Download pdf - FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND … · fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series teacher engagement, technology integration, and

FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES

AND DEEPER LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH

SERIES

TEACHER ENGAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION, AND LEADERSHIP IN STEM PEDAGOGY

Research & Information Services Toronto District School Board

March 2018

Report No. 17/18-15

2 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

About this Project:

This report is the result of a collaborative project supported by the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE), Technology and Learning Fund, TDSB Teaching and Learning Department-STEM K-12 and TDSB Research and Information Services led by Research Coordinator Erhan Sinay.

TITLE: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series: Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay and Thomas G. Ryan Copyright © Toronto District School Board (March 2018) Cite as: Sinay, E., Ryan, T. G. (2018). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series: Teacher engagement, technology integration, and leadership in STEM pedagogy. (Research Report No. 17/18-15). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is encouraged. For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from: Research & Information Services Toronto District School Board 1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3 Fax: 416-394-4946 Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings.

R02(STEM\2016-17\Deep Learning and GC Reports\Research Series 3\GC Research Series – TDSB STEM Teacher Engagement)es.1485

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank and acknowledge the support of TDSB Leadership Team: Antonio Santos, Central Coordinating Principal, Toronto District School Board Roula Anastasakos, Executive Superintendent, Research, Organizational Design and Information Service, Educational Partnerships Beth Butcher, Executive Superintendent, LC 1 Leadership-School Effectiveness Manon Gardner, Executive Superintendent, Teaching and Learning, Alternative, International Education We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following TDSB research team members in this study: Margaret Douglin, Researcher Ashley Nahornick, Researcher David Sauriol, Researcher Sarah Walter, Researcher

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani, Associate Professor, Science Education, Department of Teacher Education

Brock University, Faculty of Education

Vanessa Bonsu, Researcher Tammy Tse, Researcher We would like to thank and acknowledge the following academics granting us permissions to use all or part of their survey tool in teacher engagement: Robert M. Klassen, Department of Education University of York, York UK Sündüs Yerdelen, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey and Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey Tracy L. Durksen, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada


We would like to thank and acknowledge the following academics granting us permissions to use all or part of their survey tool in technology integration: Peggy A. Ertmer, Professor of Learning Design and Technology Purdue University Mable Kinzie, Professor, Instructional Technology, Center for Advanced Study of Teaching & Learning (CASTL) Curry School of Education, University of Virginia Timothy Newby, Professor, Learning Design and Technology, Department of Curriculum & Instruction Purdue University Punya Mishra, Associate Dean of Scholarship & Innovation, Professor, Leadership & Innovation Mary Lou Fulton Teacher's College, Arizona State University


Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 7

Background .......................................................................................................... 12

Cognitive and Emotional Engagement ................................................................. 14

Cognitive Engagement .................................................................................................................................. 15

Emotional Engagement ................................................................................................................................ 16

Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership .................................. 17

Social Engagement: Colleagues .................................................................................................................... 18

Gender and Teacher Engagement ................................................................................................................ 19

Social Engagement: Students ....................................................................................................................... 20

Social Engagement: Students Results ........................................................................................................... 24

Engagement: School Leadership .................................................................................................................. 26

Engagement with Leadership Results........................................................................................................... 29

Engagement: STEM and Digital Tools ................................................................... 32

Teaching with Technology Results ............................................................................................................... 36

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 41

References ........................................................................................................... 44



Executive Summary

The goal of the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) STEM strategy is to build capacity among

TDSB K-12 educators to enhance their STEM pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy, and promote

STEM implementation in classrooms. A critical factor in enhancing STEM across the Board is

teacher engagement. Teacher engagement is paramount for student success, as studies have

shown that teacher attitudes, behaviours and motivations are often passed onto students (Roth,

Assor, Kanat-Maymon & Kaplan, 2007). Researchers (Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Reschly &

Christenson, 2012) found student engagement can impact perceptions of school as well as school

behaviours, particularly for at-risk youth.

During the 2014-15 school year, a study on teacher engagement was conducted with 227

educators, 167 STEM educators and 60 non-STEM educators, in the TDSB as part of the STEM

strategy. This study examined: (1) teacher cognitive and emotional engagement, (2) social

engagement with colleagues, students, and leadership, and (3) teacher engagement with STEM

and digital tools.

Figure 1: Teacher Engagement Study Overview

Overall, the results suggest that there are many aspects of engagement (cognitive, emotional,

social, technology, and digital learning) that are important for teacher and student engagement.


Figure 2: Elements of Engagement

Source: Victoria State Government Department of Education and Training, 2015, para 1.

The findings provided insights into different groups of teachers based on STEM/non-STEM, gender,

or years of experience. Each group had different responses to questions about engagement and

these differences are important to note, as there are many influences on engagement.

Furthermore, findings suggest STEM teachers show statistically significant increased engagement

over non-STEM teachers in many areas of emotional engagement, social engagement with

students, social engagement with colleagues, digital tools, and student use of technology and

school leadership. Part I of the study illuminates teacher cognitive and emotional engagement, as

follows:

PART 1: Teacher Cognitive and Emotional Engagement

FINDING EVIDENCE

1. Majority of educators were always cognitively engaged

The majority of STEM (60%) and non-STEM educators (54%) felt they were always cognitively engaged in their teaching.

2. Majority of educators were always emotionally engaged

Approximately half of STEM (54%) and non-STEM educators (45%) felt they were always emotionally engaged in their teaching.

3. Majority of educators enjoyed their work The majority of STEM and non-STEM educators state they enjoy their work (mean of 5.38/6 for STEM educators and 5.15/6 for non-STEM educators).

IMP

OR

TAN

T


PART 1: Teacher Cognitive and Emotional Engagement

FINDING EVIDENCE

4. STEM educators find teaching exciting and fun

STEM educators had statistically significantly higher emotional engagement compared to non-STEM educators for “excitement for teaching” and “find teaching fun.”

5. Less experienced educators report higher cognitive and emotional engagement

Educators with two or less years of experience rated their cognitive and emotional engagement questions more highly than educators with more than two years of experience.

Part 2 of the study examined teacher social engagement with colleagues, students and leadership,

and the results are as follows:

PART 2: Social Engagement with Colleagues, Students and Leadership

Finding Evidence

Social Engagement with Colleagues

1. STEM educators’ engagement with colleagues was statistically higher than non-STEM educators

STEM educators’ ratings for all areas of social engagement with colleagues (connecting, helping, valuing relationships, caring about problems of colleagues) were significantly higher than non-STEM educators.

2. Female educators’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than males

Female educators’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than males for cognitive, emotional, and social engagement with students and colleagues.

3. Around half of educators value their relationships with colleagues

Roughly half of non-STEM (47%) and 60% of STEM educators stated they valued their relationships with colleagues.

