1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Improving student engagement is a common concern among educators; especially after
the COVID-19 pandemic. Castro and George (2021) concluded from their study on the impact of
COVID on student engagement that student engagement during emergency remote learning
significantly declined. This trend continues as schools have transitioned back to in-person
learning for our students. It has become more important now that teachers need to continuously
increase their knowledge of instructional and behavioral strategies to engage students within the
classroom. One way to improve student engagement in the classroom is by teachers participating
in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that include professional development workshops.
Kennedy (2016) notes the purpose of professional development is to help explore how students
learn and teachers learn based on different theories. A broadly accepted concept is professional
development nurtures teachers to make improvements. However, teachers are consistently
bombarded with what is important, they may focus on too much at one time, compromising the
effectiveness of any one thing (Kennedy, 2016). The collaboration within PLCs helps teachers
develop their own instructional strategies to be used in their classroom to support students
(Bredeson & Scribner, 2000; Harrison & Killion, 2007). PLCs have garnered extensive attention
as an essential component in school improvement (Seo & Han, 2012). PLCs have been widely
implemented in educational environments to characterize various groups assembled to work
collaboratively for many purposes (Teaque & Anafara, 2012). A PLC is a pathway for schools to
approach reform and meet school improvement goals, increasing academic and behavioral
performance as well as increasing student engagement.
Schmoker (2004) aligned collaborative problem-solving with self-directed, job-embedded
characteristics of PLCs. Collaborative problem-solving allows teachers to focus on strategies that
2
benefit them within the classroom. Teachers often feel that their students are engaged because
they actively participate in the lesson or activity they have been given. However, in some
situations, the students are compliant and doing what is expected rather than engaged. Student
engagement is more than compliance. Students should show investment, independence, and
initiation while participating and working in the classroom. When you enlist the problem-solving
nature of PLCs with embedded professional development, teachers are given the opportunity to
work collaboratively together to help improve the aspect of teaching that enhances student
engagement and learning.
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study was to examine how a PLC, with professional development
that focuses on improving student engagement, affects teaching practices and student
engagement. School districts provide a variety of professional development for teachers.
Teachers need professional development to enhance their instruction in the classroom. A better
understanding of how PLCs and professional development could impact the classroom
environment can be essential for district and school leaders to understand how to support
increased student engagement better. PLCs and professional development offer teachers the
opportunity to directly impact and improve teaching and learning. They also allow teachers to
build stronger relationships with each other and help solidify the goal of improving student
learning and engagement; as well as allow time for teachers to reflect on what strategies are
working.
Problem Statement
F PLCs and professional development contribute to the instructional climate of a school
in how instruction is carried out within a classroom. They offer teachers the opportunity to
3
directly impact learning and student engagement. PLCs and professional development offer the
opportunity for teachers to mentor each other and share ideas along with reflecting on what
strategies work. When a PLC is established, one possible benefit is changing teachers’ mindsets
regarding the work they do every day in the classroom (Vescio et al., 2008). The PLCs and
professional development have fundamental characteristics that nurture changes in the
instructional climate within the school.
There should be an understanding that a PLC and professional development is a
fundamental approach to change. Bakkenes et al. (2010) recognize that teachers are held to a
high standard regarding the knowledge and facilitation of student learning. However, despite the
vast research on the implications of PLCs and professional development on student achievement,
a gap exists between the work in PLCs and professional development regarding student
engagement within the classroom. This gap is due to a variety of different reasons, which include
students’ social and emotional well-being, their individual personalities, their learning styles, and
environmental factors.
PLCs with professional development workshops and student engagement are two
important components in enhancing students' educational experiences. Teachers learn strategies
through PLCs to engage students in their classrooms. Increased student engagement equates to
higher student achievement and more students working on grade level. Currently, there is a need
to increase the levels of student engagement and use of engagement strategies in classrooms at
ABC Primary School.
Purpose Statement
A PLC is a pathway for schools to approach reform and meet school improvement goals,
increasing academic and behavioral performance as well as increasing student engagement. The
4
purpose of this mixed method study was to determine if providing teachers with professional
development workshops through a PLC, with a focus on improving student engagement, will
affect teaching practices and student engagement. The researcher will investigate whether
participation in a PLC, with a focus on student engagement, is related to (1) increased levels of
student engagement within the classroom, and (2) increased utilization of strategies to encourage
student engagement.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this mixed-method study:
RQ 1. Do professional development workshops improve students’ level of engagement?
RQ 2. Do professional development workshops improve teachers’ use of strategies to
engage students?
Hypotheses
This study was designed to investigate and assess the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in student engagement in the classroom
before and after their teachers participated in professional development workshops with a focus
on student engagement.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference in the utilization of strategies for student
engagement before and after teachers participated in professional development workshops with a
focus on student engagement.
Theoretical Framework
PLCs have been widely implemented in educational environments to allow various
groups to work collaboratively for various purposes (Teaque & Anafara, 2012). Not only do
PLCs allow for collaboration, they also allow teachers to develop stronger relationships and
5
reflect on ideas and practices that can overall be utilized to improve student learning. The
constructivist and transformative learning theories are used as the framework to allow a better
understanding of how teachers use what they learn in professional development workshops,
within a PLC, to improve the level of student engagement within their classroom. Thus,
improving student achievement.
Constructivist Learning Theory
The works of Bada and Olusegun (2015) describe the constructivist learning theory as
taking experiences and constructing knowledge from them. The theory promotes an active
learning environment where educators collaborate and share ideas. Constructivist learning theory
is often used to support the implementation of PLCs. The work in PLCs have great implications
for how teachers teach and learn how to teach. This shows a direct correlation between student
engagement and achievement. Bada and Olusegun (2015) see a constructivist environment as
one with collaboration and problem-solving.
PLC is a pathway for schools to approach reform and meet school improvement
goals. Collaboration is a crucial component of effective PLCs. If collaboration is to be
successful, it needs to be a process that is strategic about stimulating participation, which
involves sharing, reflecting, and being comfortable taking risks to enact changes (Vescio et
al., 2008). Collaboration helps to create a growth-based learning environment, which in turn
builds student engagement and improves student achievement. Ultimately, collaboration
within a PLC should involve active, willing participants. A leader should see a difference in
a teacher's mindset, through collaboration, in the work they do every day in the classroom
(Vescio et al., 2008).
6
McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) define PLCs as where teachers collaborate to reflect on
practice and student outcomes and make changes to improve teaching and student learning.
Dufour et al., (2005) identify that ensuring students learn, building a climate of collaboration,
and focusing on results are important conditions for a PLC to be successful. Collaboration is a
crucial component of effective PLCs. Collaboration offers teachers the opportunity to develop
and have conversations about student engagement, student learning, and what specific skills or
strategies will help students the best. If collaboration is to be successful, it needs to be a process
that is strategic about stimulating participation, which involves sharing, reflecting, and being
comfortable taking risks to enact changes (Vescio et al., 2008). Creswell and Creswell (2018)
note that the experiences of individuals generate personal views that are subjective to that
experience. Individuals must look at all the different perspectives from one experience. It is
essential to seek to understand the different views of participants. Understanding different
perspectives helps with avoiding judgment, reduces bias, and increases informed decision-
making. “Constructivist learning theory often addresses the processes of interactions among
individuals” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 8).
Transformative Learning Theory
A transformative learning theory is when a person experiences a significant shift in the
way that they perceive or view the world around them. It is part of a process that is conducive to
changing one’s perspectives. It allows a person to reevaluate their perspective and beliefs.
Transformative learning theory can be beneficial in our understanding of PLCs. In adulthood,
learning is transformative. Adults are more capable of seeing distortions in their own beliefs,
feelings, and attitudes (Mezirow, 1981).
7
Servage (2008) maintains that transformative learning theory can help shift the mindset
concerning collaboration for teacher learning. The current mindset is that collaborative teacher
learning is a place for the mastery of technical skills. Transformative learning theory should be
seen as a "communicative framework more appropriate for exploiting any transformative
potential present in a professional learning community model" (Servage, 2008, p. 69). PLCs,
contribute to the instructional climate of a school in how instruction is carried out within a
classroom. When a PLC is established, one possible benefit is changing teachers’ mindsets
regarding the work they do every day in the classroom (Vescio et al., 2008). Without a change in
this mindset, teachers will continue to teach the way that they have taught and this will continue
to lead to a decrease in student engagement and a decrease in student achievement and learning.
