Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Student Engagement


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Student Engagement

  1. 1. Research Presentation EDU 639 AMANDA PITTMAN
  2. 2. Research question  Is there any change in students‟ thoughts and focus in class when concrete pictorial examples of physical behavior are presented?
  3. 3. Purpose of the study  The purpose of this study was to discover how to increase student engagement in my fourth grade language arts classroom. More specifically, the goal was to identify variables in my classroom that prohibit students from being fully engaged, attempt to reverse those variables by modeling, and evaluate student engagement from there by measuring students‟ success or failure according to teacher expectations.
  4. 4. Why this research? Simply stated, Peters noted in his study on student engagement that making good grades and actively engaged learners were directly connected.  Peters stated that there is a difference between students being engaged in school and being engaged at school, further explaining that even if students are at school they may be there to socialize and learning may not be the primary focus. 
  5. 5. Literature Review  Kadakia separated the act of learning into two different categories that pertain to school. Teachers‟ oral strategies and Perceptions and both teacher‟ and students‟ body language.
  6. 6. Know your students  Research compiled by (Oliveria, 2010) states that common oral strategies include the use of metaphors, rhetorical questions, colloquial language, humorous comments and oral queries describe how secondary and post-secondary students tend to be more engaged when these strategies are used. On the other hand, it was found that using these methods in the elementary classroom often confused students and they weren‟t clear on how they were supposed to act or respond to such „loose‟ instruction.
  7. 7. Type of study  Data collection for this study was based on qualitative methodology. Qualitative research involves mostly observation, and observation was my main component for data collection. I also used ethnographic research.
  8. 8. Tools used in Study  Components which I implemented during the study were:  Data was collected from rubrics completed by the students and rubrics completed by myself, both of which were based on observation.  A field diary was kept based on the researcher‟s observations from the day.  An interview was conducted upon conclusion of the observation period with each student allowing them to express what they thought about the rubric, Also, how the first week compared to the second week in which had pictorial examples for modeling exact expectations.
  9. 9. Measurement  For this study, I used the triangulation technique correlating student selfobservation checklists, to teacherobservation checklists, to field diary notes.
  10. 10. Results: Posture   In week one, the students rated themselves toward the high (3‟s and 4‟s) end of the spectrum with an average score on day one of 4. In contrast, the researcher rated them much lower (1‟s and 2‟s) with an average score of 2.1. In week two pictorial examples of appropriate behaviors were provided, and the scores started out lower in the beginning of the week for students self-rating but increased as the week continued. Likewise, the researcher‟s results could be mirrored to the student results with an average of 2.1 at the beginning of the week and 3.5 by the end. (Appendix G)
  11. 11. Results: Participation    In week one, students again rated themselves toward the high end of the spectrum with an average of 3.5 of day one. (Appendix G) Similarly, in week two they rated themselves toward the lower end of the spectrum (showing an average of 2.6 week 2 day 1) but increased as the week continued (week 2 day 4 with an average of 3.6.) The researcher‟s results were much the same with this category as well, as noted on week two day two when the student and researcher data proved to be identical with an average of 2.83.
  12. 12. Results: Field Notes   In reference to numerical data collected from the field diary, assertions were made that students were rating themselves higher in the first week, without pictorial modeling, than in the first part of the second week where pictures were presented and students rated from the example. In week one, day three the researcher indicated that while the students had more than adequate time to fill out the rubric, and the teacher observed real thought being taken by students to carefully choose the right rating, the results were still much higher than the researcher had given for that day. (See appendix F)
  13. 13. Results: Interview  Students also indicated that they saw an increase in accuracy of rating themselves on the rubric after being provided with pictorial examples, when conducting interviews.  When asked what it looks like to be successful in class, Student 3 reported “Sitting up straight, tracking the speaker, and being able to answer the exit slip correctly.” After students 3 reported this, I elaborated with “You have been told to do those things in class about a million times, what has changed?” She said, “I sometimes don‟t listen in class or don‟t think the teacher is talking to me because I‟m mostly good.”  When students were asked if they noticed a difference between week one and week two they unanimously reported “yes.” When asked to explain further, Student 2 said ”The first week I didn‟t think about what I was doing in class but the second week, I had pictures and was reminded so I did better.”
  14. 14. Conclusions  The results gathered from correlating data taken from student self-observation checklists, to teacher-observation checklists, to field diary notes were:  When pictures were displayed, everyone involved had the same expectation.  The data indicates that when pictures were posted as a model students were more actively engaged learners.
  15. 15. Future Studies  Possibly in the future, some studies could be done in making a connection between using pictures in successful and unsuccessful behavior modification plans. Additionally, studies could be done to directly link unsuccessful behavior with plans that don‟t contain pictures to students who don‟t read at grade level or understand the spoken language of a region well.
  16. 16. Works Cited Srofe, T. (2009). Freshman academy: Making the high school transition. Retrieved from 1D_10177.pdf0/master Kadakia, M. (2005). Increasing student engagment by using morrowind to analyze choices and consequences. TechTrends, 49(5), 29-32. Retrieved from Oliveria, A. W. (2010). Engaging students in guided science inquiry discussions: Elementary teachers' oral strategies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 747-765. doi: 10.1007/s10972 West, T. (2007). Multilayered analysis of teacher-student interactions: Concepts and perspectives guiding video analysis with tattoo, the analytic transcription tool. Pedagogies, 2(3), 139-150. doi: 10.1080/15544800701366290 Fink-Jensen, K. (2007). Attunement and bodily dialogues in music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(1), 53-68. Retrieved from Peters, E. E. (2010). Shifting to a student-centered science classroom: An exploration of teacher and student changes in perceptions and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 329-349. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9178-z Schaaf, R. (2012). Does digital game-based learning improve student time-on-task behavior and engagement in comparison to alternative instructional strategies? Canadian Journal of Action
  17. 17. Works Cited Continued Schaaf, R. (2012). Does digital game-based learning improve student time-on-task behavior and engagement in comparison to alternative instructional strategies? Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(1), 50-64. Retrieved from Abushihab, I. M. (2012). A semiotic-based approach as an effective tool for teaching verbal and nonverbal aspects of language. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1150-1156. doi: 10.4304/jltr.3.6.1150-1156 Engagement. (n.d.). In Google online. Retrieved from Learning. (n.d). In Google online. Retrieved from Finn, J., & Pannozzo, G. (2004). Classroom organization and student behavior in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 79-92. Retrieved from Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. (8 ed., pp. 425-428, 507-520). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.