Social Engagement with Students

1. More than half of educators were always sympathetic and socially engaged with students

In terms of student engagement, well over half of STEM and non-STEM educators indicated they were always empathetic (67% STEM educators, 65% non-STEM) and always socially engaged with students (61% STEM, 56% non-STEM).


PART 2: Social Engagement with Colleagues, Students and Leadership

Finding Evidence

2. STEM educators’ awareness of students’ feelings was significantly higher than non-STEM educators

STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of students’ feeling were significantly higher than non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM educators).

Social Engagement with Leadership

1. The results show a disconnect between educators’ expectations of leadership and their actual experience

Nearly three-quarters of STEM educators suggested leadership meant building, recognizing, demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing and creating in a school. However, only 38% of STEM educators strongly agreed leaders were skilled and able to help students succeed.

2. STEM educators’ perceptions of school leadership were significantly higher than non-STEM educators

STEM educators’ rating for all areas of school leadership (building relationships, recognizing accomplishments, believing in skills and abilities, decision making, leadership opportunities and a shared vision) were significantly higher than non-STEM educators.

3. Early career educators were more engaged in leadership than experienced educators

The survey also revealed that educators early in their careers (with two years of experience or less) were more engaged in terms of leadership than more experienced educators (mean of 6.05/7 for <1 year, 6.29/7 for 1-2 years, compared to mean of <5.27 for all other years).

Part 3 of the study examined educator engagement with STEM and digital tools, and the results

are as follows:

Part 3: Teacher Engagement with STEM and Digital Tools

FINDING EVIDENCE

1. Educators support technology in the classroom, but some may feel uncomfortable using it

While educators from all levels of experience seemed to equally favour the use of technology in classrooms, only about 30% STEM and non-STEM educators strongly agreed they felt comfortable using it.


2. STEM educators had statistically higher reported usage of digital tools

STEM educators showed significantly higher student use of technology (in substituting, augmenting and redefining learning) than non-STEM educators.

STEM educators indicated statistically higher usage of computer technology and interactive whiteboards than non-STEM educators.

3. Use of some digital tools were minimal

STEM educators and non-STEM educators alike never or rarely used social media and video-conferencing when teaching. (69% of STEM and 76% of non-STEM educators never or rarely use social media, and 86% of STEM and 84% of non-STEM educators never or rarely use video-conferencing).

=Key Finding

Overall, this report and the data from the TDSB’s 2014-15 Teacher Engagement survey have shown

that engagement involves much more than just learning and teaching and therefore many

dimensions must be considered when examining the complexities of student and teacher

engagement. Further research recommended to use and validate the “Engaged Teachers Scale”

(Klassen, Yerdelen, & Durksen, 2013), in a broader system-wide interventions involving larger

populations.

Summary: In the 2014-15 school year, a TDSB study on teacher engagement was conducted

with 227 educators, 167 STEM educators and 60 non-STEM educators, as part of the TDSB’s

STEM strategy. A critical factor in enhancing STEM across the Board is teacher engagement.

Teacher engagement is paramount for student success, as studies have shown that teacher

attitudes, behaviours, and motivations are often passed onto students (Roth, Assor, Kanat-

Maymon & Kaplan, 2007). This study examined: (1) teacher cognitive and emotional

engagement, (2) social engagement with colleagues, students and leadership, and (3) teacher

engagement with STEM and digital tools. Overall, results have shown that engagement

involves much more than just learning and teaching and includes many dimensions. A major

finding from the study was that overall STEM teachers showed statistically significant

increased engagement over non-STEM teachers in many areas of emotional engagement,

social engagement with students, social engagement with colleagues, digital tools, student

use of technology, and school leadership.

IMP

OR

TAN

T


Background

Engagement is a complex and multidimensional construct incorporating beliefs, attitudes, social

interactions, emotions, skills, and behaviour (Harris, 2008). While engagement involves both

physical and cognitive elements, many studies have investigated only distinct dimensions of this

construct (Harris, 2008). Consider the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement that suggested

engagement is a “students’ involvement with activities and conditions likely to generate high

quality learning” (ACER, 2011, p. 3), or the (North American) National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE), which measures the extent to which students are actively engaged in learning,

and provides insight into engagement. Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) suggest that all

elements of engagement, including behaviour, cognition, and emotion are equally important and

represent different aspects of experience. They therefore suggest more multidimensional

examinations of engagement.

Figure 3: Elements of Engagement

Research indicates teacher engagement is an important part of ensuring that students are engaged

at school and in their learning (Klassen, Yerdelen, & Durksen, 2013).


Student engagement is critical for ensuring successful learning outcomes and a positive attitude

towards learning. Due to the interrelationship between student and teacher engagement,

understanding different dimensions of teacher engagement is also important.

Incorporating both the ideas that all the elements of engagement are equally important and that

teacher engagement is important for student engagement, the current report aims to investigate

teacher engagement at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) across several domains using data

from a recent 2014-15 survey (n=227) of the TDSB’s STEM teachers (n=167) and non-STEM

teachers (n=60). In this study we have used “Engaged Teachers Scale” developed by Klassen,

Yerdelen, and Durksen, (2013) to measure the teacher cognitive, emotional, and social

engagement (with students and colleagues). This study is implemented within the 20 elementary

STEM pilot schools in the 2014-15 school year and results are limited within this context. However,

findings of this study are discussed and triangulated in relation to the most current and

comprehensive research literature on teacher engagement.

This report positions findings within the context of the literature on engagement. The first section

will illuminate TDSB teachers’ cognitive and emotional engagement. The second section will detail

how educators are engaging with colleagues, students, and leadership in schools and the final

section will address teacher engagement with technology and digital tools.

Students respond positively to teachers who are motivated and engaged in their work, and will

pick on teachers’ attitudes towards learning (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007).


Figure 4: Teacher Engagement Report Sections

Cognitive and Emotional Engagement

While there are many different elements that make up the concept of engagement, some

researchers, such as Jones (2008), have developed approaches based on three main domains:

behaviour, emotion, and cognition. Jones (2008) created an Engagement-Based Learning and

Teaching Approach (EBLT) wherein he defines the Cognitive Domain as the combination of beliefs

and values, the Emotional Domain consists of motivation and feelings, and the Behavioural

Domain involves habits and skills.

Figure 5: Domains of Student Engagement


Jones (2008) suggests that parents and teachers must work with students within and across all

three domains to develop an integrated approach to learning and student engagement.

Trowler (2010) also provides a useful framework for understanding how these elements of

engagement appear within positive engagement, non-engagement, and negative engagement (see

Figure 6).

Figure 6: States of Engagement

Source: Trowler, 2010, p. 6.

Students, teachers, and stakeholders of all ages need to participate in education across all of these

domains by being physically and intellectually involved, but this can only happen when they are

included, cared for, and respected (Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009). The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey

therefore aimed to look at teacher engagement in terms of cognition and emotion.