Research Methodology and Design
This mixed-methods study examined the effects of a semester-long professional
development within a PLC, on student engagement within the classroom and utilization of
strategies for student engagement. The design entails collecting data from qualitative and
quantitative sources in a single study and combining the data to understand a research problem
more completely (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The problem that was explored in this study was to
determine if professional development workshops within a PLC, with a focus on improving
student engagement, affect teaching practices and student engagement. Descriptive statistics and
paired-sample t-tests were used to test the hypotheses of this study with the scientific approach
and established procedures (Askarza & Unhelkar, 2017).
The participants of this study were 19 certified primary school teachers who participated
in professional development that focused on student engagement. This study utilized
observations as the primary data collection tool. Scheduled classroom observations were based
8
on the Social-Emotional Engagement-Knowledge & Skills (SEE-KS) engagement ladder created
by Rubin et al. (n.d.). The ladder allows SEE-KS coaches to measure the degree of engagement
of students in the classroom. An engagement score at or above 3.4 indicated that positive
engagement was observed more than half of the time. A score of 3.0 indicated a compliant
classroom where approximately half of the students were engaged, or students were engaged
approximately half of the time. The pre-observation and post-observation student engagement
scores were compared as well as the utilization of strategies to enhance student engagement.
Also, anecdotal notes were taken by the consultant to provide evidence of investment,
independence, and initiation of students within the lesson.
Definition of Terms
The following key terms are defined to help the reader understand the meaning of each in
the study.
Student Engagement: “a condition of emotional, social, and intellectual readiness to learn
characterized by curiosity, participation, and the drive to learn more” (Abla & Fraumeni, 2019,
p. 2).
Instructional Climate: “the totality of factors that affect a learning environment” (Cardichon &
Roc, 2015, p.1).
Independence: students are “able to access the instruction and routines that support their
knowledge and resourcefulness” (Rubin et al., n.d.).
Initiation: students are “learning through action and expression by being strategic and goal-
directed with their engagement” (Rubin et al., n.d.).
Investment: students are “learning with purpose and motivation across academic, social, and
emotional experiences (Rubin et al., n.d.).
9
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): a place where "educators create an environment
that fosters cooperation, emotional support, and personal growth as they work together to
achieve what they cannot accomplish alone" (Dufour & Eaker, 1998, p.11).
10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
It has become more important now that teachers need to continuously increase their
knowledge of instructional and behavioral strategies to engage students within the classroom.
One way to improve student engagement in the classroom is by teachers participating in
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that include professional development workshops.
The collaboration within PLCs helps teachers develop their own instructional strategies to be
used in their classroom to support students (Bredeson & Scribner, 2000, Harrison & Killion,
2007). PLCs have garnered extensive attention as an essential component in school improvement
(Seo & Han, 2012). PLCs have been widely implemented in educational environments to
characterize various groups assembled to work collaboratively for many purposes (Teaque &
Anafara, 2012). A PLC is a pathway for schools to approach reform and meet school
improvement goals, increasing academic and behavioral performance as well as increasing
student engagement. PLC is an environment where teachers can work collaboratively to reflect
on practice and student outcomes which can lead to changes that improve the teaching and
learning of students, as described by McLaughlin and Talbert (2006).
Professional Learning Communities
PLCs have been widely implemented in educational environments to characterize various
groups that work collaboratively for various purposes (Teague & Anafara, 2012). In a PLC, the
focus shifts from teaching to learning as a fundamental purpose. Teachers are continuously
learning to support their students’ learning (DuFour, et al., 2008). This process, in turn, leads to
higher levels of student engagement and student achievement (Dufour, 2004). The goal of PLCs
is to enhance teaching practices so that students can reach their fullest potential.
Dufour et al. (2008) assert that effective schools’ intentional conversations and actions
create a culture within the PLCs and schools to have a laser-sharp focus on what is best for the
students. Dufour et al., have developed guidelines to focus on PLCs: (a) What is it we want our
11
students to learn? (b) How will we know if each student is learning the essential skills? (c) How
will we respond when some students do not learn? and (d) How will we enrich and extend
learning? Pirtle and Tobia (2014) recommend six guidelines to help district and school leaders
and teachers implement and sustain the PLC process: (a) provide a clear structure and purpose
for PLC meetings, (b) address the most pressing instructional challenges (c) provide support
from all levels of the school system, (d) foster an atmosphere of trust, (e) monitor the work of
PLCs and provide constructive feedback, and (f) support teachers with a sense of efficacy and
level of professionalism.
Many PLCs are enacted at a superficial level. Because of this superficial level, the PLCs
do not necessarily lead to their intended outcomes, such as improved instructional practice and
student academic performance. Dufour (2007) has observed that sometimes schools claim they
are PLCs even when they do not engage in the work. Pirtle and Tobia (2014) state the name PLC
is often overused to the point that the term’s meaning is often lost. Professional development
should be considered a PLC when teachers reflect on their instructional practice, consider the
effect instruction has on students, and implement insights gained from collaboration to improve
their teaching performance.
Collaboration and Benefits
Collaboration has become a movement in the twenty-first- century that has become an
encouraging way for educators to interact (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). Johnston and TSAI (2018)
acknowledge that teacher collaboration focuses on different aspects of professional interaction.
Teachers who collaborate can refine and enhance the instruction, curriculum, and support they
provide the students in the classroom. Also, within the collaboration, there is an educational
approach to the teaching and learning of educators. Laal and Ghodsi (2012) see collaboration as
a group of teachers working together for the common goal of educating their students. There is a
12
lack of competition between group members but rather cooperation and consensus building. Not
only are the teachers responsible for their own learning, but they are also responsible for the
learning of their colleagues. Without this mindset shift, student engagement and student
achievement will not improve.
A PLC is a pathway for schools to approach reform and meet school improvement goals.
Schools that operate as PLCs incorporate focused learning for students and teachers. The focus
on teaching students is removed and replaced with a focus on continuous collaborative learning
among teachers (DuFour, 2007). Collaboration is a crucial component of effective PLCs.
Collaboration plays an essential role in reflective practice, which is a crucial pathway to
developing knowledge of educational strategies (Marzano et al., 2016). If collaboration is to be
successful, it needs to be a process that is deliberate about stimulating participation, which
involves sharing, reflecting, and being comfortable with taking risks to enact changes (Vescio et
al., 2008). The substantial collaboration in PLCs is a structured process where teachers work
together to analyze and improve their classroom practice (Dufour, 2004).
Thessin and Staar (2011) suggest that schools that teach their staff how to collaborate are
the most effective. They indicate that districts interested in implementing successful PLCs must
involve teachers and administrators in developing and facilitating the PLC process. They must
teach administrators and teachers how to work collaboratively and effectively in PLCs (Thessin
& Staar, 2011). If teachers do not participate in PLCs, they lose the opportunity to share their
knowledge and expertise with others, and others lose the opportunity to learn from them.
Ineffective participation in PLCs leads to decreased student engagement and decreased student
achievement.
13
Instructional Climate
According to previous research, the climate in a school can best be defined as “the
totality of factors that affect a learning environment” (Cardichon & Roc, 2015, p.1). One
important aspect of school climate is instruction. A positive school environment leads to
improved student achievement in regard to test scores, grades, and engagement. It also helps to
reduce the negative impacts due to environmental factors like poverty. PLCs contribute to the
instructional climate of a school as to how instruction is carried out within a classroom. The
instructional climate of a school changes through the implementation of PLCs. As schools focus
on developing PLCs among their faculty and administrators, a shared vision of student learning
and professional appreciation for collaboration will give the change efforts the stamina they need
to sustain the change (Dufour et al., 2008).
The instructional climate of a school is strengthened through PLCs that advocate
friendliness among co-workers and conflict resolution (Sterr, 2011). Effective teaching of
conflict resolution skills for teachers leads to effective teaching of conflict resolution skills for
students, thus improving their overall social-emotional well-being, along with improving their
engagement levels. PLCs impact the instructional climate of a school in multiple ways that
include: shared vision, goals, and commitment from all stakeholders, professional appreciation,
focus on student learning, the action research approach, continual improvement by all
stakeholders, and a focus on the end results needed for school success (Dufour et al., 2008). The
PLC process impacts various aspects of a school, which leads to an improved instructional
climate for teachers and students. The PLCs have fundamental characteristics that nurture
changes in the instructional climate within the classroom.
