1.1 An Overview of the Teacher-Student Relations ...



“The Engagement Project” – Using Instructional Code Switching (ICS) in the ClassroomParticipant Teacher Support Package V5.1April 2016Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u 1.1 An Overview of the Teacher-Student Relations Literature (Hamre & Pianta, 2004) PAGEREF _Toc447794661 \h 32.1 Student Engagement Style and Learning Style are Distinct Constructs PAGEREF _Toc447794662 \h 53.1 Executive Summary of a School Engagement Trial: Engaging Effectively with Pupil Diversity in Contemporary Classrooms - “Instructional Code Switching” (ICS). PAGEREF _Toc447794663 \h 63.1.2 An Invitation to Participate in the ICS Classroom Trial PAGEREF _Toc447794664 \h 153.1.3 Project Checklist (in brief): PAGEREF _Toc447794665 \h 153.1.4 Conditions of Participation: PAGEREF _Toc447794666 \h 154.1 Teacher Summary - Instructional Code Switching (ICS) PAGEREF _Toc447794667 \h 164.1.1 A summary of How ICS Project Teachers apply this Information? PAGEREF _Toc447794668 \h 185.1 Instructional Code Switching Classroom Engagement Strategy PAGEREF _Toc447794669 \h 196.1 Instructions for teachers in using the SWOT Journal Sheets during the ICS Intervention PAGEREF _Toc447794670 \h 206.1.1 Example Teacher’s SWOT Journal Recording Sheet PAGEREF _Toc447794671 \h 217.1 SCRIPT FOR PUPIL “Y”-CHARTS PAGEREF _Toc447794672 \h 227.1.1 Example Student “Y” Chart PAGEREF _Toc447794673 \h 238.1 ICS Engagement Project Online Data Collection – Participant Teachers Lesson Plan (both intervention & control groups) PAGEREF _Toc447794674 \h 249.1 Teacher Registration PAGEREF _Toc447794675 \h 3310.1 Exemplar: The Following Adjustments to Level of Language have been made to Improve Student Survey Comprehension PAGEREF _Toc447794676 \h 39Note: HiScore provides educators in Western Australia with authority to access and reproduce this material for research purposes. The author Dr Russell Pitcher and the .au website must be cited in any representation of this work.1.1 An Overview of the Teacher-Student Relations Literature (Hamre & Pianta, 2004)Student-perceived teacher connection was the factor most closely associated with growth in achievement from 8th grade to 12th grade (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004).Features of the individuals and their representation (perceptions) of the relationship include:TEACHERS - Teachers perceive themselves as either instructors or socializers (Brophy, 1985). Teachers who view themselves primarily as instructors [focus on standards/challenge] tend to respond more negatively to students who are underachieving, unmotivated or disruptive during learning tasks.Teachers who view themselves primarily as socializers [focus on care and choice] tend to respond negatively toward students they view as hostile, aggressive or interpersonally disconnected.Teachers who believe that they have an influence on students tend to interact in ways that enhance student investment and achievement (Midgley, Feldlaufer & Eccles, 1989).Teachers who hold high generalized expectations for achievement, their students tend to achieve more, experience greater self-esteem, competence as learners and resist problem behaviours (Roeser, Eccles & Sameroff, 1998).STUDENTS - Some student characteristics are readily observable (gender) while others are more psychological or behavioural in nature.Mismatch between the developmental needs of students and the characteristic of schooling contexts can exacerbate disaffection (Harter, 1996) and lead to negative self-evaluation and attitudes toward learning (Roeser & Galloway, 2002) Boys are at greater risk of disaffection from school (Ryan, Stiller & Lynch, 1994).Students’ social and academic competencies and problems (e.g. disruptive behaviour) is associated with less supportive and more conflictual relationships (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).The connection between behaviour and relationships is a result, in part, of the relational style of the student (moving toward [cooperative & social engagement styles], moving away [independent engagement style] or moving against [withdrawn engagement style]). Processes by which information is exchanged between the relational partners:Teacher-student relationships interact in reciprocal feedback loops that carry information.Participants interpret information carried in the interaction differently.Qualities of information or how it is exchanged (tone of voice, posture & proximity, timing of behaviour or contingency or reciprocity of behaviour) is more important than what is usually said or done.There is a reciprocal association between teacher and student behaviour. For example, students have positive perceptions of the relationship when the teacher was more involved with students within the social environment (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).Students who are able to form strong relations with teachers are at an advantage that grows exponentially as the year progresses.External influences of the system in which the relationship is embedded:The larger school community (school climate/culture) can support or restrain the development of positive teacher-student relations (Crosnoe et al., 2004).Mismatch between school culture and student goals, feelings, needs and relational styles influence the quality of relationships they form that in-turn influence the value attributed to classroom experiences (Pitcher, 2015).Creating Engaging Schools and ClassroomsSchool Culture – adjust structures to personalise relationships in schoolsReduce “mismatch” between the conditions and practices students encounter and their needs, readiness and capacities (Felner, Favazza, Shim & Brand, 2001).Create caring school communities (Battisitch, Solomon, Watson & Schap, 1997).Change the organisational structures to increase non-academic time teachers spend with studentsEncourage teachers to learn about student’s lives.Classroom Practice - teachers use strategies that improve classroom climate.Teach social and emotional development (e.g. PATHS).Engage in frequent social conversation with studentsShow genuine interest in student responses by spending time listening, asking follow-up questions and remembering key information to ask later.Be available for students who are experiencing difficulties.Provide opportunities for students to share their views and thoughts on academic subjects. This indicates a greater regard for students’ perspectives and ideas.Behaviour Management strategies that clearly communicate expectations, caring and respect. Teachers spend time with these students inviting them to consider beneficial choices through intentionally communicating optimism, respect, trust and care (Purkey & Novak, 2008).Relational-Based InterventionConduct a thorough relational assessment. Relationships can be described from inside and outside with data on both students and teachers perceptions, behaviours and beliefs.Identify times in which things go relatively well in the teacher-student relationship.Create time to spend with the student focused on building more positive interaction - banking relational capital.Find ways to support the student throughout the day by creating and communicating consistent relational themes.I am interested in youI accept youAdults can be helpersI am consistentI am safeYou have competenciesI will be here even when things get toughI can read your signals and will respond to them (e.g. Instructional Code Switching)Instructional Code Switching in ClassroomsIdentifies students and teachers in need of relationship support.Helps teachers develop new and more supportive ways of interacting with all student engagement styles in the classroom.Helps teachers to constrain their own engagement style and switch relational approaches to better align with student groups clustered by different engagement styles.ICS is an effective classroom instructional methodology able to scale the engagement effort to target all student styles.ICS is a consistent sustainable framework for approaching students with different engagement styles and thus improving overall pupil perceptions of teacher-student relations. 