Gender Equality in Schools (ages 5-12)

Running head: SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 1

Signature Assignment: Student Engagement

Name Withheld

Arizona State University

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 2

Introduction

My research question is the following: How effective is the method of engagement used

by my mentor teacher? Based on my six visits, my mentor teacher uses primarily teacher-led

activities in her classroom to engage her students. She usually lectures or leads whole-class

discussions. She occasionally requires students to complete worksheets, a student-led activity. I

have not observed any small group or partner activities. My hypothesis is that my mentor teacher

keeps 75% of her students engaged at any given moment during a lesson.

Demographics

My placement school is a private Catholic high school located in Chandler, Arizona. It

serves 588 9 th

-12 th

-grade students. Of these, 69% of the students are white; 18% are Hispanic;

7% are Asian; 2% are American Indian/Alaska Native; and 4% are two or more races. Boys

constitute 51% of the students, and girls constitute 49% of the students. Approximately 46% of

the students receive some type of financial aid to pay for tuition. The annual tuition rate is

$13,030. Catholic students have an annual tuition of $9,790, and international students have an

annual tuition of $16,000. The average class size is 20 and the student/teacher ratio is 13/1.

Ninety-nine percent of Seton’s students are admitted into college after graduation. I have no

quantitative data for parent involvement; however, faculty and administration consider parent

involvement high. For example, my mentor teacher discusses getting emails from parents when

student’s grades decline.

Thirty-six percent of the student population lives in Chandler near the school. Within the

zip code where the high school is located, the median household income is $61,501 (Relocation

Essentials, 2014). The median household/condo value is $212,700 (Relocation Essentials, 2014).

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 3

The population is 80% white, 4% African American, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% Indian,

3% mixed races, and 7% other (Movoto LLC, 2014).

Observation

For my study I observed one lesson that my mentor teacher conducted in her three

sophomore English classes on Monday, February 24. These classes occurred during Periods 3, 5,

and 7. It is important to note that Period 3 and Period 5 are before lunch (Period 5 occurs directly

before lunch). Period 7 is the class directly after lunch.

In the beginning of the lesson, my mentor teacher administered a quiz. Next, she directed

the class into a whole class discussion on random acts of kindness as it pertained to Night by Elie

Wiesel, the novel that the students are reading. Last, my mentor teacher gave the students a

homework assignment. Students were to perform a “random” act of kindness and then write a

paragraph discussing the following: what they did (the act of kindness), how the recipient of their

random act of kindness reacted, and how the student felt after having done the random act of

kindness. During the last 10 minutes of class, I gave the students an anonymous survey.

In order to measure student engagement, I recorded student behavior as being either on-

task or off-task at set intervals. Off-task behaviors were defined as the following: focused on

something other than instruction or activity (e.g., socializing while teacher is lecturing, staring

off, using phone or other technology for unrelated tasks, putting head-down on desk, not

participating in classroom activity, and not preparing for the next activity). On-task behaviors

were defined as the following: actively participating in the classroom activity (e.g., contributing

to the discussion, keeping eyes focused on the teacher when appropriate, taking notes, preparing

for the next class activity, and following instructions).

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 4

I recorded student engagement every 10 minutes during the first two collection points of

class. In the beginning of class students took a quiz, and, therefore, student engagement would

likely not change until students completed the quiz. For the last four data points, when the

classroom activity shifted to a whole-class discussion, I recorded student engagement every five

minutes. This yielded a total of six data collection points through the 50-minute period. I started

collecting data 10 minutes after the bell, and I stopped data collection when I handed out my

survey during the last 10 minutes of class.