PLCs can lead to positive changes within a school. Lopez-Flores (2014) states four
changes that PLCs make on the instructional climate of a school: (1) professional learning, (2)
14
improved teaching strategies/methods, (3) higher level of student achievement, and (4) enhanced
interventions for students. Elements of instructional climate that are affected positively through
the implementation of PLCs include daily instruction, planning, and professional development
(Finley, 2013). PLCs allow teachers to express, explore, analyze, and reflect on their professional
practices (Mohammad, 2017).
Student Engagement
Abla and Fraumeni (2019) recognize that over the years, the definitions of engagement
have become varied and lengthy as researchers try to capture multiple aspects of the classroom
experience. When engagement is considered in the classroom, one must think beyond the
simplicity of memorization and repetition. Engagement involves connections of all sorts more
than ever in the educational world, including social and emotional connections (Abla &
Fraumeni, 2019). They see engagement as “a condition of emotional, social, and intellectual
readiness to learn characterized by curiosity, participation, and the drive to learn more” (Abla &
Fraumeni, 2019, p. 2).
Fostering student engagement within the classroom is crucial to students’ success now
and in the future (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020). Teachers are obligated to their students to support
their students with strategies they themselves understand and can apply in the classroom.
Strategies should be specific, well thought out, and collaborated on for student engagement
(Taylor & Parsons, 2011). It is not enough to simply know strategies for engagement; teachers
must know how to differentiate between engaged and disengaged students. They must recognize
what appears as student engagement can really be a manifestation of students being compliant to
their being busy (Schnitzler, et al., 2020). Teachers who are enthusiastic about their lessons and
activate their students’ learning tend to have higher levels of engagement. Classrooms, where
students exhibit low engagement tend to have teachers demonstrating disorganized and
15
unplanned teaching strategies. These teachers tend to engage in strategies that do not motivate
students from the start of the lesson (Cents-Boonstraet al., 2020). Motivation of student learning
is a critical aspect of student engagement. When students are motivated, they build relationships
with their teachers, and they can see the value in the content that is being taught.
Based on my review of the literature, there was little research found on how PLCs affect
teaching practices and student engagement within the classroom. I selected to study these
outcomes because of the need for increased student engagement within classrooms at ABC
Primary School. Another reason for choosing this study was the lack of research on how PLCs
affect student engagement within the classroom and the use of student engagement strategies.
Without student engagement, student learning and achievement decrease. Due to this, students
academically fall behind. This, in turn, sets them up for failure later in life.
16
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This study used a mixed-methods design to answer the research questions. The design
entails collecting data from qualitative and quantitative sources in a single study and combining
the data to understand a research problem more completely (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This study
examined the effects of a semester-long professional development within a PLC on student
engagement within the classroom and the utilization of strategies for student engagement.
This study utilized observations as the primary data collection tool. Scheduled classroom
observations were based on the Social-Emotional Engagement-Knowledge & Skills (SEE-KS)
engagement ladder created by Rubin et al. (n.d.). The tool focused on the investment,
independence, and initiation of students observed in the learning environment to enhance student
engagement. When all three “I’s” of engagement are observed and can be described in a
classroom, student engagement is observed at a higher level. “Learners are invested in their
learning with purpose and motivation across academic, social, and emotional experiences”
(Rubin et al., n.d.); these authors see investment as stimulating a student’s motivation for
learning and interacting. Students have the support they need to stay actively engaged. Students
demonstrate independence when they know what to do and understand what is being taught; that
is, “Learners are noticed to be independent in their access to instruction and routines that support
their knowledge and resourcefulness” (Rubin, et al., n.d.). Initiation is demonstrated when
students have different options for showing what they know and what to say; “Learners are
noticed to have initiation in their learning through action and expression by being strategic and
goal-directed with their engagement” (Rubin et al., n.d.). Students are given frequent
opportunities to initiate in everyday activities.
In the first stage of this study, participants were observed in the classroom for 30 minutes
to gauge the current level of student engagement and the strategies they used before participating
17
in the professional development. In the second stage of the study, the 19 teachers participated in
professional development within a PLC, with a focus on student engagement. In the final stage,
participants were observed again in the classroom to gauge the level of student engagement and
strategies after the professional development.
Participants
The research study incorporated a purposeful sampling strategy. Creswell and Poth
(2018, p. 148) define purposeful sampling as a "sample that will intentionally sample a group of
people that can best inform the researcher about the research problem under examination." The
purposeful sampling method was chosen because the individuals met specific criteria for the
study. The invited participants in this study consisted of primary school-certified staff members.
The participants of this study were selected because they meet the following criteria. First, they
are certified primary grade teachers in which the study will be conducted. Second, all have
participated in PLCs involving student engagement and strategies to enhance student
engagement and learning. Third, all have been observed as having a need in the classroom for
higher levels of student engagement through previous classroom observations.
Table 1 represents the summary of demographic information collected from the
observation participants. This includes grade level taught, level of education obtained, and years
of teaching experience. The data collected represented a diverse group of participants in regard
to grade level being taught and years of teaching experience. The majority of participants hold a
bachelor’s degree (52.63%).
18
Table 1
Demographic Description of Study Participants
Area
Frequency (N=19)
Total (100%)
Grade Level Taught
Kindergarten
6
31.58%
First Grade
6
31.58%
Second Grade
7
36.84%
Level of Education
Bachelor’s Degree
10
52.63%
Master's Degree
6
31.58%
Specialist Degree
3
15.79%
Teaching Experience
0-5
5
26.31%
6-10
2
10.53%
11-15
2
10.53%
16-20
1
5.26%
21-25
5
26.31%
26-30
2
10.53%
30+
2
10.53%
Context of the Study
The research took place in the natural setting of a rural primary school. The primary
school district resides in a Title 1 district, with 100% of students qualifying for free or reduced
lunch. The research school has a student population of 599. There are 43 certified teachers, two
administrators, one counselor, and various non-certified personnel.
Professional Learning Activities
Participation in PLCs is mandatory within the school district. Teachers participate in
PLCs two to three times a week. The first session is for group planning for units and lessons. The
second session is for the analysis of student progress. The third session is for professional
development that concentrates on research-based learning strategies and enhancing student
19
engagement within the classroom. All 19 participants were required to take part in the
professional development workshops due to their need to increase student engagement.
Due to students being below grade level and student engagement levels were low at ABC
Primary School professional development goals were developed. The professional development
goals revolved around providing teachers with strategies to increase student achievement and the
level of engagement among the students in the classroom (see Table 2). Professional
development was conducted by the administration, instructional coach, and/or outside
consultants knowledgeable in student engagement and learning. The professional development
cycle will consist of the following:
Table 2
Engaging for Success Framework Professional Development
Session
Timeline
Focus
Objectives
1
July 2023-
45-minute
session
Relationships: With Admin, With
Peers, With Students
What do relationships look like to you?
What does it mean to have rituals and
routines?
How do we set expectations for our
students?
What can we do to be intentional about
building engagement from the moment
learners walk in the door?
How do we support learner independence?
How do we prepare to show up for our
students and colleagues?
2
August 2023-
45-minute
session
Engagement and Environment:
Relationships, Rituals, Routines
Safety in the classroom: Are our students
able to enter “ready to learn” when they
come to our learning environment? Why is
this important?
Physical
Emotional
Social
Relationship Building
What does it mean to be an engagement ally
for our learners?
What do we see, what do we hear, what do
we notice that is evidence of the
20
Session
Timeline
Focus
Objectives
establishment and quality of our
relationships with and between students?
How can we make small steps towards
building deeper relationships?
How do de-escalation strategies promote or
undermine relationships with students?
3
August 2023-
45-minute
session
Engagement and Instruction:
Consistency, Expectations, Meaning
Consistency and Meaning: Keeping learners
engaged and maintaining high expectations
Continuing rituals and routines
Maintaining engagement
Managing expectations
Defining success
Making learning targets meaningful
Examining student engagement as an
antecedent in discipline review
4
September -
45-minute
session
Engagement and Rigor: Enhancing
Engagement to Promote Rigor
Rigor: Safe learning environments foster
courageous learners
Students take risks when they feel
emotionally safe in the classroom
Promote what our learner achievement in
order to reduce deficits
Re-define perspective to support high
expectations
Engagement: Consistency and trust are key
to sustaining investment and promoting
independent learners
Review tools and resources to encourage
independence and persistence
Add and adjust supports as needed to meet
changing needs of learners
Review and reflect on expectations and
goals for success
Outcomes: How engaged learners move
from dependence to independence and
demonstrate measurable success
Independent learners are courageous and
curious
Making standards meaningful through
personal connection
Embracing assessment as an indicator of
independence
21
Engaging for Success Framework Professional Development
Utilizing the SEE-KS framework of appreciative inquiry, trauma aware principles,
restorative discipline insights and research, and classroom-as-community objectives, our goal
was to notice, monitor, and enhance the engagement of our students while reducing behavioral
and social barriers to educational achievement.