2.1 Student Engagement Style and Learning Style are Distinct ConstructsEngagement style and learning style are different constructs. In general terms learning styles refer to people’s sensory strengths and limitations (visual, auditory, tactile etc.) that are related to how they process information. Using instructional formats that embed a range of sensory modalities is a common strategy used to engage students in learning. Engagement is about relationships. It is a perceptual rather than a sensory construct. It describes the internal psychological and motivation experience of people interacting within environments. In schooling contexts, students and teachers engage differentially, motivated in part by the unique perceptions of each about the adequacy of extant levels of classroom challenge (demandingness), care and choice (responsiveness) determined by teacher preferences and student’s own preferences for these characteristics of that particular learning climate. Thus, individual preferences for contextual challenge, care and choice manifest in different styles of engagement. Such engagement styles are a product of socialisation over time that start with parenting and family, and are further shaped by each student’s unique experiences at school, at work and in the community. All contexts, including home, school and workplaces have a socialising culture that is characterised by particular levels of challenge, care and choice. Parents determine the engagement characteristics of the home context while in the workplace the CEO shapes the culture of the organisation. In schools, teachers largely determine how engaging students perceive their classrooms to be. Thus, understanding why some students move toward, some move against and others move away from engaging with learning is less contingent upon pupil’s learning style than it is on their perceptions about teacher-pupil relations. This shift in understanding about the central role that teacher-student relations play in driving or thwarting student engagement was supported by recent UWA research findings. Dr Russell Pitcher, (2015) found that alignment of teacher engagement approaches with pupil engagement style predicted improved pupil fulfilment, academic outcome expectations, motivation and overall wellbeing. To encourage transference of this research into classrooms Russell, a senior school psychologist and teacher with over 25 years of experience in public education extrapolated from his academic findings, a practical classroom engagement pedagogy for teachers called Instructional Code Switching (ICS). The ICS method assists teachers to dynamically code switch between expert, motivator, facilitator and delegator instructional approaches to align better with the range of student engagement styles found in all classrooms. Thus, in ICS classrooms both students and teachers of all styles perceive the teacher-pupil relationship to be enhanced, resulting in mutually positive motivational outcomes for all. The following article is an early draft that reports findings from the initial field trial of the ICS instructional pedagogy. The trial was conducted in real classrooms by real teachers during 2015. It provides the reader with an executive summary. 3.1 Executive Summary of a School Engagement Trial: Engaging Effectively with Pupil Diversity in Contemporary Classrooms - “Instructional Code Switching” (ICS).Key Words: Engagement, Pupil-School Suitability, Teacher-Pupil RelationsBackground:Engaging students effectively is a complex skill. Instructional approaches designed to fulfil the increasingly diverse needs and preferences of students in classrooms require contemporary teachers to consider the interaction of personal factors (their own intrinsic attributes, motivations and expectations along with those largely unfamiliar attributes that each pupil brings to class), with other contextual factors extrinsic to the child, such as, characteristics of the physical environment, the level and perceived relevance of the curriculum and the instructional approaches deployed by teachers, to identify just a few. However, difficulty in identifying the personal attributes that each pupil brings to the classroom often results in these important cognitive and affective indicators of engagement being understated or overlooked. Unlike parents, teachers (particularly in secondary schooling contexts) do not have ready access to this level of detailed information about each child. Thus, most frequently in classrooms pupil engagement is estimated using readily observable achievement outcomes and behaviour indicators. Clearly, using only observable outcomes to evaluate engagement can be problematic for some students, for example, those with behavioural issues or low skills but who otherwise enjoy schooling contexts and who are motivated by interests other than the formal curriculum, can appear disaffected. Extraordinary effort is required to connect positively with these students. Such students will likely engage with the curriculum primarily through positive teacher-pupil relations, at least initially. Therefore, when teachers’ acknowledge the intrinsic attributes of individual pupils and adjust (switch) their instructional approaches to align better with the contextual preferences of individual pupils or particular student groups this can positively impact engagement. No single instructional approach can fulfil the psychological needs and contextual preferences of all students. This is particularly salient during periods of transition and at the beginning of the school year when teacher-pupil relations are raw.What is Instructional Code Switching?Growing evidence supports the need for teachers to switch their instructional approaches in order to effectively engage all styles of students in their classrooms. Insightful teachers are unconsciously skilled at monitoring and adjusting the levels of classroom challenge (demandingness), care and choice (responsiveness) to engage a diverse range of students. We call this engagement skill, Instructional Code Switching (ICS). Although many teachers do this naturally, for some ICS is less intuitive. The good news is that instructional code switching is a skill that can be learned and refined with practice. However, under stress (such as in busy classrooms or when dealing with conflict) all involved tend to default to their dominant engagement style and some teachers can get “stuck” in a single approach/response. Both teachers and students retreat to their default perspective which can result in a relationship damaging engagement “mismatch”. In such circumstances the onus in initiating adjustments in engagement approaches (instructional code switching) must always be with the teacher because developmentally the child may not have the personal resources to effectively code switch at that time. The ICS method provides teachers with a preventative pedagogical framework to help them adapt their classroom engagement approaches to mitigate the potential for relational “mismatch” with different styles of students.Purpose of the ICS Trial:The importance of teachers using flexible classroom pedagogy was highlighted in a recent UWA doctoral study conducted by Dr Russell Pitcher (2015). To facilitate transference of academic findings on teacher-pupil alignment to classroom practice this trial introduces an instructional framework that teachers’ can deploy to help identify pupil engagement styles, and further, providing a practical methodology that optimises teacher engagement with a broad spectrum of students. The researcher (Pitcher, 2015) termed this framework “Instructional Code Switching (ICS)”. ICS requires teacher self-awareness and a willingness to try a variety of engagement approaches. Many teachers are unconsciously skilled at code switching