Cognitive Engagement

The TDSB’s 2014-15 teacher survey looked at cognitive engagement levels via survey items that

contained verbs such as trying hard, throwing oneself into their work, paying attention, and

working with intensity. The vast majority of both non-STEM and STEM teachers indicated they

always try their hardest to perform well while teaching. Of the 60 non-STEM teachers surveyed,

72% stated they always try their hardest and 76% of STEM teachers said so. STEM (n=126) and

non-STEM (n=60) educators also indicated they were always cognitively engaged at 60% and 54%

respectively. In fact, 100% of STEM and non-STEM teachers reported to be

often/frequently/always cognitively engaged at work. These results are quite positive and indicate

the majority of teachers remain consistently cognitively engaged in their work (see Figure 7 for the

means and Table A1 in Appendix A for the frequencies).


Figure 7: Cognitive Engagement

Emotional Engagement

The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey tapped into emotional engagement implicitly through survey item

verbs such as excited, happy, paying, love, and fun. Over half (58%) of non-STEM teachers said that

they always “love teaching,” compared to 67% of the STEM teachers surveyed. STEM and non-

STEM educators also indicated they were always emotionally engaged while teaching, at 54% and

45% respectively. Additionally, STEM educators had statistically significant results compared to

non-STEM educators for “excitement for teaching” and “find teaching fun” (mean of 5.41

compared to 5.15, respectively, for excitement about teaching and a mean of 5.28 compared to

5.00 for find teaching fun). These results are also very positive and suggest that most teachers are

emotionally engaged and enjoy their work (see Figure 8 for means and Table A2 in Appendix A for

the frequencies).

Significant difference between groups (p < 0.05)

I try my hardest to perform well while

teaching.

While teaching, I really "throw" myself into my

work.

COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT

Overall

While teaching I pay a lot of attention to my

work.

While teaching, I work with intensity.

5.63

5.22

5.47

5.28

5.40

5.73

5.39

5.58

5.30

5.50

NON-STEM STEMMean

response


Figure 8: Emotional Engagement

Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership

The notion that humans learn best by being social and connecting with others has been shown

theoretically and scientifically. Past social theorists, such as Vygotsky (1978) and Bandura, Ross,

and Ross (1963), determined that each of us learn best via social interaction. We can choose to

work alone but people may perform better, in theory, if we work collaboratively. Working with

others has long been understood as an aspect of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development

(Hrastinski, 2009) and really emerges when we compare communal learning to the extent of

learning one can achieve individually. However, when it comes to engagement, the social elements

can be problematic in that “consistency and agreement among scholars and educational institutes

about what constitutes social engagement is still non-existent” (Parsons & Taylor, 2011, p. 27).

Summary: Teachers were asked about their cognitive and emotional engagement with

teaching. Overall, the majority of teachers reported being always cognitively and emotionally

engaged. The majority of educators enjoy teaching. Nonetheless, STEM educators had

statistically higher emotional engagement compared to non-STEM educators for “excitement

for teaching” and “find teaching fun.” Less experienced educators report higher cognitive and

emotional engagement with teaching.


I love teaching.

I find teaching fun.

Overall

EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT

I am excited about teaching.

I feel happy while teaching.

5.15

5.13

5.32

5.00

5.15

5.41

5.28

5.53

5.28

5.38

NON-STEM STEMMean

response



Still, social interactions are an important part of engagement, and the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey

therefore examined teacher engagement in terms of colleagues, students, and school leadership.

Figure 9: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

Source: Dcoetzee, 2012, p. 1

Social Engagement: Colleagues

The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM and non-STEM educators examined social engagement with

colleagues via survey items that contained verbs such as connecting, helping, relationships, and

caring. Twenty-eight (28) non-STEM teachers (47% of those surveyed), indicated that they always

value “relationships built with colleagues.” By contrast, 100 of the STEM teachers surveyed (60%)

suggested they always value “relationships built with colleagues.” Figure 10 shows a comparison of

the means of scores related to social engagement for STEM and non-STEM educators.


Figure 10: Social Engagement (Colleagues)

Gender and Teacher Engagement

Teachers were asked to indicate their gender on the survey: male, female, trans, androgynous,

gender-queer, or other. When elements of engagement were analyzed through gender, there was

a significant difference between female and male teachers in cognitive, emotional and social

engagement with both students and colleagues (see Figure 11). This indicates that female

teachers’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than male teachers’ ratings for many of

the dimensions of engagement measured by the survey.

Figure 11: Gender and Engagement

Cognitive

Emotional

Social (Students)

Social (Colleagues)

5.54

5.40

5.60

5.22

5.25

5.04

5.16

4.95

FEMALE MALE

Significant difference between groups (p<0.05)

Meanresponse


Overall

At school, I connect well with my colleagues.

At school, I am committed to helping my

colleagues.

At school, I value the relationships I build with

my colleagues.

At school, I care about the problems of my

colleagues.

SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: COLLEAGUES

4.49

5.10

5.20

4.51

4.83

5.07

5.46

5.46

5.10

5.27

NON-STEM STEM Meanresponse


Social Engagement: Students

Teachers must find ways to engage with students and to help students engage with their learning.

The term student engagement has, over the years, been described in numerous ways (Azvedo,

2015; Dixson, 2015). Reeve (2012) suggests student engagement is an observable display or

manifestation of motivation and enthusiasm. While student engagement can be observed by

looking through and within instances of motivation, this is only a fragment of student engagement

(Dixson, 2015). Motivation can lead us to engage, but we must also engage in a manner that

supports our learning (Mello, 2016).

Figure 12: Description of Student Engagement

Student or learner engagement is important because it directly impacts achievement, behaviour

and perception (of belonging) and can be linked to dropout rates of at-risk students (Parsons &

Taylor, 2011; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). However, there are several understandings of learner

engagement, therefore “. . . defining the concept is problematic as there is disagreement about

what counts as student engagement” (Harris, 2008, p. 58).

Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with colleagues, via survey

items that contained verbs such as connecting, helping, relationships, and caring. STEM

educators’ engagement with colleagues was statistically higher than non-STEM educators for

all areas of social engagement (connection with colleagues, helping colleagues, valuing

relationships, caring about problems of colleagues). Approximately, half of educators (47% of

non-STEM and 60% of STEM educators) reported they value their relationship with colleagues.

Furthermore, female teachers’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than male

teachers’ ratings for many of the dimensions of engagement measured by the survey.


