and outcomes of a collaborative partnership between the Queensland Department of Education and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) focussed on the development of an evidence-based framework to guide improved practice in supporting student engagement and wellbeing. The Queensland Department of Education has been using ACER’s National School Improvement Tool (Masters, 2016)to guide successful and sustainable school improvement for a decade. The National School Improvement Tool is a framework that makes explicit in nine interrelated domains the most impactful practices in school improvement as identified in international research. In 2018, The Queensland Department of Education won a Carnegie Foundation award for their success in sustainable school improvement.

The importance of supporting student engagement and wellbeing is widely and increasingly recognised internationally as a key facet in improving student learning. Although there is a clear focus on student engagement and wellbeing in the National School Improvement Tool, the Queensland Department of Education identified the need for more specific evidence-informed guidance for school leaders and teachers in 2018 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2018). This is particularly important to achieving equitable outcomes for all students. This need was further amplified by the Covid-19 pandemic. To this end, the Department engaged ACER to “elaborate” the evidence underpinning the National School Improvement Tool as it relates to student wellbeing and engagement to produce a set of related practices or “elaborations” to support schools to improve their practice.

The overarching research questions were:

• How do student engagement, wellbeing and learning outcomes relate?
• What is the evidence relating to whole-of-school approaches to student engagement and wellbeing?
• What are the evidence-based practices that lift student engagement and wellbeing, alongside academic gain, as aligned with each of the nine National School Improvement Tool domains?

Internationally, including in Europe, school improvement has historically focused on ‘traditional’ school outcomes, most notably student achievement. In recent years, research has highlighted the interconnectedness of student engagement, wellbeing and academic achievement (CESE, 2015), shifting the focus of school improvement to student outcomes more holistically (Dinham, 2016). In addition, recent research has highlighted the importance of a whole-school approach to improving student engagement and wellbeing (CESE, 2015; Hattie et al., 2015), which is consistent with the approach advocated by the Council of Europe (2021). Although numerous resources with international applicability are widely available (such as through the Council of Europe website), the multifaceted nature of student engagement and wellbeing can pose challenges in developing a school-wide cohesive set of practices. The elaborations uniquely contribute a widely applicable framework to direct school improvement efforts in enhancing student engagement and wellbeing. This research addresses a significant international gap, as no comparable frameworks have been developed to date.

Given the complexity of the field of wellbeing in relation to student learning and the intersecting disciplines, no single theoretical framework was used in this research. Overall, a positive psychology approach framed the development of the elaborations, taking a holistic and preventative rather than remediation orientation to supporting student engagement and wellbeing (Gersch, 2009). Student engagement was conceptualised following Fredricks et al. (2004), who distinguish cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions of engagement. Student wellbeing was conceptualised as “a sustainable state of positive mood and attitude, resilience, and satisfaction with self, relationships and experiences at school” (Noble et al., p. 7). This definition covers a holistic range of psychological, physical, social, spiritual and cognitive dimensions. The nine NSIT domains (Masters, 2016) provided the overarching framework for identifying, selecting and synthesizing research evidence.

The research used a design research methodology (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), which incorporated elements of literature review, stakeholder consultation, co-construction and practice-based research. Initial stages of development involved an extensive review of international evidence in the areas of school improvement, socio-emotional learning, health and wellbeing, student engagement and a sense of belonging, and motivations for engagement building on a comprehensive review of research that underpins the National School Improvement Tool (Van der Kleij et al., in press). Findings from a report commissioned by the Queensland Department of Education were also reviewed (DAE, 2018) Following a qualitative research methodology, literature was sourced and read to data saturation (Saunders et al., 2018), that is, until no novel themes were evident. Targeted searches were conducted to retrieve relevant literature whenever gaps were identified. The elaborations were iteratively refined and co-constructed in several rounds of consultation with key Queensland Department of Education stakeholder groups representing a broad range of voices, including Indigenous voices and considering the research evidence. Consistent with ACER’s approach to developing improvement tools, the elaborations present evidence-based practices in supporting student engagement and wellbeing that impact on student learning. Evidence-based in this instance is not to say that these elaborations are to be mechanistically implemented without agency or regard of evidence more broadly (an unproductive stance as per evidence-based education paradigm; McKnight & Morgan, 2020). Rather, the elaborations were developed in a way that makes explicit the nature of effective practice, regardless of context and encourages tailored solutions as appropriate to the school. It recognises the unique challenges within diverse contexts, as well as varying levels and complexity of student need.

The review of international evidence found strong evidence for the interconnectedness of student engagement, wellbeing and learning outcomes. Research evidence showed the substantial impact of whole-of-school approaches to supporting student engagement and wellbeing. In total, 88 elaborations were developed across the 9 NSIT domains. Each elaboration provides sufficient specificity to guide practice, whilst requiring tailored application within the relevant context. The elaborations can support the work of systems, teachers, leaders and school reviewers internationally to optimise their support for student engagement and wellbeing in a targeted and coherent manner. They set out the nature of student engagement and wellbeing and encourage schools to address these constructs holistically. The elaborations provide an evidence-based, practical framework for schools to review practices, identify new approaches, and refine existing responses to the engagement and wellbeing needs of students. The elaborations contribute to ensuring equitable outcomes for all students, particularly those most at-risk of disengagement, or for whom there are wellbeing concerns. Researchers and policy makers may also wish to use the elaborations as an analytic framework for evaluating their endeavours in this space.

Centre for Education Statistics & Evaluation. (2015). Student wellbeing: Literature review. New South Wales Government. https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/student_wellbeing_LR_AA.pdf Council of Europe. (2012). Improving well-being at school. https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/improving-well-being-at-school Deloitte Access Economics, (2018). Engagement capability building final report. DAE. Dinham, S. (2016). Leading learning and teaching. ACER Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 Gersch, I. (2009). A positive future for educational psychology – if the profession gets it right. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360802697555Masters, G. M. (2012). National School Improvement Tool. Australian Council for Educational Research. Hattie, J., Masters, D., & Birch, K. (2015). Visible learning into action: International case studies of impact. Routledge. Masters, G. (2016). National School Improvement Tool. ACER. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=tll_misc McKenney. S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge. McKnight, L., & Morgan, A. (2019). A broken paradigm? What education needs to learn from evidence-based medicine. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), 648–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1578902 Noble, T., McGrath, H., Wyatt, T., Carbines, R., & Robb, L. (2008). Scoping study into approaches to student wellbeing: Final report. Australian Catholic University & Erebus International. https://www.dese.gov.au/student-resilience-and-wellbeing/resources/scopingstudy- approaches-student-wellbeing-final-report. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 Van der Kleij, F., Taylor-Guy, P., & Rodgers, C. (in press). School Improvement Tool: Literature review. ACER.