Data Collection

My Total Collection Table has only five data points to remedy the issue created when

Period 3 completed their quizzes faster than Periods 5 and 7. My first data point yielded 100%

engagement in all classes: The teacher administered the quiz, and all the students were working

on it. After students turned in their quiz, they were instructed to prepare for their in-class

discussion on Night. In all three classes 26.9% of students became disengaged after some tests

were turned in. I noted that technology or simply “staring out” were the two most apparent off-

task behaviors. In order to be considered engaged, students needed to be reading or going over

notes to prepare for the class discussion. When the teacher then asked the students to engage in a

whole-class discussion, 12% of the students were off-task. Student non-engagement generally

increased to 20.6% as the whole-class discussion continued. Student non-engagement remained

at 20.6% during the assignment introduction.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 5

Period 3 (18 total students) Males 12, Females 6

Caucasian 14, Hispanic 4

Data collection points activity Number of

students on task

Number of

students off

task

Percentage of

Students off task

1 Quiz Student-led

18 0 0%

2 Some quizzes collected Student-led

11 7 38.8%

3 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

13 5 27.7%

4 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

16 2 11.1%

5 Assignment explanation Teacher-led

14 4 22.2%

6 Assignment explanation Teacher-led

15 3 16.6%

Period 5 (25 total students) Males 13, Females 12

Caucasian 19, Asian 2, Hispanic 3, African-American 1

Data collection points activity Number of

students on task

Number of

students off

task

Percentage of

Students off task

1 Quiz Student-led

25 0 0%

2 Some quizzes handed in Student-led

19 6 24%

3 Most quizzes handed in Student-led

13 12 48%

4 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

22 3 12%

5 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

19 6 24%

6 Assignment explanation Teacher-led

20 5 20%

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 6

Period 7 (20 total students) Males 14, Females 6

Caucasian 16, Hispanic 2, African-American 1, Pacific Islander 1

Data collection points activity Number of

students on task

Number of

students off task

Percentage of

Students off task

1 Quiz Student-led

20 0 0%

2 Some quizzes handed in Student-led

16 4 20%

3 Most quizzes handed in Student-led

16 4 20%

4 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

17 3 15%

5 Whole class discussion Teacher-led

15 5 25%

6 Assignment explanation Teacher-led

16 4 20%

Total Collection Table (63 total students) Males 39, Females 24

Caucasian 49, Hispanic 9, African-American 2, Asian 2, Pacific Islander 1

Data collection points activity Number of

students on

task

Number of

students off

task

Percentage of

Students off task

1 Quiz Student-led

63 0 0%

2 Some quizzes handed in Student-led

46 17 26.9%

3 Whole class discussion Teacher-led (Merged data point 3 for Period 3 and data point 4 for Periods 5 and 7 so all reflect the beginning

of the whole class discussion)

52 11 12%

4 Whole class discussion Teacher-led (Merged data point 4 for Period 3 and data point 5 for Periods 5 and 7 so all reflect middle of

whole class discussion)

50 13 20.6%

5 Assignment explanation Teacher-led (Merged data point 5 for Period 3 and data point

6 for Periods 5 and 7 so all reflect beginning of assignment explanation)

50 13 20.6%

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 7

During the last 10 minutes of the period, I handed out and then collected the following survey.

Sixty-three students participated in the survey.

Students Responses:

Question 1: Did the instructor do anything to encourage you to pay attention in class?

Typical responses (number of students in parentheses) to Question 1 included the following:

 the teacher had an interesting lecture (20)

 the teacher did nothing at all and just talked (11)

 the teacher asked us to pay attention (7)

 the teacher is funny (6)

Question 2: What types of classroom activities motivate you to pay attention in class?

Typical responses (number of students in parentheses) to Question 2 included the following:

 group work (41)

 class discussions (32)

Question 3: How motivated were you to learn the material today?

Student Survey

1. Did the instructor do anything to encourage you to pay attention in class? (designed an interesting classroom activity, had an

interesting lecture, gave you an interesting assignment,

consequence/reward, made me feel comfortable, etc.)

2. What types of classroom activities motivate you to pay attention in class? (group work, lecture, reading, worksheets, writing,

class discussion, etc.)

3. How motivated were you to learn the material today?

4. Why do you pay attention in class?

5. Why do you not pay attention in class?

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 8

Typical responses (number of students in parentheses) to Question 3 included the following:

 the Holocaust or the book is interesting so I was very motivated (20)

 not motivated at all because I’m tired or it’s Monday (8)

Question 4: Why do you pay attention in class?

Typical responses (number of students in parentheses) to Question 4 included the following:

 I pay attention in class to get a good grade so I can have a better future (e.g., get into a

better college, have a better job) (33)

 so I can learn (15)

Question 5: Why do you not pay attention in class?