when engaging “one-on-one” with students, however, when instructing in the classroom context they tend to use a dominant instructional approach related to their default engagement style that disadvantages some students with engagement styles that are not aligned with that of their teacher. The four research questions being examined are:Does the ICS instructional pedagogy improve overall teacher-student classroom engagement?Does the teachers’ level of experience mediate any ICS engagement affect?Do students with particular engagement styles benefit differentially from the ICS pedagogy?Does the teachers’ default instructional style mediate any ICS engagement affect?Raw descriptive data from the initial classroom trial of his ICS engagement pedagogy are reported (multivariate analysis will be conducted in due course following data collection from a more representative sample of schools).Method:The Foundation Academic Study: The peer reviewed dissertation entitled “Making Better School Choice Decisions: Aligning Students with Schools based on Socialisation Styles” (Pitcher, 2015) provided the inspiration and instrumentation needed to conduct a classroom trial of ICS a new instructional approach hypothesised to improve teacher-student engagement. In the foundation study a parenting socialisation research framework (Maccoby & Martin, 1983) was borrowed from the parenting research field to classify students into different engagement styles. Transitioning Year 8 students (n = 306) from a sample of public, independent and single-gender private schooling contexts (n = 5) were surveyed using an instrument that differentiated the orthogonal demandingness (challenge) and responsiveness (care & choice) preferences of students and teachers. Students were clustered by these contextual preferences into engagement style groupings using principal component analysis. Four distinct student engagement styles were identified; cooperative (those who are compliant, preferring contexts that are high in challenge, moderate in care and low in choice), social (those with a peer connectedness focus, preferring moderate challenge, high care and moderate choice), independent (those who are self-determined, preferring low challenge, moderate care and high choice) and withdrawn (those who are disaffected, preferring low challenge, low care and low choice). The influence of teacher instructional supports for levels of classroom demandingness (challenge), and classroom responsiveness (care) and (choice) on several indicators of student-school engagement were then investigated using multivariate analysis. Alignment of teacher’s instructional approach with pupil engagement style was subsequently found to mediate pupil perceptions about the adequacy of teacher-pupil relations in positive ways including enhancement of their intrinsic motivation (enjoyment), academic outcome expectations, academic motivation and sense of overall schooling suitability. Thus, alignment in the goodness of teacher-student “fit” predicted pupil perceptions about the adequacy/suitability of particular contexts, both at a distal level (school culture overall) and at a proximal level (in classrooms). The significance of these findings highlights the importance of teacher-student relations and quality teaching. When classroom teachers adjust their instructional approaches to align better with different student needs and preferences this can mitigate the potential for disaffection arising from limited school choice. Instructional Code Switching can assist teachers to make a difference for every student not just those who are “naturally” aligned with their particular engagement style.The ICS Classroom Engagement Trial: The ICS classroom pedagogy involves providing an instructional framework that helps teachers maintain awareness of the engagement needs (level of challenge, care and choice) of the students grouped in front of them in class. It involves a prescribed student seating plan with the teacher moving around the room “code switching” between various instructional approaches. Procedure of the ICS Trial:School principals were canvasses and interviewed. Approval to conduct the trial was obtained through discussion with school leadership. To accommodate timetabling limitations the researcher conducted a one hour professional learning session on ICS in each school. A “Participant Information Package” (see Appendix attached) was provided to interested school staff. Following this presentation teachers were invited to participate in the ICS classroom trial. Teachers (n = 11) from three public secondary schools volunteered to participate. The school psychologist volunteered to coordinate the trial in each school.Participant teachers were asked to select one ICS intervention class (n = 7) and one control class (n = 7). Both intervention and control classes completed a fully scripted student perceptions “Y-Chart” that asked them to rate on a scale 1 (low) - 10 (high) their perceptions of adequacy on challenge, care and choice for “this” class. Teachers supervised completion of the student version of the online engagement profiling tool the “Contextual Preferences Survey” (CPS). The CPS was used to classify each student by engagement style. The researcher then assisted participant teachers to assign each student to a prescribed classroom seating plan for the intervention class. Teachers then used the ICS instructional pedagogy in their “intervention” class for five weeks while teaching their “control” class in their usual manner. Following the trial period students in both the intervention and control classes repeated the “Y-Chart”. The school-based project coordinator collected the data. The researcher collated and analysed the data. Measures used in the ICS Trial:Two quantitative measures - the Contextual Preference Survey (CPS) was used to cluster students by their engagement styles. The researcher extended the original Demandingness (level of challenge) and Responsiveness socialisation instrument (Gill, 2002) after Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified that the responsiveness construct split into two components, care and choice. Students’ pre-intervention and post-intervention perceptions about the adequacy of engagement were collected using the “Y-Chart” format.Two qualitative measures - teachers’ instructional experiences during the trial period were collected using SWOT journals and students were asked to provide written feedback about the adequacy of their class experience on their “Y-Charts”. Data Analysis:The interim results presented here are raw descriptive data graphed using EXCEL. A detailed statistical analysis will follow in due course. Early results support the efficacy of ICS in improving the engagement perceptions of students. Students in the intervention classes reported improved teacher-student “FIT” on three student-centred measures of engagement, perceptions about the adequacy of levels of classroom challenge, care and choice. The trial is ongoing. Data will be updated as more teachers and schools participate.Results:Research Question 1: Does the ICS instructional pedagogy improve overall teacher-student classroom engagement?ICS Intervention Classes: School 1 - A “traditional” school located in a lower socio-economic area servicing an ethnically diverse community.Figure 1: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (experienced teacher)School 2 - A “distinctive” school located in a lower socio-economic area servicing an ethnically diverse community with approx. 