Our guiding principles were based on raising awareness, leveraging learning partnerships,
supporting independent learners, and promoting a community of learners by focusing on
engagement. We examined what readiness to learn looks like, defined what it means to be an
engaged learner, provided support to enhance the engagement of our students by becoming their
“learning ally,” explored how behavior is predicated on relationships and engagement, and
aligned engagement coaching goals with discipline outcomes, progress monitoring, and testing
growth and achievement. An important opportunity to not only focus on how we support our
learners but also to recognize that the climate within the school begins with our adult
engagement. The time also included self-reflection, role play, small group discussion, and
participant-led discussion.
Instrument
The Social-Emotional Engagement-Knowledge & Skills (SEE-KS) engagement ladder
for classroom observations was utilized (See Appendix C). The observation scale was developed
by Rubin et al. (n.d.). The ladder allows SEE-KS coaches to measure the degree of engagement
of students in the classroom. The data assisted in identifying the number of students who
demonstrated each level of engagement which in turn resulted in a scale score for student
engagement. The levels of engagement range from fully engaged (4), mostly engaged (3),
partially engaged (2), emerging/fleeting (1), and no focus (0). Rubin et al. (n.d.) define fully
engaged students as ones who initiate at high levels of initiation, show consistent independent
22
engagement with materials, and have a constant positive emotional investment. Mostly engaged
students display spontaneous initiation, occasional independence with materials, and occasional
positive emotional investment. Students identified as partially engaged have responsive
initiation, show compliance, and seldom display positive emotional investment.
Emerging/Fleeting students show minimal initiative, are highly dependent on direction, and have
no positive emotional investment. Students with no focus are non-responsive, do not engage with
materials, and display no emotion.
According to Rubin et al. (n.d.) in terms of predictive validity, when educator
engagement is measured, assessing whether the teacher has provided the essential components
that support student engagement, there is on average, a 0.2-point difference between the educator
engagement score and the student engagement average. For example, a class with a student
average of 2.2 will likely have an educator engagement score of 2.4; it is the same with low
engagement scores. Additionally, higher student and educator engagement scores correlate with
greater growth scores on Math and ELA measurements - such as iReady and Map. We know that
when engagement wanes a bit as the year goes on, we see lower growth rates on those test
scores. However, when teachers consistently promote student engagement, the test scores
correlate with the engagement ladder scores. For the purpose of this study, the observer only
gave student engagement scores and not educator engagement scores.
Finally, the quantitative data is validated by qualitative observations, which is why they
go hand in hand. When all three “I’s” of engagement investment, independence, and initiation
are observed and can be described in a classroom, using anecdotal notes and the strategies
checklist, the engagement score will fall in the mostly engaged range. However, when we see no
opportunities for initiation noted through the anecdotal notes, we have the numeric score to
correlate with that observation.
23
Data obtained through these observations were used to identify areas of strengths and
weaknesses of the teacher and professional learning activities to enhance engagement. The
observer noted what works well regarding investment, independence, initiation, and
opportunities to enhance those areas within the classroom. The data from the engagement ladder
assisted in identifying how frequently and consistently strategies for student engagement were
utilized during the observations. Each of the strategies is rated according to the amount of time
they were observed during the observation. Table 3 defines the rating scale and the explanation
for each rating.
Table 3
Opportunities for Engagement Checklist Observation Rating Scale
Ratings
Explanation
5
Continuously
observed more than 90% of the time; opportunities rarely missed or
ineffective
4
Frequently
observed up to 75% of the time; opportunities occasionally missed or
ineffective
3
Consistently
observed up to 50% of the time; opportunities sometimes missed or
ineffective
2
Seldom
observed less than 25% of the time; opportunities frequently missed or
ineffective
1
Rarely
observed less than 10% of the time; opportunities continuously missed,
ineffective, or not present
The following checklist of strategies taught during the professional development was
completed by the observer to see if teachers implemented them in the classroom. Table 4 below
lists the engagement strategies that were scored during the observation with an explanation of
each.
24
Table 4
Strategies for Student Engagement Checklist Items to be Scored
Strategy
Explanation
1. Evidence of trust between educator and learners
Interactions are authentic, student appears willing
to respond to teacher bids for interaction with
positive affect and openness.
2. Evidence of rapport
Harmonious, warm interactions with positive,
open communication that is both teacher and
student initiated.
3. Evidence of learner being acknowledged
Student bids for participation are recognized and
affirmed.
4. Evidence of respect between educator and
learners
Students and educators engage with verbal and
physical politeness and mutual positive regard for
one another; evidence of boundaries.
5. Open body language between educator and
learners
Students and teachers are demonstrating an open
body position with one another and engaging in
frequent mutual facial contact.
6. Clear meaningful routines accessible to learners
7. Hands on materials
Routines are purposeful, timely, clearly posted,
with expectations accessible to learners through a
variety of modalities including but not limited to
visual and verbal support.
Students have access to manipulatives, individual
materials, etc.
8. Personal/Social connections with peers
Students have supported access to peers for
interaction, social learning, and peer modeling.
9. Environmental adjustments to meet learner
needs
Modifications are made in a timely, as-needed
basis to meet the needs of individual learners
including response type requested, duration of
lesson, inclusion of movement opportunity,
opportunity to self-reflect, etc.
10. Teacher Modeling
Teacher models expectations for how to
participate, how to engage with peers, how to
complete work, etc.
25
Strategy
Explanation
11. Organized room with access to materials
Classroom is free of clutter; student areas are
clearly delineated and organized with easy access
to materials to be used.
12. Developmentally appropriate language used
Language-rich environment that is
developmentally appropriate and accessible to all
learners.
13. Information presented in multiple ways
Information is provided to learners in a variety of
ways including visual supports (pictures and
words), gestures, action, etc.
14. Schedule posted and followed
Schedule is posted and visible throughout the
room for student use to support self-regulation.
15. Learner facial expression and body language
display positive emotions
Learners display positive emotion about the
environment, work task, interactions within the
classroom, etc.
16. Opportunities to self-assess
Students are given opportunities to review their
work, responses, participation, etc. to build self-
regulation and self-efficacy.
17. Learner responsiveness
Learners have the tools to and appear to respond
in a manner that is timely to the question, prompt,
or activity provided.
18. Cognitive risks encouraged
Students are positively encouraged to take risks
with their thought processes, answers,
interactions, etc.
19. Student led discussions/learners ideas
validated
Learner contributions are acknowledged even if
they are incorrect.
20. Differentiated materials/work items provided
Items are modified as needed to meet the needs of
each and every learner including work completion
type, quantity of work to complete, response style
accepted, etc.
The classroom observation scale assisted with answering RQ 1 and RQ 2 to determine the
effect the professional development workshops have on teaching practices and student
engagement in the classroom.
26
Data Collection
The observations were conducted by an outside SEE-KS consultant. The consultant has a
Master of Science in Conflict Management and has supported dispute resolution and relationship
enhancement through engagement observations in school districts for over 18 years. The
consultant is a co-contributor to the SEE-KS Framework, the lead specialist in Georgia for SEE-
KS, and has been delivering professional learning and coaching to support the implementation of
SEE-KS in schools and districts around the state since the Fall of 2019. The observations were
30 minutes each for the 19 participants. Each participant had a total of two observations. The
observations were conducted over one semester of the school year. One observation was before
the professional development was implemented, and the second was after teachers participated in
the professional development. A checklist of strategies taught during the professional
development was completed by the observer to see if teachers implemented them in the
classroom. Anecdotal notes were taken during the observation pertaining to students' investment,
independence, and initiation A scaled score for student engagement was obtained using this tool.
To obtain the scale score for student engagement, the number of students who displayed the
levels of engagement were multiplied by the engagement range number for each level. For
example, if two students showed an engagement level of four, then two would be multiplied by
four and so on. Then the sum of those answers was obtained. The sum was then divided by the
total number of students in the classroom to obtain the student engagement score.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data from SEE-KS was analyzed by transcribing what was seen in the
areas of investment, independence, and initiation of students. The quantitative data was compiled
in a spreadsheet according to pre-observation and post-observation. The scale score for each
observation will be analyzed to determine if the level of students’ engagement increased from the
27
pre-observation to the post-observation. The checklist was analyzed to determine if teachers
implemented the strategies they learned through professional development.