Typical responses (number of students in parentheses) to Question 5 included the following:

 bored (22)

 tired (13)

 my mind is on something else (9)

 already learned the material (8)

Literature and References

Introduction

a) The research question was “How [can] students…be encouraged to prepare [for] class,

not with the primary objective of gaining knowledge, but with the aim to become more engaged

and active during the lesson” (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p. 768). More specifically, “What kind of

homework assignments trigger student class participation?” (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p. 770).

The study breaks down this larger question into five smaller questions:

What are the effects of the various homework assignments on students’ time on task and

their level of participation in class? Are these effects different for boys and girls? What

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 9

are the effects of the various homework assignments on the type of student questions in

class? What are the effects of the various homework assignments on students’ class

motivation and their perceived learning outcomes? To what extent do various teaching

formats differ in students’ time on task and the level of participation in class? (Buijs &

Admiraal, 2012, p. 770)

b) The independent variable was the different types of homework issued to students as well

as the in-class teaching format (i.e. student-led, or teacher-led activities). The dependent variable

was the time on task and the amount of student participation in the classroom. Buijs and

Admiraal (2012) categorized student engagement into four observable behaviors: “students’

time on task in class, their level of student participation, the questions students asked in class and

the teaching formats applied in class” (p. 772).

Method Section

“Two groups of 50 grade 11 students…participated. These students attended pre-university

education in a small town in the southeast of the Netherlands. The students were 16 or 17 years

old and 35 of them were female” (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012). The specific student ethnicity was

not given.

a) The researchers pre-tested participants “to set a baseline of time on task and the level of

student participation…Students [to this point] were provided with homework assignments in a

regular manner: a combination of text reading and textbook assignments” (Buijs & Admiraal,

2012, p. 770). The researchers then created four different types of homework assignments:

1. Homework 1 required students to analyze in two phases a propaganda poster and

then return to class and complete the final two phases of analysis.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 10

2. Homework 2 was a fragmented assessment. It required students to take practice test

questions on the material they had learned.

3. Homework 3 was a jigsaw assignment where students had to discuss one part of a

larger question with others in class. Students had previously discussed the larger

whole issue in class and were then given a packet of source materials and questions

to help them prepare.

4. Homework 4 asked students to choose their own assignment from a selection of

assignments. Assignments were grouped on difficulty and topic.

All the students were given each type of homework. Data was gathered based on observation and

a questionnaire. The observation tested the four observable engagement behaviors, and the

questionnaire gave the researchers qualitative data on student motivation and learning outcome

for each homework assignment.

Results Section

a) The major result of this study showed that after completing the jigsaw assignment

(Homework 3) students were more on-task and participated more when compared to their pretest.

Similarly, Homework 1 increased time on task and class participation. Using a scale where one

was completely off-task and five was completely on task, Homework 1 scored raised the average

time on task score .36 points, while Homework 3 raised the average class time on task score .59

points. Class participation scores were raised .28 points for Homework 1 and .85 points for

Homework 3. However, after completing the student choice assignment (Homework 4), students

spent less time on task than their baseline measures.

Student questions increased, particularly with Homework 2, the fragmented assessment.

After completing Homework 2, students asked 70 questions as compared to the baseline total of

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 11

23 questions. “In all classes taken together, knowledge-oriented questions were asked most

frequently (45 times). Questions in which students analyzed the subject were asked” in

Homework 1 and 2 (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p. 774-775).

Student motivation results showed that the student choice (Homework 4) had the highest

score, indicating that students were most likely to complete this assignment. The jigsaw

assignment (Homework 3) had the lowest score, indicating that students were least likely to

complete this assignment. The students found Homework 2 (fragmented assessment) the most

challenging and the jigsaw assignment (Homework 3) the least challenging. Moreover, the

students found Homework 2 (the fragmented assessment) the most useful and thought they

learned the most from this assignment.

Teaching formats were also assessed. “Students participated significantly more in class

during self-regulated work (whether this was individual or group work) when compared to

teacher-led formats” (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p.776).