In 1993, Skinner and Belmont also included motivation as an important part of engagement, and

recently Davis (2006) suggested students may work harder for teachers they like. Hattie (2009),

commenting on a meta-analysis, suggested engagement involves “. . . more respect of self and

others, fewer resistant behaviours, greater student-initiated activities, and higher learning

outcomes” (p. 119). Several findings support the idea that teacher-student relationships are a

critical part of student engagement. For example, Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, and Oort (2011) revealed

robust teacher-student relationships related to engagement and achievement. This builds upon

the findings of Chen, Gonyea, and Kuh (2008), who demonstrated that learner satisfaction and

achievement were well within a working definition of engagement. Willms (2011) also claimed

engagement involved, “a long-term disposition towards learning — viewing learning as fun, seeing

it as important, seeing the value of working with and functioning as part of a team, being part of a

social institution” (p. 6).

Figure 13: Effect of Teacher-Student Relationships on Engagement

Student engagement signifies actions and states (Barkley, 2009) and examining engagement

chronologically involves interest (Dewey, 1913), effort (Meece & Blumenfeld, 1988), and

measuring time on task (Berliner, 1990).


The opposite of engagement would be viewing learning as boring, seeing it as unimportant and

working alone while remaining separate from the institution. This disconnection was identified by

Klem and Connell in 2004, who found students of low socio-economic background often struggled

academically, realized limited success in elementary school, and by secondary school 40% to 60%

were disengaged. From the 1980s to 2010, Parsons and Taylor (2011) identified three shifts in how

educators sought to reduce disengagement among students. In the 1980s when disengagement

and disadvantaged students were identified, both participation and achievement were key, hence,

a focus was to reduce dropout statistics. In the 1990s, classroom management grew in importance

and the aim was to decrease disciplinary issues via engagement strategies. In the first decade of

the millennium, the goal was to engage students as lifelong learners.

Figure 14: Shifts in Reducing Student Disengagement

Equity is also inherently tied to disengagement because “[it] is disproportionately experienced by

students living in poverty, students with disabilities, and students from ethnic minority and

Aboriginal communities” (Willms, Friesen & Milton, 2009, p. 7). All students should have an

opportunity to experience engagement and this may be possible if Leithwood and Patrician (2015)

are correct in suggesting that “parent involvement in their children’s learning is widely


acknowledged as having a positive effect on student academic success . . . [since] parent

engagement can mitigate differences in socioeconomic status (SES) and family background” (p.

664).

Figure 15: Parent and Student Engagement

Source: Leithwood & Patrician, 2015, p. 669

Engagement opposes disengagement as it requires energy, effort, and actions to complete a task

(motivation) (Reschly & Christenson, 2012), which in turn connects to safe and supportive

relationships within a respect for diversity (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Engagement in Schools

Source: American Institutes for Research, 2016, p.1

Student engagement can be understood via the thoughts of Gunuc and Kuzu (2014) who suggest

engagement is really “ . . . the quality and quantity of students’ psychological, cognitive, emotional

and behavioral reactions to the learning process as well as to in-class/out-of-class academic and

social activities to achieve successful learning outcomes ” (p. 589). Student engagement is situated


within sociology and understood conceptually as a psychological notion (Kahu, 2013). Järvelä et al.

(2016) believe “engagement as a concept is a fusion of the socioemotional and cognitive aspects of

learning” (p. 40), wherein the cognitive aspects of student engagement include the “need to feel

like they are valued and belong and be in a good emotional and psychological state to learn”

(Cobb, 2014, p.14). Gunuc and Kuzu (2014) claim that an “increase in class engagement not only

increases students’ level of academic achievement but also leads to positive outcomes” (p. 210).

Figure 17: Student Engagement

Source: Gunuc and Kuzu, 2014, p. 588

Järvelä et al., (2016) suggest behavioural engagement “includes actions such as attendance

and participation, emotional engagement includes a sense of belonging and of valuing learning,

and cognitive engagement is described as willingness to engage in effortful tasks and strategy use”

(p. 40). Ideally, all students will demonstrate positive behavioural engagement where students are

“asking questions, taking an active part in classes, paying attention to classes and making efforts”

(Gunuc & Kuzu, 2014, p. 590). If there is behavioural engagement, then student learning can

unfold in a natural manner.

Social Engagement: Students Results

To tap in to this important area of engagement, the recent TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM (n=126)

and non-STEM (n=60) educators measured social engagement with students via survey items that

contained verbs such as showing warmth, feelings, awareness, caring, and empathy towards

students. Of the 60 non-STEM teachers surveyed, 39 (65%) indicated that they are “empathetic


towards students” and 110 (67%) of STEM teachers also indicated that they are “empathetic

towards students”. Over half of STEM (61%) and non-STEM (56%) teachers indicated they were

always socially engaged with students. Furthermore, STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of

students’ feeling were significantly higher than non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM

educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM educators) (see Table A3 in Appendix A for

frequencies and Figure 18 for means).

Figure 18: Social Engagement (Students)

The survey also indicated that, in general, teachers with two years of experience or less were more

engaged across measures of cognitive and emotional engagement, whereas rates of engagement

with students and colleagues were similar across all groups of teachers (see Figure 19).


In class, I show warmth to my students.

In class, I am aware of my students' feelings.

In class, I care about the problems of my

students.

In class, I am empathetic towards my

students.

SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: STUDENTS

Overall

5.43

5.15

5.45

5.55

5.40

5.54

5.37

5.60

5.57

5.52

NON- STEM STEMMean

response


Figure 19: Years Teaching and Teacher Engagement

Engagement: School Leadership

Traditionally, school leadership discussion has centred upon the Principal who is “. . . the key

player when fostering trust among staff. Effective Principals display caring attitudes toward staff

members, students and parents” (Ryan & Soehner, 2011b, p. 286). Indeed, a Principal’s

interactions with staff, students, and parents illustrate leadership priorities. Järvelä et al. (2016)

claim, “engagement is responsive to context and social interactions in collaboration” (p. 41).

Within schools, “one of the fundamentally important dimensions of school climate is relational and

involves how ‘connected’ people feel to one another in school” (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &

Pickeral, 2009a, p.185).

Cognitive Emotional Social - Students Social - Colleagues

5.83

5.585.50

4.92

5.75 5.75

5.335.42

5.55

5.385.50

5.13

5.495.40

5.59

5.06

5.44

5.26

5.45

5.18

Mean Responses0 (Never) to 6 (Always)

Less thanone year

1-2years

3-5years

6-10years

11 or moreyears

Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with students, via survey

items that contained verbs such as showing warmth, feelings, awareness, caring, and empathy

towards students. Social engagement with students is important; it is a key factor in helping

students engage with their learning. In terms of student engagement, well over half of STEM

and non-STEM educators indicated they were always empathetic (67% STEM educators,

65% non-STEM) and always socially engaged with students (61% STEM, 56% non-STEM).

STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of students’ feelings were significantly higher than

non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM

educators).