20% indigenous student population.Figure 2: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (early service teacher)School 3 - A “traditional” secondary school context located in a “mixed” socio-economic area with 15% indigenous population.Figure 3: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (early service teacher)Figures 1-3 show that overall students in ICS intervention classes reported improved “adequacy of fit” for levels of classroom Challenge, Care and Choice. Furthermore, improvement in overall student perceptions of “FIT” suggested that the ICS pedagogy better met the needs and preferences of a broader range of students in these classes. Research Question 2: Does the teachers’ level of experience mediate any ICS engagement affect?Students in the intervention classes reported enhanced engagement irrespective of whether their teacher was “experienced” (over 10 years teaching) or “early service” (under three years teaching). This suggested that the engagement effect of the ICS pedagogy was not mediated by prior teaching experience. Non-intervention Control Classes:School 1Figure 4: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (experienced teacher)School 2:Figure 5: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (experienced teacher)School 3:Figure 6: Overall Teacher-Class Engagement (experienced teacher)Students in non-ICS intervention “control” classes were instructed by “experienced” teachers (10 plus years). Figures 4-6 show that overall these cohorts reported reduced perceptions of “adequacy of fit” during the 5 week trial period. Thus, when teachers instruct class using their preferred “default” style, overall student engagement was shown to diminish. These results suggest that those students who were originally mismatched with the teacher’s dominant instructional approach at pre-test becoming even more disaffected with time.Research Question 3: Do students with particular engagement styles benefit differentially from the ICS pedagogy?The following figures chart the differential engagement effect for the four student engagement style clusters.Figure 7: ICS Effect – Alignment on Level of Challenge by Student Engagement Style (n=67)Figure 8: ICS Effect – Alignment on Level of Care by Student Engagement Style (n=67)Figure 9: ICS Effect – Alignment on Level of Choice by Student Engagement Style (n=67)Figures 7-9 show that all students benefited from the ICS intervention irrespective of their engagement style. Students in the cooperative and withdrawn engagement style clusters reported modest improvements in engagement. Students in the social engagement style cluster reported consistently high levels of improvement while those students in the independent engagement style cluster perceived greater engagement when adequately challenged but curiously engaged less when provided with adequate levels of choice.Research Question 4: Does the teachers’ default instructional style mediate any ICS engagement affect?Presently insufficient teachers (11) have participated in the trial to report on this research question. Data collection is ongoing.Discussion:Prior research has attempted to evaluate engagement at a system level without adequate acknowledgement or investigation of individual student differences. For example the “middle schooling” strategy attempted to provide school contexts that were high in relatedness, on the assumption that all students would engage more in “high care” environments. However, such approached did not necessarily align with the engagement preferences of already high performing students who traditionally focus more on the level of challenge rather than the level of care, thus, education gains for student with “high care” preferences (social and independent engagement styles) were “washed-out” by higher disengagement of those students with lower care preferences (cooperative and withdrawn engagement styles). Thus, when evaluated overall, such system level interventions have failed to demonstrate significant education gains.Clearly, from the results reported here, however, when individual differences in student preferences are accommodated using teacher initiated Instructional Code Switching (ICS) pedagogy in classrooms, all students reported improved engagement. With a broad range of individual students of all styles reporting higher levels of individual engagement in the ICS intervention groups, average levels of overall classroom engagement were measured and confirmed. One could infer from these findings that in time education gains will likely result from subsequent improvement in teacher-student relationships in ICS intervention classrooms. The effect can be attributed to the (ICS) instructional approach because students in the control classes, in which their teachers did not use the ICS pedagogy, reported a perceived “leakage” of teacher-student engagement over the period of the trail. Furthermore, teacher experience did not mediate the positive effect of the ICS classroom pedagogy. Of example, the results were consistent for both “early service” and experienced teachers. Therefore, the ICS framework that guides teachers to better engaging with all student styles in classrooms has great potential for enhancing the outcome expectations, motivation and participation of a broader range of students. Using ICS approaches to enhance students’ perceptions of engagement with their teachers, will likely lead in time, to better overall academic attainment. The ICS trial continues. This draft paper is to be completed and published in 2016References: Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E.(1997).Caring school communities. EducationalPsychologist, 32, 137–151.Brophy, J. (1985). Teachers’ expectations, motives and goals for working with problem students. In C. Ames &R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 175–213). New York: Academic Press.Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004).Intergenerational bonding in school: the behavioral and contextual correlates of student–teacher relationships: Sociology of Education, 77, 60–81.Felner, R., Favazza, A., Shim, M., & Brand, S. (2001). Whole school improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from project STEP and the projecton high performance learning communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 177–202.Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004).Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth inachievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 405–427.Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2001).Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associations with caregiver behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 297–318.Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation, self-esteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Pitcher, R.G. (2015). Making Better School Choice Decisions: Aligning Students with Schools based on Socialisation Styles. A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education, University of Western Australia.Purkey, W. W, & Novak, J. M. (2008). Fundamentals of invitational education. GA: International Alliance for Invitational Education. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S.(1989).Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–992.Roeser, R., Eccles, J., & Sameroff, A. (1998).Academic and emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321–352.Roeser, R. W., & Galloway, M. K. (2002).Studying motivation to learn during early adolescence: A holistic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urban (Eds.) Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 331–372).Greenwich, CT: LAP Information Age Publishing.Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994).Representations of relationships to teachers, parents and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993).Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.3.1.2 An Invitation to Participate in the ICS Classroom Trial A classroom “ICS Engagement Project” is being conducted at <add school here>. The project was initiated by Russell Pitcher (Consultant Psychologist in the Department’s Complex Behaviour and Mental Health Team) to trial a practical classroom application of his recent UWA doctoral findings. Russell designed the intervention, collaborated with school leaders and invites participant teacher volunteers to trial the ICS methodology. In your school the project coordinator is <add name here>. 