Conclusions

a) The researchers’ first conclusion is that the four homework assignments “did have an

effect on students’ time on task in class as well as their class participation” (Buijs & Admiraal,

2012, p. 776). More specifically, the researchers saw that although students were not necessarily

motivated to complete Homework 3, this assignment actually led to the most increases with time

on task and class participation. This conclusion answers the study’s primary research question.

b) Buijs and Admiraal (2012) also concluded that “the conclusions about the effects of

homework assignments can probably only be generalized to this specific [age] group of students”

(p. 777). Buijs and Admiraal (2012) felt that knowing the way these homework assignments

would affect students of a different age or in lower educational levels is too difficult to

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 12

determine. They suggest this could be “part of further research” (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p.

777). Buijs and Admiraal (2012) also suggest that “how to use homework to enhance class

instruction by engaging students in the process of learning and teaching” could be further

researched (p. 777).

Implications

a) This study suggests that educators should be conscience of the homework they assign.

Assigned homework should encourage in-class student engagement. More specifically, Corno

(1996) points out that “teachers have to give assignments that both reinforce what they are

teaching in school and prompt students to reorganize and extend their learning into new and

richer areas” (as cited in Buijs & Admiraal, 2012, p. 777). Essentially, teachers should be giving

assignments for students to practice prior knowledge, but also extend learning so students can

bring questions and discussion points to class. The study suggests that both Homework 1 and 3

may be good activities to build on for homework assignments, as they led to the greatest increase

of student time on task and class participation. The study also suggests that the instructor’s style

of teaching has a lot to do with student engagement. Teacher-led activities tend to encourage

passive learning, while self-regulating formats encourage engagement (Buijs & Admiraal, 2012).

Ultimately, teachers should first create meaningful homework assignments and then attempt to

inspire students to do homework so that class time can be effective. One limitation of the study is

the lack of cultural diversity included. Only students from the Netherlands were included;

therefore, it could be reasonable to think that cultural differences could impact student

engagement and motivation both in-class and on homework assignments.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 13

Introduction

a) Paige, Sizemore, and Neace (2013) had three research questions:

What percent of students are engaged with instruction and does the data suggest changes

in engagement as the class progresses from the beginning to end?...What is the level of

higher order thinking occurring inside classrooms and does this level change across the

class period, from beginning to end?...Does cognitive rigor moderate student classroom

engagement? (Paige, et al., 2013, p. 106)

b) There was no independent variable; rather the study was interested in whether the use of

more cognitively rigorous activity in instruction would increase student engagement. The

observers had no control over whether teachers would use more cognitively rigorous tasks. The

other variable measured was student engagement.

Method Section

The study was conducted within the ninth-grade core content classrooms of an urban high

school…Ethnicity distribution of the students consisted of approximately 53% African

American, 44% European Americans, and 3% others…Teacher experience at the school

averaged 9 years. (Paige, et al., 2013, p. 110)

Participants’ specific ages, and regions in the country were not given in the study.

a) Paige et al. (2013) devised The Student Engagement and Rigor Scale for the Classroom

(SER-C) to measure student engagement. Paige et al. (2013) used Webb’s depth of knowledge

(DOK) scale to measure the level of higher order thinking occurring in the classroom. The Webb

scale is similar to Bloom’s, but it only has four levels: “(a) recall, (b) basic application of

skill/concept, (c) strategic thinking, and (d) extended thinking” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 109). Paige

et al. (2013) then divided the class period into thirds (beginning, middle, and end) to see how

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 14

both the student engagement and amount of higher order thinking activities varied across a class

period. To rate the engagement, the observer counted the number of students who were not

involved with the instruction and then calculated the percentage of students not engaged for the

class. This was recalculated at the beginning, middle, and end of the class period. Similarly, the

observer determined what level of thinking, based on Webb’s DOK scale, the students were

engaged in. This was re-evaluated at each of the three parts of the class period. Observers were

trained to establish interrater agreement. Also, data was collected Monday through Thursday in

all five class periods of the day to “represent all classrooms at various times during the school

day and across multiple days” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 112). “Fridays were excluded from

observations because of the large number of noninstructional and testing activities that took

place” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 112).

Results Section

a) “There was a significant main effect for DOK, indicating that student engagement

significantly increased as DOK levels increased” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 113). In other words, as

students were asked to use higher order thinking skills, the more they participated in class. Also,

the ending third of class showed significant drops in student engagement (Paige et al., 2013).