Figure 20: Analytic Framework: The Influence of Principals on Teachers’ Perceptions in the School Milieu

Source: Price, 2015, p. 12

It is this very connectedness (engagement) that has surfaced as a growing area of research in

leadership (Legros & Ryan, 2016). A leader who is aware of engagement and focused on decreasing

disengagement will act in a different manner than a leader who is unaware of these elements.

Educators understand and embrace the notion that what they do in the school and classroom

impacts student learning (Ryan & Gallo, 2011a). Leadership definitely impacts teaching quality, and

therefore a leader who increases engagement whether it be via a coherent instructional program

(with useful feedback) or using data to improve the instructional program, can have a positive

impact on classroom instruction (Robinson, 2011). Robinson (2011) states, “the most powerful way

that school leaders can make a difference to the learning of their students is by promoting and

participating in the professional learning and development of their teachers” (p.104). In doing so,

engagement is enhanced and fortified.

Leadership is “second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning…To date

we have not found a single case of a school improving its students’ achievement record in the

absence of talented leadership” (Seashore-Louse et al., 2010, p.9)


Figure 21: Engagement within Leadership

Source: Parkland School Division, 2016, p.1

For example, Project Tomorrow (2014) has assembled the three Es of Education which suggest:

• Enabling students to reach their potential through increased access to educational resources and experts that extend learning beyond the capacities or limitations of their school or community.

• Engaging students in rich, compelling learning experiences that develop deeper knowledge and skill development, especially the problem solving, creativity and critical thinking skills so highly desired for our world today.

• Empowering students to take responsibility for their own educational destinies and to explore knowledge with an unfettered curiosity, thus creating a new generation of lifelong learners. (p. 12)

Figure 22: Three Es of Education


An informed educator conscious of these three Es will act differently than a leader who is less

informed. Recently, Hughes and Pickeral (2013) laid out five practical engagement strategies for

Principals embracing distributed leadership:

1. Leadership can be seen as a partnership amongst all stakeholders 2. Participants have a shared vision 3. With shared responsibility comes shared accountability 4. All ideas (not personalities) are recognized 5. Inner strength of all participants is valued. (p. 76)

To enact these strategies requires an investment in social relationships with teachers, students,

and stakeholders; this engaged leadership affects student learning.

Figure 23: Five Practical Engagement Strategies for Principals

Engagement with Leadership Results

The recent TDSB’s 2014-15 survey partially focused on school leadership. School leadership was

sampled via survey item verbs such as builds, recognizes, demonstrates, believes, involves, provides

and creates states of being for teachers through school leadership actions. STEM educators’ rating

for all areas of school leadership (building relationships with teachers, recognize accomplishments


of individual teachers, respect for teachers, believing in skills and abilities of teachers, involving

teachers in decision making, providing teachers with leadership opportunities and a shared vision)

were significantly higher than non-STEM educators. Overall, within the area of school leadership,

55% of non-STEM educators versus 80% STEM teachers rated high that school leadership involves

building, recognizing, demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing and creating in a school.

This could mean that STEM teachers expect more than non-STEM teachers when it comes to

leadership in schools (see Figure 24).

Figure 24: School Leadership

Echoing the findings regarding cognitive and emotional engagement, Figure 25 also illustrates that

early career teachers are more highly engaged than teachers who have over three years of

experience in relation to school leadership (Mean of 6.05/7 for <1 year, 6.29/7 for 1-2 years,

compared to means of less than 5.27 for all other years of experience).


SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Our school leadership provides teachers with

leadership opportunities.

Our school leadership creates a shared vision for our

school to which teachers are committed.

Overall

Our school leadership builds trusting relationships with

teachers.

Our school leadership recognizes the

accomplishments of individual teachers.

Our school leadership demonstrates respect for

teachers by listening to their ideas.

Our school leadership believes in the skills and

abilities of teachers to contribute to student success.

Our school leadership involves teachers in decision-

making that affects their instructional work.

25%

32%

27%

16%

29%

27%

37%

28%

19%

14%

14%

21%

22%

17%

17%

18%

56%

54%

59%

64%

49%

56%

46%

55%

59

59

59

58

59

59

59

412

Low Middle High Response Count

11%

11%

9%

7%

11%

4%

14%

10%

10%

16%

10%

7%

12%

9%

12%

11%

80%

73%

81%

87%

77%

87%

74%

80%

167

167

166

167

167

166

167

1167

Low Middle High ResponseCount

NON-STEM STEM


Figure 25: Years Teaching and Teacher Engagement (School Leadership)

These results are supported by other recent research, such as that of Price (2015), which claims

that focusing “on how principals' social interactions with teachers influence teachers' perceptions

of students' engagement provides a theoretical link as to how principals indirectly influence

student achievement” (p.1). Indeed, “shared leadership and instructional leadership are important

variables, but they are indirectly related to student achievement” (Seashore-Louis et al., 2010, p.

51). However, it seems the sharing “relationships that principals build with teachers have real

implications, [centering upon] the beliefs of trust and support among teachers in a school and

[has] a ripple effect on teachers' perceptions of student engagement” (Price, 2015, p.1). With

engagement being a vital element in schools and education, “frequently moving principals among

schools is not an ideal policy” (Price, 2015, p.1). As noted earlier within the work of Trowler (2010),

it is behaviour, emotion, and cognition that underpin engagement, non-engagement and negative

engagement, and this can be changed simply with the movement of a Principal from one school to

another school.

6.05

6.29

5.24

5.10

5.26

Sch

oo

l Le

ade

rsh

ip

Less thanone year

1- 2years

3-5years

6-10years

11 or moreyears

Meanresponse

1 = Low 7 = High


Engagement: STEM and Digital Tools

This report has so far explored the elements of cognitive, emotional, and social engagement using

data from STEM and non-STEM teachers within the TDSB. Another important area for student and

teacher engagement is digital literacy and learning. This section will address engagement through

the STEM initiative and teacher engagement with technology and digital tools. From the onset, it is

important to understand that “students’ knowledge of career requirements can significantly

impact their career choices” (Franz-Odendaal, Blotnicky, French, & Joy, 2016, p. 167). Therefore,

exposure to STEM disciplines seems even more critical at an early age.

STEM has been described as “the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics into a new transdisciplinary subject in schools” (International Technology and

Engineering Education Association, 2009, p. 1) within the TDSB there has been a steady movement

towards STEM (see Figure 26).

Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with leadership, via survey

items that contained verbs such as builds, recognizes, demonstrates, believes, involves,

provides, and creates states of being for teachers through school leadership actions. One of

the fundamental aspects of school climate is social engagement with leadership. The results

show a disconnect between educators’ expectations of leadership and their actual experience.