3.1.3 Project Checklist (in brief):Classifying students and participant teachers by their preferred engagement style using the HiScore online Student-School Suitability Survey Provide professional learning to participating teachers on ICS instructional pedagogy (see detail next section)Teacher Summary – Table of ICS Definitions and Interpretation of Engagement Profiles Diagram of ICS Classroom StrategyTeacher SWOT JournalScript for Student “Y” ChartA “Lesson Plan” for survey completion in classOne hour tutorial for participating teachers is providedParticipant teachers apply the ICS engagement framework in their classrooms for a period of five weeks in term <insert term here>, <insert year here> and record their own and student experiences. Both teacher and student perceptions of the classroom experience are collected to evaluate the efficacy of the ICS methodology (see scripted documentation attached). Findings will be reported back to school leadership and published.3.1.4 Conditions of Participation:Teachers’ volunteer to participate in the project. All teachers in the trial schools are invited to participate (no one is excluded from participating).All “early service” teachers are encouraged to participate.Teachers are responsible for collecting their own students online survey data in class. To assist with this a stepwise “Lesson Plan” is provided. Teachers can access the unique Registration Key for their school from the in-school project coordinator. This is required for teachers to link with their school and complete their own online survey and to access their students’ profile reports (required to inform the ICS classroom seating plan for students).Note: Please keep your in-school project coordinator <add name here> informed of your progress. Completed teacher SWOT Journal sheets and student “Y” Charts should be given to the coordinator for compilation.Thank you for your participation.4.1 Teacher Summary - Instructional Code Switching (ICS)Teachers Rank your engagement style?1=most to 4= least true for meDifferent Teacher Engagement Approaches (Read descriptors & rank your engagement style)Instructional characteristics of each engagement style.Descriptors of Pupil EngagementstylesPupil Contextual Preferences for Standards, Care & ChoiceIdentify Pupil Engagement Profiles from the Contextual Preference Survey (CPS) dataSuggested engagement adjustments to align instructional style with pupil engagement styleExpert Teachers who have a formal authority teaching style tend to focus on content. This style is generally teacher-centred, where the teacher feels responsible for providing and controlling the flow of the content and the student is expected to receive the content.Teachers with this engagement style are not as concerned with building relationships with their students nor is it as important that their students form relationships with other students. This type of teacher doesn't usually require much student participation in class. "Sage on the stage" model.COOPERATIVE (those who are compliant). The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Is this important?Such students have a preference for contexts that are authoritarian in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are assimilating information using Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking) and Reflective Observation (Watching). They are motivated to answer the question, "what is there to know?" They are good at creating theoretical models. They are less interested in people and are more concerned with abstract concepts. They are interested in basic sciences and mathematics and generally assimilate schoolwork well. They are dependent on the teacher providing the information. They like accurate, organized delivery of information and they tend to respect the knowledge of the expert. They aren't that comfortable randomly exploring a system and they like to get the 'right' answer to the problem. Cooperative Students have contextual preferences for higher standards (challenge), lower care and lower choice.The engagement profile pattern for this style of student is characterised by a chart line that starts above the mean on their preference for standards and descends from left to right.Instructional Method Teacher-pupil engagement is enhanced by lecture method of instruction (authoritarian), followed by a demonstration of a prepared tutorial (which they will probably stick to quite closely) and for which answers should be provided. These learners are less 'instructor intensive' than those of some other styles. Such students will carefully follow prepared exercises, provided a resource person is clearly available and able to answer questions.To engage effectively these students may require as little as 10% of teacher timeMotivator Teachers who have a motivator or personal model teaching style tend to run teacher-centred classes with an emphasis on demonstration and modelling, this type of teacher acts as a role model by demonstrating skills and processes and then as a coach/guide in helping students develop and apply these skills and knowledge.Teachers with this instructional style might comment: "I show my students how to properly do a task or work through a problem and then I'll help them master the task or problem solution. It's important that my students can independently solve similar problems by using and adapting demonstrated methods." SOCIAL (those with a peer focus)The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – How do I feel?Such students have a preference for contexts that are authoritative in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are connecting divergent information using Concrete Experience (Feeling) and Reflective Observation (Watching). Their greatest strength lies in imaginative ability. They are interested in interacting with their peers in the learning process. These students are very good at viewing concrete situations from many perspectives (understanding how people and things connect).Social Students have a contextual preference for uniformly high standards (challenge), care and choice. The profile pattern for these students is a line “pitched” in the middle above the mean.Instructional Method Teacher-pupil engagement is enhanced by information presented in a detailed, systematic, reasoned manner. Flexibility and the ability to think on your feet are assets when working with this style of student. They prefer hands-on exploration, group discussion and brainstorming.To engage effectively these students may require around 20% of teacher time. Facilitator Teachers who have a facilitator model teaching style tend to focus on activities. This teaching style emphasizes student-centred learning and there is much more responsibility placed on the students to take the initiative for meeting the demands of various learning tasks. This instructional approach works best for students who are comfortable with independent learning and who can actively participate and collaborate with other studentsINDEPENDENT (those who are self-determined). The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Am I interested?Such students have a preference for contexts that are permissive in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are accommodating learning into action using Concrete Experience (Feeling) and Active Experimentation (Doing). Their greatest strength lies in doing things and involving oneself in the experience. This person can be more of a risk-taker and tends to adapt well in specific circumstances. This person tends to solve problems in an intuitive trial and error manner, relying often on other people’s information rather than on own analytic ability, they are suited for action-oriented jobs such as business, marketing and sales. These learners are good with complexity and are able to see relationships among aspects of a system. Independent Students have a contextual