Quantitative data from the SEE-KS was analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired
sample t-tests. Frequency distributions provided percentages and frequencies for the engagement
strategies checklist. Paired t-tests (Ross & Wilson, 2017) were utilized to analyze the student
engagement scale score before and after the completion of the professional development. They
also were used to compare teachers’ implementation of strategies offered in professional
development. A paired t-test was chosen because it supports comparing data at two different
points in time. A paired t-test helped to test the hypothesis and determine whether or not
professional development had an impact on the implementation of strategies and student
engagement in the classroom.
The Role of the Researcher
I am employed at ABC primary school as the principal, in the district where the data
collection was conducted. I am the primary evaluator and observer of teachers. I also work
alongside the assistant principal and instructional coach to provide professional development
opportunities for teachers. Observational data could be deemed biased if the researcher, assistant
principal, or instructional coach were involved with the ratings. The bias could be due to
knowledge of the participant's strengths and weaknesses in other areas that could come into play
during the engagement observation. In order to collect honest and unbiased data, the researcher
utilized an outside consultant to assist in the collection of data. Throughout the research, my role
as the researcher was independent of the actions of the participants.
Ethical Considerations
The research was conducted in an established educational setting involving normal
educational practices. The participants were provided with a letter detailing the purpose of the
28
study as well as the methods that were used to collect the necessary data. Informed consent was
obtained from each participant. Participants were asked to sign that they understood their rights
as research participants and what they would be asked to do during their participation in the
observations. All information was kept confidential. The observations took place in a supportive
school environment with a person who already had a professional relationship with the
participants. Participants were reminded that their participation was part of normal educational
practices that would not impact their overall evaluations. The information and data gathered
would not be shared with anyone except the researcher. All participants were given pseudonyms
for use in written publications or professional presentations following the study. Data was stored
on a password-protected computer. This study was approved by the school district as well as the
Georgia College & State University Institutional Review Board (IRB).
29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This mixed-method study considered how a semester-long PLC, with professional
development focused on student engagement, affected teaching practices and student
engagement within the classroom. As a result, the researcher explored whether involvement in
the PLC and professional development was associated with (a) improved use of strategies to
engage students and (b) improved levels of student engagement. The purpose of the study was to
raise awareness among schools and educational systems about the necessity of increasing the
level of engagement from students within the classroom.
This study was designed to investigate and assess the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in student engagement in the classroom
before and after their teachers participated in professional development workshops with a focus
on student engagement.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference in the utilization of strategies for student
engagement before and after teachers participated in professional development workshops with a
focus on student engagement.
This chapter provides quantitative and qualitative findings from the study that include (a)
statistical analysis of the engagement tool scores, and (b) analysis of observation notes pertaining
to investment, independence, and initiation. All data for the mixed-methods research was
collected from one instrument, a classroom observation tool entitled The Social-Emotional
Engagement-Knowledge & Skills (SEE-KS) engagement ladder. The quantitative data identified
the level of engagement in the form of a scale score ranging from one to four during the
observation. The quantitative data also identified the percentage of time engagement strategies
that were utilized in the classroom. The data was entered into a spreadsheet that offered a data
30
analysis toolkit. Data was analyzed to determine if (a) engagement scores increased and (b) the
usage of engagement strategies increased after the professional development. Qualitative data
gathered through anecdotal notes from observations, was used to gain an understanding of the
evidence that supported investment, independence, and initiation within the classroom
observation.
Quantitative Results and Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to determine if there was an increase in engagement
scores after participating in professional development that focused on student engagement. A
paired samples t-test was conducted to determine the effect of participating in professional
development. The results from the pre-observation (M = 2.911; SD = .213) and post-observation
(M = 3.133; SD = 0.408) indicate that there was a significant difference in the improvement of
student engagement scores, t(18) = -2.5, p = 0.022. The results from the pre-observation and
post-observation indicate that the majority of participants who participated in the professional
development increased the level of student engagement. Analysis of the pre-observation and
post-observation was also conducted through the use of descriptive statistics in order to get a
better understanding of the data. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the observations
which include the range of scores, the mean, and standard deviation.
Table 5
Descriptive Analysis of Pre-Observations and Post-Observations
SEE-KS Observation Tool
n
Min
Max
M
SD
Pre
19
2.6
3.5
2.911
0.213
Post
19
1.95
3.92
3.133
0.408
31
When comparing the data in Table 5, it is evident that although the mean improved from
pre-observation to post-observation, the post-observation had a wider range of scores for student
engagement. The minimum and maximum represent the scores that fall into those categories
from the pre-observations and post-observations. The mean represents the average score for the
observations. The standard deviation represents the measure of variation in the data through the
averaged difference of scores from the mean of each observation. A higher deviation notates a
wider range of scores, and a lower deviation notes a smaller range of scores.
Table 6
Pre/Post Observation Scores with Change, Degree, Experience, and Grade Level
Teacher
Pre-
Engagement
Score
Post-
Engagement
Score
Change
Degree
Years of
Experience
Grade Level
A
3.2
3.92
0.72
Bachelor’s
22
1
B
2.8
2.96
0.16
Master’s
32
2
C
2.8
3.44
0.64
Bachelor’s
13
1
D
2.8
1.95
-0.85
Master’s
6
K
E
3
3.2
0.2
Master’s
25
1
F
2.9
2.92
0.02
Bachelor’s
9
2
G
3.1
3.35
0.25
Specialist
17
K
H
2.7
3.28
0.58
Bachelor’s
2
2
I
3.5
3.4
-0.1
Master’s
4
K
J
3
3.36
0.36
Specialist
27
1
K
2.76
2.84
0.08
Master’s
23
2
L
3
3.24
0.24
Bachelor’s
13
2
M
2.9
2.55
-0.35
Bachelor’s
24
2
N
3.14
3.1
-0.04
Master’s
26
K
O
2.76
3.4
0.64
Specialist
25
2
P
2.75
3.16
0.41
Bachelor’s
33
1
Q
2.8
3.4
0.6
Bachelor’s
4
1
R
2.6
3.05
0.45
Bachelor’s
0
K
S
2.8
3
0.2
Bachelor’s
2
K
32
Table 6 depicts the pre-observation and post-observation scale scores along with the
change that was seen in regard to student engagement for each participant. It also shows the (a)
degree held, (b) years of teaching experience, and (c) grade level of each participant. Seventy-
nine percent of the participants improved their level of student engagement after participating in
professional development; however, it is noted that only 36% of the participants met the goal for
the engagement score, which is at or above 3.4. An engagement score at or above 3.4 indicates a
positive engagement is observed more than half the time. Forty-seven percent of the participants
showed more of a compliant classroom rather than an engaged classroom. A score of 3.0
indicates a compliant classroom where approximately half of the students are engaged, or
students are engaged approximately half of the time.
The levels of education for the participants ranged from bachelor’s degree to specialist
degree: 52% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree. Ninety percent of those participants
showed an increase in their score anywhere from 0.2 to 0.72. Thirty-two percent of the
participants hold a master’s degree. Fifty percent of those participants showed an increase in
their score anywhere from 0.16 to 0.20. Sixteen percent of the participants hold a specialist
degree. One hundred percent of those participants showed an increase in their score anywhere
from 0.25 to 0.64. When looking at the participants who met the goal score of 3.4 for student
engagement, 16% held a specialist’s degree, 16% held a bachelor’s degree, and 10% held a
specialist degree.
The levels of experience for the participants ranged from 0 to 33 years. Thirty-seven
percent of the participants had at least 0-10 years of teaching experience. Overall, 71% of the
participants showed an increase in their score anywhere from 0.02 to 0.6. Another 15% of the
participants had at least 11 to 20 years of experience. One hundred percent of those participants
showed an increase in their score anywhere from 0.25 to 0.64. Forty-eight percent of the
33
participants had at least 21 to 32 years of experience. Seventy-eight percent of those participants
showed an increase in their score anywhere from 0.16 to 0.72. When looking at the participants
that met the goal score of 3.4 for student engagement, 16% were participants with 20 to 32 years
of experience, 11% were participants with 11 to 20 years of experience, and 11% were
participants with 0 to 10 years’ experience.