However, between the beginning and middle thirds of class, student engagement remained the

same (Paige et al., 2013). This changed depending on the DOK level. If the students were asked

to use DOK 3 higher order thinking skills, their engagement remained the same throughout all

three parts of the class period (Paige et al., 2013). However, if only asked to use higher order

thinking skills associated with DOK 1, then student engagement decreased during the middle and

end of the class period.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 15

Conclusions

a) “The results of this study provide support for the notion that the level of thinking

demanded of students can engage them more deeply in classroom instruction” (Paige et al., 2013,

p. 115). The researcher hypothesis, “as cognitive rigor increases student engagement with

classroom instruction also increases,” was confirmed (Paige et al., 2013, p. 106). Paige et al.

(2013) found that the increase in engagement when cognitive rigor increases is significant. Sixty-

three percent of students at the end of class were engaged when at DOK level 1; however, 86%

of students were engaged at the end of class when at DOK level 3 (Paige et al., 2013).

Essentially, Paige et al. (2013) concluded that challenging students to think at a higher level will

“foster self-determination. Outcomes of self-determined students include fewer behavior issues,

an increasing sense of being in control of their learning, and the ultimate feeling of greater

achievement” (p. 120).

b) Paige et al. (2013) suggest that research should continue evaluating the student

experience rather than what traditionally has been done, evaluating what the teacher is doing. We

can’t “ignore the student half of the teaching-and-learning process” (p. 116). For future research,

Paige et al. (2013) suggest that schools could repeat the study’s method to evaluate their own

school. If done properly, results could then be calculated to create a DOK focus mean for the

school (Paige et al., 2013). This would show how much of the students’ time is spent on a

school-wide level at each DOK level (Paige et al., 2013). This data should be collected by

teachers of the school so that they can better understand their school and students, as well as the

importance of cognitive rigor (Paige et al., 2013). This promotes self-determination among

faculty and staff, which should then, in turn, be passed along to students (Paige et al., 2013). If it

becomes apparent that the students DOK focus mean is not acceptable, Paige et al. (2013)

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 16

suggest that teachers should develop Fisher and Brading’s (2012) “goal clarity windows [which]

is one such method for aligning standards across DOK levels to ensure that students are

challenged to think at high levels” (as cited in Paige et al., 2013, p. 120).

Implications

a) This study shows that teachers can foster student engagement by challenging their

students to think at higher levels. Higgins, Hall, Baumfield, and Moseley (2005) found “evidence

indicating that higher cognitive rigor was associated with greater academic achievement” (Paige

et al., 2013, p. 108). By asking students to engage in higher cognitive thinking, students are more

likely to not only achieve more in class but also to become “self-determined.” In other words,

students tend to become more autonomous and independent when challenged. It is also important

to note that Paige et al. (2013) are not suggesting that all activities need to encourage higher

order thinking. In fact, some lower level thinking can be built to facilitate higher level thinking,

but Paige et al. (2013) do show that there is merit to incorporating more high-level thinking

activities in the classroom. In other words, to improve student engagement in the classroom,

teachers should design lessons that ask students to use higher order thinking skills. One

limitation of this study is it only observed an underperforming school. Though it is reasonable to

extrapolate the findings of this study to all schools, it is possible that higher performing schools

may require even more time utilizing higher level thinking activities to keep students engaged.

The reverse may also be true, students at higher performing schools may go above and beyond

what a teacher asks of them and, therefore, may not need as many higher level thinking activities

to keep them engaged. This may be an interesting comparison to draw on for further research.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 17

Overview

Limitations

This study I conducted was restrictive in that I did not control the classroom activity. Ideally, I

would have liked to observe several class periods where my mentor teacher did several different

types of activities to truly see how different activities affect student engagement. Also, Period 3

turned in their quizzes significantly faster than Periods 5 and 7, and, therefore, Period 3 was

paced faster in comparison to Periods 5 and 7. Additionally, it is impossible to truly know

whether students were or were not engaged. For example, a student’s head may have been down

during a lecture because he or she listens better this way. On the other hand, students could be

looking at the teacher, but their mind could be wandering. It is also reasonable to conclude that

because the study took place in a private school with high tuition, most of these students are high

achieving, have supportive parents, and ample resources. Likely, there is higher engagement in

this type of school when compared to a public school. Therefore the results of this study may not

be replicated at a public school with a heterogeneous mix of high and low achieving students.