preference for lower standards (challenge), higher care and higher choice.The profile pattern for these students is a line that starts below the mean on Standards and ascends from left to right. Instructional Method Teacher-pupil engagement is enhanced by activities that encourage independent discovery allowing the learner to be an active participant in the learning process, instructors working with this type of student might expect devil's advocate type questions, such as "What if?" and "Why not?"To engage effectively these students may require 30% of teacher time.Delegator Teachers who have a delegator teaching style tend to place much control and responsibility for learning on individuals or groups of students. The teacher defines the outcome required but then allow students to take their own pathway toward achieve a result. This instructional approach will often give students a choice designing and implementing their own complex learning projects and will act in a consultative role.WITHDRAWN (those who are already disaffected). The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Can I do this?Such students have a preference for contexts that are impersonal in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are in applying Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking) and Active Experimentation (Doing) to achieve goals. They are motivated to discover the "how" of a situation and their greatest strength lies in the practical application of ideas. Application and usefulness of information is increased by understanding detailed information about the system's operation. They are relatively unemotional, self-directed individuals and prefer to deal with things rather than people. Withdrawn Students have a contextual preference for lower standards (challenge), care and choice. The profile pattern for these students is a “valley” shape that is below the cohort mean and “dips” in the middle.Instructional Method Teacher-pupil engagement is enhanced by interactive, hands-on, non-passive (active) instruction (labs, field work) computer-assisted instruction problem sets or workbooks to explore.A practical matter-of-fact approach.To engage effectively these students may require as much as 40% of teacher time4.1.1 A summary of How ICS Project Teachers apply this Information?Research Finding: Alignment of Teacher-Pupil Engagement Styles results in enhanced pupil perceptions of school satisfaction, expectations for achieving academic outcomes and participation with learningTeachers Identify their Own Engagement Style Teachers read each of the instructional style descriptors in column 2 and rank their instructional style from most dominant (1) to least dominant (4).Teachers Google .au and register through the SCHOOL portal to complete the Student-School Suitability Survey.Teachers supervise online collection of student data at school (a parent email address is required to complete student registration). If this does not exist or is not known by the child, the teacher ‘s email address is substituted in this field in the student registration process). Teachers Interpret the Tabular Research SummaryTeachers note their own dominant engagement approach and the “shape” of the Standards, Care & Choice contextual preference chart associated with it.Teachers read the descriptors of each pupil engagement style.Teachers look at the charts of the different pupil engagement styles and note which of these is “naturally” aligned with their own. Teachers overlay the pattern of their own dominant engagement approach over the charts of each pupil style and consider how they could adjust levels of standards (challenge), care and choice to align better with each engagement styleTeachers group their students by engagement style (identified using the online Contextual Preferences [CPS] report)Teachers Apply the ICS Strategy in ClassroomsTeachers view each student’s Contextual Preference Survey Reports and group them by engagement style descriptors.Teachers modify the classroom seating arrangements into ICS quadrants (see the diagram for the ICS Classroom Strategy that follows on p.12)Teachers note their own dominant engagement style and plan how to adjust their instructional approach (level of challenge, care and choice) to align better with students grouped by engagement style 5.1 Instructional Code Switching Classroom Engagement Strategy3871595304165Front of Classroom0Front of Classroom38677857376Back of ClassroomBack of ClassroomEstimate of proportion of time spent at each instruction point6.1 Instructions for teachers in using the SWOT Journal Sheets during the ICS InterventionWhy use a SWOT Journal?The aim of using the SWOT journal is to capture a range of teacher reflections and feedback about the efficacy of using Instructional Code Switching (ICS) as a classroom engagement strategy.What is a SWOT?Each SWOT journal sheet is partitioned into quadrants (see SWOT sheet attached). Teachers record their ongoing observations and perceptions in each quadrant. Give actual classroom examples where possible.S – what are the perceived strengths of the ICS strategy?W – what are the perceived weaknesses of the ICS strategy?O – what opportunities does the ICS strategy present? T – what threats (or barriers) were identified that limit the effectiveness of the ICS strategy?How often do I complete a SWOT?Participating teachers are required to submit at least one SWOT sheet per week during the intervention period. Reflections can be recorded as they are observed or during a weekly reflection session with the schools ICS coordinator. Do I need to fill-in all SWOT Quadrants?No, but it would be helpful for each participant teacher to provide a full data set each week. Who do I give my completed SWOT sheet to?Please return completed SWOT reflection sheets to the ICS coordinator or school psychologistWhere can I get more SWOT Sheets?Go online at .au Click on “Articles & Research” in the sitemap at the bottom of the opening webpage. Select the documents required and print.What will happen to my SWOT data?Teacher responses will be de-identified and aggregated to provide an overall perception about the suitability of the ICS classroom engagement strategy. Findings will be reported back to the whole school and published.Thank you for your participation6.1.1 Example Teacher’s SWOT Journal Recording Sheet7.1 SCRIPT FOR PUPIL “Y”-CHARTSThis is the script and questions to ask the kids in the intervention and control classes (it is very explicit so after handing-out the Y-Chart sheets please read it slowly word-for-word):PRE-TEST SCRIPT“The school is interested in student opinions about how engaged each of you feels in this class. We want to know if you feel that the levels of classroom challenge, care and choice are right for you”. “We are going to go through this together and I will explain more as we go, but before we start print your full name and the date on the top of the Y-Chart handout, please do that now.”“I am now going to ask you a few questions and I want you to score your Y-Chart by writing a number between 1 (not right for you) and 10 (absolutely right for you) that best describes how engaged you feel in this class. (If the administrator thinks it necessary they can pause here to draw a 1-10 rating-scale on the board to explain). “It is very important that you give your own opinions, there are no best answers, so do not copy the opinions of others. Any questions before we start? ….”“Now, let’s first think about the level of challenge in this class. Find this section on your Y-Chart. Remember challenge is the level of teacher expectations about schoolwork. Do you feel that the level of challenge in this class is right for you? Put a number between 1 (not right for you) and 10 (absolutely right for you) in the challenge part of the Y-Chart. You should have a single number between 1 and 10 that represents how right the level of challenge is for you in this class. If you wish you can also write a brief comment in this space.”