The grade level of participants ranged from Kindergarten to second grade. Thirty-two
percent of the participants taught in kindergarten. Fifty percent of those participants showed an
increase in their score anywhere from 0.2 to 0.45. Thirty-two percent of the participants taught in
the first grade. One hundred percent of those participants showed an increase in their score
anywhere from 0.2 to 0.64. Thirty-six percent of the participants taught in the second grade.
Ninety percent of the participants increased their score anywhere from 0.02 to 0.58. When
looking at participants who met the goal score of 3.4 for student engagement, 21% were first-
grade teachers, 11% were kindergarten teachers, and 10% were second-grade teachers.
Research Question 2
The second research question explored the difference in the usage of engagement
strategies before and after participating in professional development that focused on student
engagement. A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine the effect of participating in
professional development. The results indicated a significant difference between the student
engagement strategies utilized before professional development and the student engagement
strategies utilized after professional development. The mean represents the average score of the
utilization of the specific strategy. The standard deviation represents the measure of variation in
the data through the averaged difference of scores from the mean of each strategy utilization
score. A higher deviation notates a wider range of scores, and a lower deviation notes a smaller
34
range of scores. Table 7 (below) summarizes the mean results of the pre-observation and post-
observation ratings for the utilization of engagement strategies.
Table 7
Paired t-test Results of the Pre and Post Utilization of Engagement Strategies
SEE-KS Observation Tool
Pre
Post
Strategies Checklist
M
SD
M
SD
T (18)
P
Investment
1. Evidence of trust between
educator and learners
0.416
0.168
0.732
0.089
-8.216
<.001
2. Evidence of rapport
0.458
0.126
0.684
0.140
-5.660
<.001
3. Evidence of learner being
acknowledged
0.395
0.181
0.645
0.152
-7.092
<.001
4. Evidence of respect
between educator and learners
0.395
0.181
0.705
0.164
-6.218
<.001
5. Open body language
between educator and learners
0.353
0.198
0.684
0.140
-6.726
<.001
6. Clear Routines
0.437
0.150
0.461
0.172
-0.480
0.637
7. Hands on materials
0.205
0.181
0.405
0.224
-3.010
0.008
8. Personal/social connections
with peers
0.247
0.198
0.361
0.183
-1.815
0.086
9. Environmental adjustments
to meet learner needs
0.142
0.126
0.492
0.232
-5.801
<.001
Independence
10. Teacher Modeling
0.268
0.203
0.579
0.230
-5.531
<.001
11. Organized room with
access to materials
0.479
0.092
0.703
0.157
-12.369
<.001
12. Developmentally
appropriate language used
0.437
0.150
0.697
0.105
-8.414
<.001
13. Information presented in
multiple ways
0.184
0.168
0.447
0.214
-4.969
<.001
14. Schedule posted and
followed
0.416
0.168
0.529
0.266
-2.126
0.048
Initiation
15. Learner facial expression/
body language display
positive emotions
0.395
0.181
0.684
0.163
-6.253
<.001
16. Opportunities to self-
assess
0.226
0.191
0.463
0.230
-4.307
<.001
17. Learner Responsiveness
0.374
0.191
0.458
0.192
-1.660
0.114
18. Cognitive risks
encouraged
0.226
0.191
0.392
0.209
-2.890
<.001
35
SEE-KS Observation Tool
Pre
Post
Strategies Checklist
M
SD
M
SD
T (18)
P
19. Student led
discussions/Learners ideas
validated
0.268
0.203
0.437
0.224
-2.891
0.010
20. Differentiated
materials/work items provided
0.289
0.205
0.316
0.224
-0.503
0.621
The pre-observation means scores ranged from 0.142 to 0.479. The post-observation
means scores ranged from 0.361 to 0.732. During analysis of the pre-observation strategies that
were utilized, it was found none of the strategy’s utilization mean was at or above 0.50; which
would have indicated that those strategies were effective for student engagement. However,
evidence of rapport (0.458), an organized room with access to materials (0.479), and display of
learner facial expressions and positive emotions (0.395) means revealed that these strategies
were utilized more frequently by the participants. The post-observation analysis found a
significant increase in the strategy’s utilization mean that was at or above 0.50; 10 strategies out
of the 20 strategies compared to none during pre-observation. The mean range for those ten
strategies was 0.529 to 0.732.
Analysis of the mean of each strategy was utilized and found that several strategies were
used more from the pre-observation to the post-observation. The rate of increase of the means
was found to be from 0.02-0.316. The strategies that exhibited the highest rate of increase in the
utilization mean were: environmental adjustments to meet learner needs (0.350) open body
language between educator and learners (0.331), evidence of trust (0.316), teacher modeling
(0.311), and evidence of respect between educators and learners (0.310). The strategies that
exhibited the lowest rate of increase in utilization mean were: clear, meaningful routines
accessible to learners (0.024), differentiated materials (0.027), and learner responsiveness
(0.084).
36
The mean post-observation data was also analyzed to see which of the three aspects of
SEE-KS yielded the best utilization of strategies. In regard to investment, there were nine
strategies to be observed. Five of the strategies were observed as having a utilization mean at or
above 0.50. Those included: evidence of trust (0.732), evidence of respect (0.705), evidence of
rapport (0.684), open body language (0.684), and evidence of learner acknowledgment (0.645).
Evidence of trust (0.316) showed the highest amount of increase in utilization mean, and clear
meaningful routines (0.024) showed the least amount of increase. In regards to independence,
there were five strategies to be observed. Four of the strategies were observed as having a
utilization mean at or above 0.50. Those included organized room (0.703), developmentally
appropriate language (0.697), teacher modeling (0.579), and schedule posted (0.529). Teacher
modeling (0.311) showed the highest increase in utilization mean and schedule posted (0.113)
showed the least increase in utilization mean. In regards to initiation, there were six strategies to
be observed. One strategy, the display of learner facial expressions and positive emotions (0.684)
was above the expected mean of 0.50. In that strategy, learner facial expressions and positive
emotions (0.289) also had the highest increase in utilization mean, and differentiated materials
(0.030) showed the least amount of increase in utilization mean.
Figure 1 below displays the participants’ SEE-KS Observation Tool Strategies utilization.
In the figure, it shows the strategies and the number of participants who utilized the strategies for
the specific amount of time during the observation after professional development. In analyzing
the pre-observation scores, the participants utilized the strategies either 10% or 50% of the time.
However, after professional development, there was an increase in the amount of time the
strategies were each utilized by the participants.
37
Figure 1
SEE-KS Observation Tool Strategies Participant and Time Utilization
Overall, the participants showed an increased usage of the specific student engagement
strategies. In the post-observation data, three strategies were noted to be seen 90% of
observation. Those strategies include evidence of respect, evidence of trust, and teacher
modeling. Only one participant was seen to have utilized those strategies in 90% of the
observation. Twenty of the strategies were noted to be seen in 75% of the observation. The range
of those participants who utilized those strategies 75% of the time was two to seventeen.
Nineteen of the strategies were noted to be seen 50% of observation. The range of those
participants who utilized strategies 50% of the time was one to eleven. Seventeen of the
strategies were noted to be seen in 25% of the observation. The range of those participants who
utilized the strategies 25% of the time was one to eleven. Eleven of the strategies were noted to
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Number of Participants
Checklist Strategies
10% of the Time
25% of the Time
50% of the Time
75% of the Time
90% of the Time
38
be seen 10% of the observation. The range of those participants who utilized strategies 10% of
the time was one to five.
Out of the strategies, 10% of the strategies were seen 50%-90% of the time after
professional development. Those strategies include evidence of trust between educator and
learner and the usage of developmentally appropriate language. Additionally, 35% of the
strategies were seen 25%-90% of the time after professional development. Those strategies
include evidence of rapport, the learner being acknowledged, respect between educator and
learners, open body language between educator and learners, clear, meaningful routines, the
information presented in multiple ways, and learner facial expressions and body language
displaying positive emotions. Fifty-five percent of the strategies were seen 10%-90% of the time
after professional development. Those strategies include hands-on materials, personal
connections, environmental adjustments, teacher modeling, organized room, schedule posted,
opportunities to self-assess, learner responsiveness, cognitive risks, student-led discussions, and
differentiated materials.