Nearly three-quarters of STEM educators suggested leadership meant building, recognizing,

demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing, and creating in a school. However, only 38%

of STEM educators strongly agreed that leaders were skilled and able to help students

succeed. STEM educators’ rating for all areas of school leadership were significantly higher

than non-STEM educators. The survey also revealed that educators early in their careers

(with two years of experience or less) were more engaged in terms of leadership than more

experienced educators.


Figure 26: TDSB STEM Involvement

Recently, Bybee (2013) suggested STEM could be understood by embracing the following

elements:

Knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life situations, explain the natural and designed world, and draw evidence based conclusions about STEM-related issues;

Understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of human knowledge, inquiry, and design;

Awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments; and

Willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen. (p. xi)

The TDSB STEM strategy encompasses these ideas (see Figure 27).

Figure 27: TDSB STEM Strategy

9%

33%

9%

29%

20%Prior to September 2014

September 2014 - December 2014

January 2015- June 2105

September 2015 - December 2015

January 2016 - present

When did you begin your involvement in the TDSB K-12 STEM strategy?

Q7. b) How often have you worked with the STEM coach assigned to

Source: Toronto District School Board, 2016


Franz-Odendaal et al. (2016) found that STEM activities in many schools were limited to “ . . . (a)

visiting an exhibit at a science center or museum or aquarium; (b) having a special group visit the

class for STEM-based activities; and (c) attending a special STEM-based program or competition

(such as Math Olympics, science camps, science fairs)” (p.167).

Figure 28: STEM Activities

However, the TDSB has sought to expand educators’ understanding and use of STEM through

consistent coaching (see Figure 29). Seventy-three percent (73%) of educators reported working

with a STEM coach regularly or sometimes.

Figure 29: TDSB STEM Coaching

Recently within the Primary division, one educator developed a “STEM project to engage

kindergarten and first-grade students in science and engineering using role-play as a pedagogical

8%

19%

44%

29%Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Regularly

How often have you worked with the STEM coach assigned to

your school?


strategy” (Dolenc, Wood, Soldan, & Tai, 2016, p. 30). The introduction to this STEM activity

prepares students for an “active role in the classroom. [R]ole-play has been shown to increase

interaction and engagement” (Dolenc et al., 2016, p. 30). There is little debate about the

importance of STEM in schools since it can, and does, support disciplinary literacy learning (Wilson,

Smith, & Householder, 2014). Early exposure to any of the STEM disciplines may launch a career or

lead to new levels of literacy. For instance, engineering can happen at the elementary school level,

requiring the application of science and math (Berland, Steingut, & Ko, 2014).

Many believe that the “effective integration of technology in class is important for increasing

students’ class engagement” (Gunuc & Kuzu, 2014, p. 218). STEM can foster engagement because

of its particular linguistic interdisciplinary challenges and science instruction that can inspire

marginalized youth to succeed (Henrichs & Leseman, 2014). Additionally, “engagement in more

intensive STEM activities and teacher influence were statistically significant predictors of the

likelihood to choose a STEM career” (Franz-Odendaal, et al., 2016, p.167). This complements the

research of Nadelson and Seifert (2016) who found “knowledge seeking, embracing change,

exploring opportunities, and acting on a sense of responsibility were . . . indicators of teacher . . .

engagement in educational innovations” (p. 63).

Figure 30: Importance of STEM


Teaching with Technology Results

Unlike the findings from previous areas of engagement, the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey revealed that

the use of technology may not necessarily be the only the domain of younger teachers. As noted in

Figure 31, teachers with less than a year of teaching experience and those with 11 or more years of

teaching experience seemed to be at similar levels of technology use. Teachers with 1 to 2 years of

teaching experience have the highest average of using technology in teaching and learning.

Figure 31: Years Teaching and Students’ Use of Technology

The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey also examined teaching with technology via survey items that

contained verbs such as feeling at ease, comfortable, confident, and able to incorporate technology

in teaching. Within the area of teaching with technology, 80% of non-STEM teachers and 86% of

STEM teachers indicated that they strongly felt at ease “earning about technologies for teaching

and learning.” Interestingly overall, 78% of STEM and 69% of non-STEM educators agreed with the

suggestion that they felt at ease, comfortable, confident, and able to teach with technology (see

Figure 32).

2.11

3.50

3.00

3.07

2.83

SAM

R m

od

el

Less than

one year

1- 2

years

3-5

years

6-10

years

11 or more

years

Meanresponse

1 = Never 5 = Very Frequently


Figure 32: Teaching with Technology

Within the survey of STEM (n=165) and non-STEM (n=60) educators, student use of technology

was illuminated via survey prompts that contained verbs such as use, augment, enhance, and

extend assigned tasks via digital technology. STEM educators showed significantly higher student

use of technology, in substituting, augmenting and redefining learning, than non-STEM educators.

Figure 33: Levels of Technology Integration


I feel at ease learning about technologies for teaching

and learning.

I feel comfortable about my ability to teach students to

work with technologies.

I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to use

technologies for instruction.

I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant

subject content with appropriate use of technology.

I feel confident that I can regularly incorporate

technology into my lessons, when appropriate, to

support student learning.

Overall

TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY

I feel comfortable about my ability to work with

technologies for teaching and learning.

8%

13%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

12%

18%

25%

25%

19%

22%

20%

80%

68%

65%

64%

71%

68%

69%

60

60

60

59

59

59

357

Strongly Disagree / DisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeStrongly Agree / Agree

Response Count

5%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%

7%

10%

16%

16%

19%

13%

16%

15%

86%

78%

77%

73%

79%

75%

78%

167

167

167

166

164

166

997

Strongly Disagree / DisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeStrongly Agree / Agree

ResponseCount

NON-STEM STEM

Source: Puentedura, 2014, p.1. Reproduced and adapted by

permission of the author Dr. Ruben R. Puentedura, 2014


Of the 165 STEM teachers surveyed, 51% indicated that students very frequently/frequently

substituted tools, including technologies, to complete tasks, compared to 28% of non-STEM

teachers. Additionally, 40% of STEM teachers enabled students to enhance and augment their

learning very frequently/frequently, whereas of the 15% of non-STEM teachers surveyed

suggested students’ use of technology enabled them to augment their learning very

frequently/frequently. Fifty four (54%) of STEM educators indicated that very

frequently/frequently/sometimes students’ use of technology caused them to modify the task

compared to 45% of non-STEM educators (see Figure 34).

Figure 34: Students’ Use of Technology


Students modify their learning and task completion using

technology (e.g., students place their essay on an online

discussion board to seek feedback from classmates).

Students use technolgy to completely redefine their

learning and task completion (e.g., students submit a

short documentary using Window s Movie Maker instead

of an essay).

Students substitute tools, including technologies, to

complete tasks (e.g., students submit an assignment in a

Word document rather than handing it in on paper).

Students use technologies to augment their learning and

improve how they are doing tasks (e.g., students use the

text-to-speech function on a w ord processor to help the

w riting process).