“Next, let’s think about the level of care in this class. Find this section on your Y-Chart. Remember care is level of warmth in teacher –pupil relations. Do you feel that the level of care in this class is right for you? Now, put a number between 1 (not right for you) and 10 (absolutely right for you) in the care part of the Y-Chart. You should have a single number that represents how right the level of care is for you. If you wish you can also write a brief comment in this space.”“Next, let’s think about the level of choice in this class. Find this section on your Y-Chart. Remember choice is the level of teacher tolerance for individual student differences. Do you feel that the level of choice in this class is right for you? Now, put a number between 1 (not right for you) and 10 (absolutely right for you) in the choice part of the Y-Chart. You should have a single number that represents how right the level of choice is for you. If you wish you can also write a brief comment in this space.”IMPORTANT! For control groups use only the pre-test dialogue and proceed to the common end statement both before and after the trial period. For ICS intervention students use the pre-test dialogue but include the following paragraph in the post-test script before the common end statement.POST-TEST SCRIPT (for intervention students only repeat the pre-test dialogue adding this paragraph in the post-test)“Lastly, your teacher has recently changed the seating arrangements in this classroom and is also moving around the room instructing differently. We want you to tell us how satisfied overall you are with these changes! To describe your overall opinion of the recent instructional changes in this class at the bottom of the page please write a number between 1 (the changes are much worse for you) and 10 (the changes are much better for you)”COMMON END STATEMENT“When you have finished your Y-Charts please hold them up for collection. Thank you for your valued opinions.”7.1.1 Example Student “Y” Chart8.1 ICS Engagement Project Online Data Collection – Participant Teachers Lesson Plan (both intervention & control groups)Aim: Teachers participating in the “Engagement Project” use the following procedure to collect student engagement data from their own classes. The data needs to be in by latest week 8 of term one in readiness to commence the ICS classroom intervention in term two.Section A & B to be completed in class.Part A. Complete the initial “Y” Chart with students (read the script verbatim and collect charts back). Part B. Participant teachers supervise their classes in accessing the online Student School Suitability Survey.Section C to be completed by teachers independentlyPart C. Teachers register and login to access student reports onlineEquipment Required:Whiteboard and markerInteractive Internet Board (project the screenshots provided to step through the registration process)One computer per studentInternet access to GoogleStudent email account (identify those students without a personal email address and substitute a gmail account or [student name]@.au) e.g. joebloggs@.auParent email account (identify those students who say that their parents do not have an email address and substitute the supervising teacher’s “education” email address in the Parent/Supervisor active field. Timeframe Required: A single period on the timetable is needed for pre-test and again for post-test**Allow for diversity. A few lower ability students may only get to registration in the first session. Others will get to the login stage but most will complete the survey in one session. This is to be expected and is not a problem because all responses are saved in the system and can be accessed next session or alternately the child can login at home to complete**Optional (time permitting at the end of term): This data collection process can be repeated in a post-test at the end of the ICS classroom engagement intervention. Lesson Method:Handout the “Y” Charts to students and follow the scripted instructions (see “Y” Chart with script attached) – this will take about 10 minutes to complete and collect.Survey Instruction Dialogue: “Today we are going to do an online survey that will tell us how well connected you are with the school. It will help you connect with teachers and teachers connect better with you”.Please start your computer/laptop/tablet and follow my instructions. Work slowly and do not race ahead. Are you ready…?Student Registration Procedure – this will take about 15 minutesOpen a Web BrowserIn the Address Bar, type .au and press EnterScreenshot 1: HiScore web site Home PageClick on the STUDENTS registration button.Register by filling our all fields. (see screenshot 2.)Use your own email address or substitute the appropriate teacher email address.When you get to “Current School” type the start of the school name e.g. GIRR… and Girrawheen Senior High School or type BALG… and Balga Senior High School or GOV… and Governor Stirling will pop-up. Click on this and it will auto-fill the field.Repeat for the “Destination School” field (unless you are moving schools next year in which case the proposed new school goes here).Set your own unique passwordRemember your HiScore email address and password (so you can login again later from home or school).Screenshot 2: Student Registration ProcedureScreenshot 3: When successfully registered, a “thank you” message will appear as below:Click on the “My HiScore” button to proceed to the Student Dashboard.Screenshot 4: Student Functions DashboardStudent’s Function Dashboard Click on “My Surveys” – this is the middle panel of the dashboard.This opens a window to select and start surveys (see screenshot 5)Click on the “Start Survey” button in the first window will bring up the first survey page.Screenshot 5: Start Survey (grey button in first window)The Survey will take about 25 minutes – there are no right answers so work independently.Select your Year level from the drop-down menuEach question has several parts (see screenshot 6). The main question stem (first part of the question) is the same for each part.Read the question stem and then click on the button that describes your preferred response to each part (see screenshot 7). If you don’t understand a question put up your hand for help (teachers please use the attached hard copy of difficult questions to guide your explanations to students having issues with comprehension).If you make a mistake just click on your new answer button and your response will change automatically.There are 30 questions, all must be completed you can’t skip questionsWhen you complete a question click on the yellow button “Continue to Q...” at the bottom right of the page.The menu on the left tells you how far you have progressed in the survey (see screenshot 7).Screenshot 6: Answering the Survey QuestionsScreenshot 7: Click on the button to the right of each question If you don’t finish the survey during class it will be auto-saved to be resumed later (it can be accessed and completed at home).On completing Question 30 press the “Submit” button to the bottom right of the screen.Student Access to their Classroom Preferences (CPS) Report This will open a series of 3 windows (see screenshot 8) The first window shows new surveys to be done. The second window shows surveys partially completed surveys that have been paused and that need to be completed.The bottom window shows reports that can be viewed Scroll to the window at the bottom of the pageClick on “View Brief Report” (grey button in the bottom window).Screenshot 8: Accessing the Student ReportIndividual Student Contextual Preference Profile is Displayed (See Screenshot 9)Print reportNote: The following optional activity requires that the teacher has read the student style descriptors and understands the different CHALLENGE, CARE & CHOICE preference patterns characteristic of each. If you can get this done in class it will save teacher time in reviewing individual