Summary of Quantitative Results
I investigated whether participation in professional development, with a focus on student
engagement, improved student engagement levels, and utilization of student engagement
strategies. Several significant results were found. Those included the fact that the paired t-test
analysis showed that most of the participants improved their level of student engagement from
pre-observation to post-observation. However, using descriptive analysis, it was determined that
the post-observation had a wider range of scores for student engagement than the pre-observation
due to the drop in some classroom engagement scores. Despite the increase in overall scores,
only 36% of participants met the goal for the engagement score at or above 3.4. The pattern of
the data indicated that in relation to meeting the goal of engagement and the degree that a
39
participant holds, it was found that there was no significant difference between the degrees. This
also holds true when looking at the levels of experience of the participants. However, when
looking at the data in relation to grade levels, first-grade teachers met the goal for engagement at
a higher rate than the other grade levels.
In reference to the utilization of student engagement strategies, several significant results
were also found. Those included the fact that the paired t-test analysis showed the utilization
mean of strategies increased from pre-observation to post-observation. However, only ten
strategies out of the 20 met the expected mean of 0.50. When looking at the three aspects of
SEE-Ks, strategies that supported the independence of students were utilized more often at the
utilization mean of 0.50 or above.
When looking at the frequency and percentage data, several significant results were
found as well. Overall, the participants showed increased usage of the student engagement
strategies. Nineteen of the strategies were noted to be seen at least 50% of the time during the
post-observation. However, fifty-five percent of the strategies had a range of 10%-90% of being
seen during the post-observation.
Qualitative Results and Findings
The purpose of this mixed-method study was to examine whether professional
development with a focus on student engagement would affect the level of engagement within
the classroom. In the qualitative component of the study, I sought to gain an understanding of
evidence that supported (a) student engagement levels and (b) utilization of strategies during
classroom observations. The observer took anecdotal notes during the post-observations in order
to provide evidence pertaining to the three aspects of SEE-KS.
To provide answers to the research questions, the themes were categorized into the three
aspects of the SEE-KS engagement ladder: (a) investment, (b) independence, and (c) initiation.
40
The number of comments extracted to support each of the themes is noted in Table 8.
Independence was the most cited observation comment from the consultant.
Table 8
Qualitative Findings- Quantity of Comments for Each Theme
Theme
# of Comments
Investment
13
Peer Interactions
5
Real- Life Experiences
5
Positive Reinforcement
3
Independence
36
Modeling
5
Transitions/Procedures
13
Visuals
8
Respect
4
Groupings
3
Initiation
20
Cognitive Risks
8
Personal Connections
7
Opportunities to Self-Assess
5
Investment
In this category, three themes emerged from the comments made by the consultant. The
three themes were (a) peer interactions, (b) real-life experiences, and (c) positive reinforcement.
Peer Interactions: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the
observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies associated with peer interactions. The consultant
noted the following comments pertaining to peer interaction during observations: students were
paired with peers, access to peers in independent small groups, peers wanting to help other peers,
and looking for peers for assistance.
41
Real-Life Experiences: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the
observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies that encouraged connections to real-life experiences.
The consultant noted the following comments pertaining to providing students with real-life
experiences: utilization of Spanish and English numbers for English Language Learners,
questioning about personal knowledge and prior knowledge, knowledge of what to expect next,
use of a spider web in the classroom as a reference, and activity was tied to real-life.
Positive Reinforcement: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the
observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies that encouraged positive reinforcement to students.
The consultant noted the following comments pertaining to providing positive reinforcement to
students: calming music and environment in the classroom, modeling excitement for material,
pacing to support sustained interest, positive reinforcement for meeting expectations, and
students given talking sticks to support those who had the floor at the time. Feedback from the
consultant also noted opportunities that were lost during the observation because of the lack of
positive reinforcements, for example, Participant K: “Learner working with teacher appeared
resistant to teacher bid for eye contact and direct engagement. No positive expression was
observed from the teacher.”
Independence
In this category, five themes emerged from the comments made by the consultant. The
five themes were: (a) modeling, (b) procedures, (c) visuals, (d) respect, and (f) groupings.
Modeling: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the observations
that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional development
supported the use of strategies that encouraged teachers to model for their students. The
42
consultant noted the following comments pertaining to teacher modeling: modeling with groups
to show how to engage in discussions, using gestures associated with words, and use of a
document camera for modeling.
Procedures: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the observations
that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional development
supported the use of strategies that encouraged teachers to make sure students understood the
procedures in the classroom. The consultant noted the following comments pertaining to
procedures: students had roles within groups, transition routines with countdown, learners knew
what to do during transitions, independent learners knew what was expected, clear rituals and
routines, verbal reminders, and use of vocal volume meter. Feedback from the consultant also
noted opportunities that were lost during the observation because of the lack of procedures, for
examples Participant D: “Students frequently interrupt the teacher while working with learners.
A chaotic environment- even if not threatening, can be unwelcoming and not conducive to
learner engagement,” and Participant R: “Need to know what they need to do when done.
Visuals are needed to know what to do and what’s expected in each group. What can be done to
support each and every learner being engaged with the activity?”
Visuals: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the observations that
were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional development supported the
use of strategies that provided students with visuals throughout the lesson. The consultant noted
the following comments pertaining to visuals utilized in the classroom: visuals posted with group
assignments, visual timer posted on the board, and schedule posted. Feedback from the
consultant also noted opportunities that were lost during the observation because of the lack of
visuals. For example, Participant Q: “Could teachers use a document camera to display the
picture of the book on the smart board while they read so they can easily see pictures and text?
43
Respect: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the observations that
were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional development supported the
use of strategies that encouraged respect among teachers, students, and student peers. The
consultant noted the following comments pertaining to respect: peers eager to help each other,
flexibility in seating, respect between teacher and learners, moved learners closer to the board
who needed support, and discrete redirection.
Groupings: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the observations
that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional development
supported the use of strategies for grouping students. The consultant noted the following
comments pertaining to student groupings: roles emerged within groups, flexibility in seating
within groups, and talking sticks provided during groups. Feedback from the consultant also
noted opportunities that were lost during the observation for students to be grouped appropriately
for increased engagement. For example, Participant M: “Small groups- should be differentiated;
rotations are not really happening.”
Initiation
In this category, three themes emerged from the comments made by the consultant. The
three themes were (a) cognitive risks, (b) personal connections, and (c) opportunities to self-
assess.
Cognitive Risks: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the
observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies that provided opportunities for students to take
cognitive risks. The consultant noted the following comments pertaining to cognitive risks: use
of open-ended questions, why and why not questions used, opportunities for students to share
responses and contribute to the discussion, turn, talk, and share utilized, and teacher prompts.
44
Feedback from the consultant also noted opportunities that were lost during the observation for
students to take cognitive risks. For example, Participant C: “The lesson wasn’t inherently
engaging, but the way the teacher paced the lesson, provided validation, and built on
relationships kept learners actively engaged on the carpet with her. There is not much
opportunity for spontaneous initiation due to the scripted nature of the lesson,” Participant H:
“Students may need support to know how to turn and talk before having them turn and talk,” and
Participant P: “Incorporate turn and talk so learners have the opportunity to share.”
Personal Connections: According to the comments made by the consultant, from the
observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies that helped students make personal connections. The
consultant noted the following comments pertaining to those connections: discussion of when a
student read the same book in kindergarten, students making connections to anchor charts and
visuals, learners eager to participate and connect in small groups, and access to peers.
Opportunities to Self-Assess: According to the comments made by the consultant, from
the observations that were conducted, participating in the student engagement professional
development supported the use of strategies to provide opportunities for students to self-assess.
The consultant noted the following comments pertaining to self-assessment: opportunities to
self-assess in small groups, a student relocated themselves to a better working environment for
them, and a student used visuals to help with checking their understanding.
Summary of Qualitative Results
The purpose of the qualitative component of this mixed methods study was to gain an
understanding of evidence that supported research questions one and two concerning (a) student
engagement levels and (b) utilization of strategies during classroom observations. Qualitative
data were collected from anecdotal notes taken during classroom observations by the consultant.
45
Thematic analysis of the data regarding feedback was provided from classroom observations.
The results of the analysis were categorized into the three aspects of the SEE-KS Engagement
Ladder: investment, independence, and initiation. From the analysis, several themes were
identified from each component of the SEE-KS. Regarding investment, it emerged that
participants who were involved in the professional development showed utilization of strategies
that improved peer interactions, provided students with real-life experiences and connections,
and provided positive reinforcement for students.
Regarding independence, several themes emerged. It was evident that participants
showed more utilization of strategies that showed independence after participating in
professional development. Strategies involving procedures were noted more frequently among
the themes that arose. It also emerged that participants showed utilization of strategies that
enhanced the use of teacher modeling, visuals, and respect among teachers and students.