Overall

STUDENTS' USE OF TECHNOLOGY

35%

39%

54%

59%

47%

37%

46%

26%

21%

33%

28%

15%

19%

21%

21%

60

59

57

58

234

Never / RarelySometimesVery Frequently / Frequently Response

Count

NON-STEM STEM

23%

28%

45%

37%

34%

26%

32%

27%

35%

30%

51%

40%

27%

28%

37%

165

165

165

165

660

Never / RarelySometimesVery Frequently / Frequently Response

Count


The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM and non-STEM educators also revealed the extent of use of

digital tools (technology) via survey items that itemized hardware such as computers/laptops,

whiteboards, mobile tech, as well as, software, social media, video conferencing and collaboration

tools.

Figure 35: Digital Tools

The majority of non-STEM teachers (84%) indicated that they never used video conferencing and

76% said they never used social media. A large proportion of STEM teachers also suggested they

did not use video conferencing (86%) or social media (69%). Many STEM teachers stated they very

frequently/frequently used computers/laptops (74%), which was statistically higher than non-

STEM teachers (62%). Similarly, another statistically significant result was that, 54% of STEM

educators suggested they used interactive whiteboards very frequently/frequently, compared to

34% of non-STEM teachers. Overall, more digital tools were never used by non-STEM educators

compared to STEM educators (see Figure 36). These results suggest that digital tools are used, but

the frequency and selection of tools can be challenging for some educators in classrooms.


Figure 36: Digital Tools STEM vs Non STEM

Digital learning allows students to reside in one place yet study in another; for instance, a student

can be living in Egypt and taking Canadian courses online (Ryan and Young, 2014). An online

course has a global platform/classroom and we must therefore consider global insights into online

learning (Khe Foon, 2016).

In summary, these results suggest that technology and digital learning is important for student and

teacher engagement, but that additional traits including self-confidence, enthusiasm, and

experience (prior knowledge) are also important influences (Andersen & Ponti, 2014). Cognitive,

emotional, and behavioural engagement are all important. For example, online discussion forums

can increase student engagement because they allow students to exchange words, terms and

phrases, thereby creating a sense of online community (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). This bonding

and building of community online is a digital phenomenon that can be applicable to a wide variety

of courses (Mello, 2016). Research supports this idea, as Goldberg et al. (2015) found a very

positive correlation amid student engagement evidence and course achievement.


DIGITAL TOOLS

Collaboration tools (e.g., Google Apps for

Education)

Computer technology (e.g., computers/laptops)

Video conferencing (e.g., Skype, Google

Hangouts)

Other digital tools (please specify)

Overall

Interactive whiteboards (e.g., Smartboard,

Promethean)

Mobile devices (e.g., iPad, Android, tablet,

Smartphone)

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

38%

16%

52%

21%

76%

84%

50%

48%

16%

22%

14%

23%

13%

15%

6%

16%

46%

62%

34%

55%

11%

2%

44%

36%

56

58

50

56

54

55

16

345

Never / RarelySometimesVery Frequently / Frequently

ResponseCount

NON-STEM

26%

4%

32%

16%

69%

86%

44%

40%

26%

21%

14%

28%

12%

10%

13%

18%

48%

74%

54%

56%

18%

4%

43%

42%

161

164

153

165

154

152

61

1010

Never / RarelySometimesVery Frequently / Frequently

ResponseCount

STEM


Conclusion

STEM has a strong positive effect on multiple elements of teacher engagement. Through teachers’

cognitive/emotional engagement, engagement with colleagues, teachers and leadership and

engagement with technology and digital tools, teachers show stronger levels of engagement in all

three domains after taking part in STEM.

STEM helps to connect a teacher more with their teaching increasing the levels of emotional and

cognitive engagement. Although the levels of enjoyment in being a teacher were already high,

teaching STEM increased them higher. Further, teachers reported having “fun” more often when

they included STEM in their classroom. Deeper, and more positive, connection with other teachers

makes teachers more willing to lesson plan, take risks in their classroom and seek out colleagues to

expand their knowledge of STEM and even export the enthusiasm to other teachers.

As the personal satisfaction a teacher has in their own teaching grows they become more willing to

expand their professional connections. This leads to teachers helping, connecting with, and

building relationships with their fellow teachers more often. Additionally, teachers are shown to

be more socially engaged and aware of their students’ feelings. Teachers involved with STEM more

clearly see the contributions of their school leadership than non-STEM teachers, specifically, in the

Summary: Teachers were asked about their teaching with technology and students’ use of

technology and digital tools.

While educators from all levels of experience seemed to equally favor the use of technology in

classrooms, only about half of STEM and non-STEM educators said they felt comfortable using

it. STEM educators showed significantly higher student use of technology (in substituting,

augmenting, and redefining learning) than non-STEM educators’.

STEM educators indicated statistically higher usage of computer technology and interactive

whiteboards than non-STEM educators. However, there were some digital tools that were

rarely used. STEM educators and non-STEM educators alike never or rarely used social

media and video-conferencing when teaching.


areas of their administrator, and or, STEM leadership building, generating buy in, believing in, and

creating a positive school atmosphere.

STEM teachers showed higher rates of technology use than their colleagues. These teachers used

technology in their class more often and when they did their students used the technology in more

advanced ways. The connection between STEM and the use of technology helps in terms of

acclimating classrooms more so to STEM and making technology usage a more routine element of

student life.

In their totality, growth across all three areas that were studied shows the beneficial effect that

STEM has on the engagement of STEM teachers. As noted, earlier in this report, there is a

correlation between teacher engagement and student engagement. This means that having STEM

within schools is a positive for overall engagement within the school and can act as a positive force

across other school-related domains. Findings from this research show that incorporation of the

STEM pedagogy has positive results in terms of creating more engaged classrooms, students, and

schools.

Findings from this report help to booster findings from additional reports in the STEM, global

competencies, and deep learning report series. Whereas those reports discussed positive effects

STEM has on student achievement, global competencies and technology usage in the classroom,

this report shows some information as to why those effects occur. The answer begins with STEM

pedagogy increasing teacher engagement which in of itself leads to a plethora of positive effects.

STEM in the classroom connects teachers more so to their jobs.

In summary, these results suggest that technology and digital learning is important for student and

teacher engagement, but that additional traits including self-confidence, enthusiasm, and

experience (prior knowledge) are also important influences (Andersen & Ponti, 2014). Cognitive,

emotional, and behavioural engagement are all important. For example, online discussion forums

can increase student engagement because they allow students to exchange words, terms and

phrases, thereby creating a sense of online community (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). This bonding

and building of community online is a digital phenomenon that can be applicable to a wide variety

of courses (Mello, 2016). Research supports this idea, as Goldberg et al. (2015) found a very


positive correlation amid student engagement evidence and course achievement (student

performance).