student reports to determine the class seating plan for the ICS intervention.Optional Class Activity (time permitting or can be done in a separate session) – Grouping students by their classroom engagement preference profile (see engagement style information and chart profiles with descriptors on the ICS Teachers Summary Table)On the white board draw the chart “pattern” representative of each engagement style: Cooperative style (line starting above the mean and sloping diagonally downward from left to right on the chart). Social style (line above the mean “pitched” in the middle)Independent style (line ascending from left to right rising above the mean)Withdrawn style (line below the mean “dipping” in the middle)Allocate each preference pattern a particular corner of the classroom.Ask students to look at their report and find other students with a similar chart pattern Those with similar charts move to their designated corner of the classroom. Students who are unsure stay in the middle of the room. The teacher will allocate these students to one of the four style groups.List student names in each group on the classroom seating plan quadrant diagram (see Teacher Support Package). This will inform the classroom seating plan for the ICS intervention. Screenshot 9: Example of Brief Student CPS ReportEarly finishers can have free-time on the ipad or computer as directed by the supervising teacher. Please thank students for their participation. Tell them that this data will be used to help teachers better understand their needs. Optional: Student LoginIf a student needs to log in to their account again at a later stage, this is done on the Login Page:Upon logging in, the student will be shown their Student Dashboard.Recovering a lost passwordFrom the Login Page above, clicking the “Forgotten Password” link will allow the site user to reset their password.1. Enter the registered email address in the space provided2. Click the “Reset Password” button.3. Follow the instructions in the email sent to that address.Failing this, the teacher needs to have a few paper copies of the survey on hand to distribute if needed (see hard copy attached).**End of Classroom Data Collection Lesson**9.1 Teacher RegistrationPart C: Teachers Register Procedure - After the lesson teachers can register, complete their school culture survey and can instantly view all students detailed reports online.Access your survey via the SCHOOL portal on the .au front page. School Personnel can Register as a Teacher, Principal or School Leader or SpecialistSchool Personnel login using their school’s unique registration key (see the in-school project coordinator or Principal for this code). Alternately, contact us at .auComplete the School Personnel Version of the Student-School Suitability SurveyOpen the “My Reports” panel on the teacher function dashboardSelect a student in the top window Select a report for that student in the bottom window. There are multiple reports available for teachers to view –The Student Attribute Survey (SAS) plots the students need fulfilment profile (this is the example shown here)The Contextual Preference Survey (CPS) plots student classroom preferences. This profile is used for your ICS classroom seating planThe School Culture Perception Survey (SCPS) plots student connectedness with the school community.The School Outcomes Survey (SOS) plots student outcome expectations at school.Select Student of InterestView Student ReportsInterpret report details in context (see explanatory information in the “Articles & Research” section under RESOURCES in the main menu bar)Note any significant variances from mean (last table in each report).Liaise with school psychologist to assist with interpretation of reports as required.You can now access the full functionality of HiScore. Please explore the other functions available on your Teacher Dashboard and please “CONTACT US” to provide feedback on your HiScore experience.Please store student records responsibly. To benefit each child, share their engagement profiles with them, their parents and teachers as appropriate.Appendix: The Following Adjustments to Level of Language have been made to Improve Student Survey Comprehension Questions that have presented some students with comprehension difficulties during prior supervised survey administration have been adjusted in the online format are represented in the table below. Additional in-class teacher support may be required for a few students. QQuestion StemOriginal Text (change word in italic)Adjusted Text*Substitute Words (in general text)PeersClass-mates2.5The reason I do my school-work is……because it gives me a sense of independence.…because it gives me a sense that I can look-after myself.4.5How true for you is this statement……I find school-work un-motivating.…I find school-work boring.5.4When engaged in school–related tasks……I like to demonstrate my competence.…I like to show my ability.9.3The reason I do my school-work is……because I want to prove that i can get a higher qualification.…because I want to prove that I can get a higher award.10.1I prefer learning contexts in which……discipline is enforced.…discipline is strict.10.2I prefer learning contexts in which……student behaviour is closely monitored.…student behaviour is closely checked.11.1I prefer learning contexts in which……student opinions are valued.…student ideas are valued.12.2I prefer learning contexts in which……most student behaviour is tolerated.…most student behaviour is accepted.13.3How true for you is this statement……at my school discipline is emphasised.…at my school discipline is important.13.5How true for you is this statement……at my school only the system approved way of doing things is accepted.…at my school only the teachers way of doing things is accepted.14.1How true for you is this statement……at my school teachers require me to think until I fully understand concepts.…at my school teachers require me to think until I fully understand the lesson.15.3How true for you is this statement……at my school teachers listen carefully to me and consider my ideas seriously.…at my school teachers listen carefully to me and take my ideas seriously.17.5How true for you is this statement……my parents get me extra tuition when I need it.…my parents get me extra help with school-work when I need it.21.1How true for you is this statement……at my school teachers relate the subject to my personal interests.…at my school teachers connect the subject to my personal interests.22.5How true for you is this statement……in my classes I feel that I am amongst friends.…in my classes I feel that I am with friends.25.1How true for you is this statement……I feel stressed at school.…I feel tense at school.25.2How true for you is this statement…… I feel anxious at school.… I feel nervous at school.26.1How true for you is this statement……I expect to do better academically than my classmates.…I expect to do better at school-work than my classmates.26.3How true for you is this statement……my expectations for career success are high…my hopes for career success are high28.4How true for you is this statement……I aspire to achieve entry into higher education (TAFE or University).…I strive to achieve entry into higher education (TAFE or University).30.1How true for you is this statement……at school my peers are on-task and productive.…at school my peers are on-task and get their work done.30.2How true for you is this statement……at school my peers are disengaged but passive.…at school my peers don’t do their work but sit quietly.30.3How true for you is this statement……at school my peers are “low-level” disruptive.…at school my peers are annoying.30.4How true for you is this statement……at school my peers are uncooperative and aggressive.…at school my peers don’t help me and are mean.30.5How true for you is this statement……at school classroom behaviour hinders my learning.…at school classroom behaviour stops me learning. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download