Additionally, some students were not conscientious in reading each question on the survey. As a

result, they did not answer what the question was asking. Furthermore, some students needed

more time to fill out the survey and fully develop their answers. In an ideal situation, students

would have been given ample time to fill out the survey and to ask for clarification.

Summary and Synthesis

I had expected that student engagement would be high during the testing phase of the

class period. This assumption proved correct as my first data collection point showed that 100%

of students were engaged. Though tests and quizzes are different from regular in-class

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 18

assignments, this finding suggests that individual seat-work that will be turned in for a grade

leads to high student engagement percentages. Although repetitiously using this method is a

potentially ineffective teaching practice that could result in student boredom and eventually

lower achievement, utilizing individual seat-work to assess student understanding on an

occasional basis may be beneficial and will likely lead to high student engagement.

I had also expected that students would begin to get off-task after they turned in their

quiz. This was also proven true as student off-task behavior increased from 0% to 20.6%.

Additionally, in classes where some students took longer to complete their tests, student off-task

behaviors continued to increase. However, it is important to note that in none of the class periods

did off-task students become disruptive during this data collection point; rather, students used

their time unproductively. Even though the teacher had instructed them to prepare for the next

section of class, many students chose to play with technology or stare-out. In order to remedy

this, I believe that the teacher should have given more explicit directions or a specific task to

complete (e.g., “Look through your notes and be prepared to tell me three key events from the

chapter”). Telling students to prepare for the class-discussion is likely too vague and does not

provide high school students enough direction.

I had anticipated that student-engagement would increase when the activity switched to a

whole-class discussion. This assumption proved true. In all classes off-task behaviors decreased

during this portion of the class period. This suggests that consistently shifting the type of

activities in class could lead to higher student-engagement. If activities are shifted at regular

intervals (every 10 to 15 minutes, for example), the study indicates that students are less likely to

become bored and more likely to stay engaged. This assertion is further supported by the fourth

data point. As the whole-class discussion continued, more students became disengaged. In other

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 19

words, as the same activity continued beyond 10 minutes, more students were off-task. Although

the study does not address how to remedy the problem, it indicates that changing tasks or

techniques might be helpful. Small changes may have helped to keep students engaged in the

whole class discussion. For example, instead of calling on students who raised their hands, the

teacher could have drawn sticks to determine who would contribute next in the classroom

discussion, As a result, students would not know who would be asked to speak next and might be

more likely to pay attention. This method would have to be used carefully, as it could embarrass

some students who truly are unsure of how to answer the questions. Another way to encourage

more student participation might be to employ a think-pair-share technique. This would allow

students time to collect their thoughts, making them more likely to participate.

I expected student off-task behaviors to decrease for last data collection point when the

teacher introduced the homework assignment. I assumed that because the assignment would be

graded, students would be motivated to pay attention. This was proven not true. In general,

student off-task behaviors remained the same. In Period 3, student off-task behaviors actually

increased during this time. Although the results of the study cannot be used to determine the

exact cause of the off-task behavior, one possible explanation is that students believed that they

could get clarification on the assignment at a later time and, therefore, did not need to pay

attention to the directions. In other words, the students may not have felt a sense of urgency.

The student survey provided further insight into the results of this study. The two most

common answers for Question 2, which asked students to identify classroom activities that are

motivating, were “group work” and “class discussions.” This suggests that students prefer

activities that they can actively participate in. In other words, lectures, where students are

encouraged to only listen, do not motivate most students to be engaged. This is supported by the

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 20

data. At the beginning of the whole-class discussion, an activity where students are encouraged

to participate, student off-task behaviors decreased. However, as this activity continued, student

off-task behaviors increased. A think-pair-share technique could be employed to potentially

increase student engagement. This way each student is asked to do something productive

throughout the whole-class discussion. This also allows the class activity to switch from

individual work to group discussion to whole-class discussion, which may also increase student

engagement (supported by the Data Point 3 when engagement increased after an activity switch).

