The central question is whether teachers’ stated pedagogical priorities align with the tri-dimensional framework of behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement, and whether those priorities vary by gender, leadership role, and the socio-educational context of their school.
An original questionnaire was developed specifically for the study, mapping 28 evidence-based teaching strategies onto the three engagement dimensions and using a 7-point Likert scale to capture perceived importance. It was distributed nationally to 1,505 Australian secondary schools, with 223 teachers completing it in full. The sample was broadly experienced (80% aged 30–60) and skewed toward female respondents (65%), with strong representation across school ICSEA bands.
Principal Component Analysis broadly validated the tri-dimensional structure: 18 of the 28 items loaded onto three factors corresponding to cognitive, behavioural and emotional engagement, confirming that the framework holds as a meaningful organising structure in teachers’ minds. A fourth, unexpected factor emerged, comprising items related to student autonomy, choice and responsibility for learning — which the authors tentatively link to intrinsic motivation and agentic engagement, flagging it as a candidate for further research.
Three substantive findings emerge from the inferential analysis. First, female teachers placed significantly higher importance on pedagogies that support both cognitive and behavioural engagement than their male colleagues — a finding the authors note is not well explained by existing literature and warrants further investigation. Second, teachers in pastoral or leadership roles placed significantly higher importance on pedagogies that support cognitive and emotional engagement — suggesting that those with a broader view of school culture tend to prioritise the relational and motivational conditions for learning rather than observable behaviour alone. Third, a negative correlation was found between a school’s ICSEA value and the importance teachers placed on cognitive and behavioural engagement pedagogies: teachers in lower socio-educational advantage schools rated these as more important. The authors note a productive tension here — prior research shows that low-SES schools are often exposed to fewer productive pedagogies in practice, which means that higher perceived importance does not necessarily translate into implementation. The gap between what teachers value and what they actually do in the classroom remains an open and urgent question.
The paper concludes by calling for longitudinal and observational research to establish whether these stated priorities are reflected in actual practice, and by advocating for the tri-dimensional framework as a practical basis for teacher professional development.