Regarding initiation, it emerged that students were given more opportunities for cognitive risks,
personal connections, and opportunities to self-assess.
46
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The results of the data analysis are promising in the fact that the educators who
participated in the student engagement professional development showed statistically significant
improvement in the levels of student engagement and also showed an increase in the utilization
of student engagement strategies within their classrooms. It is also worth noting that the
quantitative and qualitative data used to determine the utilization of strategies, both yielded the
result that independence strategies were seen the most. However, it is worth noting that despite
the observed increase in the levels of student engagement overall, some participants actually
dropped in their levels or did not meet the goal of student engagement. This suggests that while
professional development may have played a part in effectively raising student engagement
scores and utilization of engagement strategies, additional explanations may have to be
considered as possible reasons that the student engagement was impacted in the classroom. The
time when the observations were conducted could have played a role in the increase. The first
observation was early on in the school year when teachers are still getting to know their students
and setting the classroom environment. It is natural, as the year progresses, that teachers know
what works for their students as well as the students know the expectations. Students tend to be
more independent as the year progresses. The fact that some strategies are controlled by the
teacher than other strategies could also have played a role in the increase of utilization. Strategies
that fall under independence are teacher controlled rather than student controlled.
Interpretation of the Findings
This section will provide more detailed discussions on the findings of the study. The
interpretation of findings is organized by research questions. Each section will provide
information on how the research questions were answered and how the findings relate back to
the literature that was reviewed in an earlier chapter.
47
Research Question 1
The first research question aimed to investigate whether professional development
workshops improved students’ level of engagement. The study’s results revealed a significant
difference between the student engagement level before professional development and the
student engagement level after professional development. While existing literature did not
specifically focus on how professional development affects student engagement in the classroom,
it supported the positive benefits of PLCs that include professional development. PLCs have
been widely implemented in educational environments to characterize various groups assembled
to work collaboratively for various purposes (Teague & Anafara, 2012). Teachers work in teams,
engaging in a cycle of questions that nurtures profound team learning. In a PLC, the focus shifts
from teaching to learning as a fundamental purpose. Teachers are continuously learning to
support their students’ learning (DuFour, et al., 2008). The educators in this current study have
varying degrees of experience, which may have also positively impacted their level of student
engagement in the classroom. Abla and Fraumeni (2019) recognize that over the years, the
definitions of engagement have become varied and lengthy as researchers try to capture multiple
aspects of the classroom experience. When engagement is considered in the classroom, one must
think beyond the simplicity of memorization and repetition. Fostering student engagement within
the classroom is crucial to students’ success now and in the future (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020).
From the findings of this study, it can be inferred that the positive increase in the level of
student engagement after participating in professional development indicates the professional
development’s efficacy in fostering educators’ learning to support their students’ learning. By
providing educators with the tools needed, professional development contributes to their overall
knowledge and enhances their abilities to engage students at higher levels. Expanding on the
implications of these findings, it is evident that while the specific study yielded statistically
48
significant results overall, the majority of the educators’ levels of student engagement did not
meet the goal of observing positive engagement more than half of the time, which suggest, that
student engagement was more compliant rather than engaging.
The pattern of data indicated that in looking at the goal of engagement in relation to the
degree of the participant holds and level of experience, it appeared that there was not significant
difference. Further study is needed to determine if there is a correlation between the two. It is
noted that first-grade teachers met the goal for engagement at a higher rate than the other grade
levels. The pattern of data for first-grade teachers would indicate they participate more in the
professional development and collaborative conversations their PLCs and professional
development. This has also been seen through observations of their PLCs and professional
development. This group of first-grade teachers tend to participate and collaborate more than the
other grade levels as observed by the researcher.
Research Question 2
The second research question aimed to investigate whether professional development
workshops improve teachers’ use of strategies to engage students. The study’s results indicated a
significant difference between the student engagement strategies utilized before professional
development and the student engagement strategies utilized after professional development.
While existing literature did not specifically focus on how professional development affects the
use of student engagement strategies in the classroom, it supported the fostering of student
engagement in the classroom. Fostering student engagement within the classroom is crucial to
students’ success now and in the future (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020). Teachers are obligated to
their students to support them with strategies they themselves understand and can apply in the
classroom. Strategies should be specific, well thought out, and collaborated on for student
engagement (Taylor & Parsons, 2011). It is not enough to simply know strategies for
49
engagement. Teachers must know how to differentiate between engaged and disengaged
students. They must recognize that being engaged can manifest in students being compliant to
being busy (Schnitzler et al., 2020). Teachers who are enthusiastic about their lessons and
activate their students’ learning tend to have high levels of engagement. Classrooms, where
students exhibit low engagement, tend to have teachers demonstrating disorganized and
unplanned teaching strategies. These teachers tend to engage in strategies that do not motivate
students from the start of the lesson (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2020). Further study is needed to
determine if teacher enthusiasm has any relation to student engagement.
From the findings of qualitative component of this study, it can be inferred that the
positive increase in the utilization of student engagement strategies after participating in
professional development indicates professional development’s effectiveness in fostering the
educators’ knowledge of effective strategies to support their students’ learning. From the
findings of the qualitative component of the study, it can be inferred that the participants were
able to utilize the strategies that focused on independence more effectively after participating in
professional development. This could indicate that the professional development was more
effective in assisting teachers in understanding these strategies to support their students’
learning. By providing educators with the strategies needed, professional development
contributes to their overall knowledge and implementation of the strategies to enhance student
engagement.
Finally, the quantitative data was validated by qualitative observations, which is why they
go hand in hand. When all three “I’s” of engagement investment, independence, and initiation
are observed and can be described in a classroom, using anecdotal notes and the strategies
checklist, the engagement score will fall in the mostly engaged range. However, when we see no
50
opportunities for initiation noted through the anecdotal notes, we have the numeric score to
correlate with that observation.
Overall Conclusion of Findings
The study’s findings align with the goals and principles of PLCs that incorporate
professional development. Schmoker (2004) aligned collaborative problem-solving with the self-
directed, job-embedded characteristics of PLCs. Collaborative problem-solving allows teachers
to focus on strategies that benefit them within the classroom. When you enlist the problem-
solving nature of PLCs, teachers are given the opportunity to work together to help improve the
aspect of teaching that enhances student engagement.
Limitations of the Study
The study encountered limitations, particularly within the sample. The focus of the study
was one primary school, which made it unrealistic to compare the findings with other schools
within or outside of the district. The limited sample size posed challenges in generalizing of
outcomes, as the small sample utilized may not accurately depict the outcomes of a large
population. The primary school for this study was a rural Title 1 school where 100% of the
students received free or reduced lunch. The limitation of using only one school further hindered
the generalizing outcomes, as they could not be compared to other schools located in areas
beyond the district. The study was limited to the observations and use of strategies. The data
corpse of this mixed-method study was limited to observations to gain a more in-depth
understanding of the engagement in the classroom. I recommend that future researchers use other
methods, such as interviews, to gain more insight into student engagement in the classroom
through the teacher’s perspective. The study was not intended to compare the effects of this
PLC’s professional development with other PLCs.
51
Recommendations for Future Research and Practice
Numerous recommendations could be made as a result of the findings of this study and
the study’s limitations. Conducting the same study with a more widespread sample of educators
in any school setting would increase the generalizability of the findings. Including educators
from different schools would provide a broader understanding of the effectiveness of
professional development. The length of the professional development could be increased to
span the duration of the school year. Another recommendation would be that each participant has
a personalized, reflective, collaborative session with the consultant and administrator. During
this time, the consultant could give the participants feedback on what was noticed, and
participants could be given the opportunity to reflect on their practice and what their needs are
for improving student engagement. The researchers could also incorporate qualitative methods,
such as interviews to gather insights from the educators on what their perceptions are of the
professional development they are involved in. Also, conducting more than two observations
would provide a better indication of student engagement over time.
Conclusions
Educators today face many challenges in educating students. The post-COVID-19 era has
brought about new challenges that may not have been pertinent before. Students are more apt to
be disengaged during a classroom lesson than ever before. They are distracted by technology and
present more mental health issues than ever noted before. Isolation during COVID has hindered
the development of milestones in our students. This alone makes it more crucial than ever to
equip educators with the knowledge and strategies they need to engage students beyond
compliance. Compliance is not student engagement. Compliance does not lead to increased
student engagement. By integrating professional development that focuses on student
engagement and strategies, educators can be provided with the tools and skills to engage students