Additionally, this activity could help the issue brought up in Question 5, which asked students

why they do not pay attention in class. Most students cited “boredom” as the reason for being

inattentive. A think-pair-share activity may reduce student boredom, as they would be

consistently switching activities and asked to share their own thoughts. Furthermore, Paige et al.

(2013) found that student engagement increases as cognitive rigor increases. Group work and

whole-class discussion, when done appropriately, typically ask students to think at higher levels.

Therefore, it is clear why students prefer these types of activities. According to Paige et al.

(2013) and Buijis and Admiraal (2012) students want to be challenged, be more autonomous, and

contribute to class. Buijis & Admiraal (2012) reported that students were more likely to complete

the homework assignment when they were given a choice in activities. Affording students more

autonomy is developmentally appropriate for students who are between the ages of fifteen and

sixteen years-old. Many of these students are at Piaget’s formal operational stage. This means

students are capable of metacognition and therefore are ready to begin to monitor and direct their

own learning (Blume & Zembar, 2007). Essentially, students are going to be more engaged when

they are given an opportunity to contribute towards the direction of the class activities.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 21

The most typical answer for Question 4, which asks students why they pay attention in

class, shows that students are future-oriented (concerned about college and careers) and

concerned about their grades. This suggests that activities that will be graded increase student

motivation. This is supported by Data Point 1—0% of students showed off-task behaviors while

taking a test. Furthermore, the most typical answer for Question 4, which asks students why they

pay attention in class, shows that students are interested in school because it will help them get a

better job and have a successful future. This suggests that activities where students can clearly

see the connection to the real world will likely increase student engagement. Teachers should

consider discussing these two components as part of a lesson’s anticipatory set, which may

increase student motivation to learn. This is further supported by the typical responses to

Question 3, which asks students how motivated they were to learn the material presented today.

Only 20 out of 63 students were motivated to learn the material because of the subject matter

being studied. Similarly, in Question 1, only 20 out of 63 students indicated that the lecture was

interesting and kept them engaged. Therefore, the teacher may want to consider implementing a

strategy to tie the subject matter to real-life in order to make the topic more consequential for

students. Increasing relevancy may, in turn, result in higher student engagement.

Ultimately, my hypothesis that my mentor teacher keeps 75% of her students engaged at

any given moment during a lesson was proven incorrect. However, the only time student-

engagement went below 75% was when tests were turned in and students were instructed to

prepare for a discussion. From conducting this study, I learned that when teachers are able to

create activities that are student-led or ask students to actively participate in instruction, more

students are likely to be engaged. This is supported by Buijs & Admiraal (2012) who found that

“students participated significantly more in class during self-regulated work (whether this was

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 22

individual or group work) compared to other teaching formats” (p. 776). Paige et al. (2013),

suggest that allowing students to feel a sense of self-determination allows them to “feel more

responsible and take ownership over the process of finding a solution” (p. 120). Essentially,

students will feel more motivated to learn if they are given opportunities to direct their own

education. Further research should be done on effective practices in setting up student-led

activities to yield more effective results. Along with this, further research needs to be done on the

impact of shifting activities (in terms of frequency and type) on student engagement.

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT 23

References

Blume, L.B., & Zembar, M.J. (2007). Middle childhood to middle adolescence: Development

from ages 8 to 18. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Buijis, M., & Admiraal, W. (2012). Homework assignments to enhance student engagement in

secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3),767-779.

Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10212-012-0139-0

Movoto LLC (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.movoto.com/public-

schools/az/chandler/secondary/00031491-seton-catholic-high-school/1150-n-dobson-

rd.htm

Paige, D. D., Sizemore, J. M., & Neace, W. P. (2013). Working inside the box: Exploring the

relationship between student engagement and cognitive rigor. National Association of

Secondary Schools Principals Bulletin, 97 (2), 104-123. Retrieved from

http://bul.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/27/0192636512473505

Relocation Essentials (2014). Community information. Retrieved from:

http://www.relocationessentials.com/aff/www/tools/community/index.aspx?lct=Z&lck=8

5224&