This report and the data from the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey have shown that the engagement setting

involves much more than just learning and teaching and therefore, many dimensions must be

considered when examining the complexities of student and teacher engagement. Further

research is recommended to use and validate the “Engaged Teachers Scale” (Klassen, Yerdelen, &

Durksen, 2013) in a broader system-wide intervention involving larger populations.

Figure 37: An Embedded Multi-Dimensional Student Engagement Framework

Source: Pickford, 2016, p. 1


References ACER. (2011). Dropout DNA, and the genetics of effective support. Research briefing, Australasian survey of student engagement, 11, 1-18. Retrieved from www.acer.edu.au American Institutes for Research. (2016). Safe and supportive schools model. National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. Retrieved from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/school-climate Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: Challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2), 234-249. Azvedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84-94. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 601-607. Barkley, E. F. (2009). Engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705-720. Berliner, D.C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time. The Nature of Time in Schools: Theoretical Concepts, Practitioner Perceptions, 3-35. Bybee, R.W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Chen, P.D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 3. Cobb, N. (2014). Climate, culture and collaboration: The key to creating safe and supportive schools. Techniques, 89(7), 14-19.

Cohen, J., McCabe, E.M., Michelli, N.M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213. Davis, H.A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal 106(3), pp. 193–223. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Riverside Press. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 143-157. Dcoetzee, A. (2012). Zone of proximal development. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://wiki2.org/en/File:Zone_of_proximal_development_svg#file Dolenc, N., Wood, A., Soldan, K., & Tai, R. H. (2016). MARS COLONY. Science & Children, 53(6), 30-35. Ebelt, K. R. (2012). The effects of a robotics program on students skills in STEM, problem solving and teamwork. Montana State University. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1216/EbeltK0812.pdf? Franz-Odendaal, T. A., Blotnicky, K., French, F., & Joy, P. (2016). Experiences and perceptions of STEM subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM activities among middle school students in the Maritime Provinces. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 16(2), 153-168. doi:10.1080/14926156.2016.1166291 Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.938019.

http://www.acer.edu.au/

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/school-climate

https://wiki2.org/en/File:Zone_of_proximal_development_svg#file

https://wiki2.org/en/File:Zone_of_proximal_development_svg#file

http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1216/EbeltK0812.pdf

http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1216/EbeltK0812.pdf


Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177-196. Goldberg, L. R., Bell, E., King, C., O'Mara, C., McInerney, F., Robinson, A., et al. (2015). Relationship between participants' level of education and engagement in their completion of the understanding Dementia Massive Open Online Course. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 60. Harris, L.R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57-79. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon, VA: Routledge. Henrichs, L. F., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2014). Early science instruction and academic language development can go hand in hand. The promising effects of a low-intensity teacher-focused intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2978-2995. Hollands, F., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs e expectations and reality. Retrieved from: http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers and Education, 52(1), 78-82. Hughes, W.H., & Pickeral, T. (2013). School climate and shared leadership. In Dary, T. & Pickeral, T. (Ed.). (2013). School climate practices for implementation and sustainability. A School Climate Practice Brief, Number 1, New York, NY: National School Climate Center. International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA). (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. Reston VA, USA: Williams. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning & Instruction, 4339-51. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005

Jones, R. D. (2008). Strengthening student engagement. International Center for Leadership Education. Retrieved from: http://sam.spnetwork.org/spn/media/files/articles/research/Strengthen%20Student%20Engagement.pdf Kahu, E.R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. (1991). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 3-7. 1991). Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. A. B., & Powers, S. M. (1994). Computer technologies: Attitudes and self-Efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 35(6): 745-768. Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T.L. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the Engaged Teacher Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 2, 33-52. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320-330. doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106 Khe Foon, H. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320- 341. Doi: 10.1111/bjet.12235 Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273 Legros, I., & Ryan, T.G. (2016). Principal traits and school climate: Is the invitational education leadership model the right choice? Journal of Educational Leadership Policy & Practice, 31 (1), 11-25. Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012 with a discussion of the research foundations. OISE/University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN.pdf

http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf

http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf

http://sam.spnetwork.org/spn/media/files/articles/research/Strengthen%20Student%20Engagement.pdf

http://sam.spnetwork.org/spn/media/files/articles/research/Strengthen%20Student%20Engagement.pdf

https://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN.pdf

https://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN.pdf


Leithwood, K., & Patrician, P. (2015). Changing the educational culture of the home to increase student success at school. Societies, 5, 664-685; doi:10.3390/soc50306642000. Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523. Mello, L. V. (2016). Fostering postgraduate student engagement: Online resources supporting self-directed learning in a diverse cohort. Research in Learning Technology, 241-16. DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v24.29366 Mishra, M. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017‐1054. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2016). Putting the pieces together: A model K-12 teachers' educational innovation implementation behaviors. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 9(1), 47-67. Parkland School Division. (2016). Student success and wellbeing. [Online image] Retrieved June 10, 2017 from http://www.psd70.ab.ca/Goals.php Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Alberta, Canada: University Partners. Pickford, R. (2016). Student engagement: Body, mind and heart – A proposal for an embedded multi-dimensional student engagement framework. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4. Retrieved from http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP/article/view/198 Price, H.E. (2015). ‘Principals’ social interactions with teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), pp. 116–139. doi: 10.1108/jea-02-2014-0023. Project Tomorrow. (2014). The new digital learning playbook: Advancing college and career ready skill development in K-12 schools. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12EducatorsandParentspdf

Puentedura, R. (2014). Building transformations. Frameworks and practices. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/02/03/BuildingTransformationFra meworksPractices.pdf Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer. Reschly, A.L., & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 3–20. Robinson, T. P. (2014). The development of an instrument to measure the self-efficacy of students participating in VEX robotics competitions. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3077. Robinson, V. (2011). Student centered leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L., & Oort, F.J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research 81(4), pp. 493–529. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., and Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761-774. Ryan, T.G., & Gallo, M. (2011a). A descriptive examination and synthesis of leadership succession. International Journal of Educational Reform, 20(2), 132-152. Ryan, T.G., & Soehner, D. (2011b). School leadership and student achievement. The Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4(2), 24-48. Ryan, T. G., & Young, D. C. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching online: Stories from within. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.

http://www.psd70.ab.ca/Goals.php

http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP/article/view/198

http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP/article/view/198

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12EducatorsandParentspdf

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12EducatorsandParentspdf

http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/02/03/BuildingTransformationFra%20meworksPractices.pdf

http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/02/03/BuildingTransformationFra%20meworksPractices.pdf


Ryerson University. (2014). National survey of student engagement: Highlights results. Ryerson University Planning Office. Toronto, ON: Ryerson University. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123–149. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 Seashore-Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. University of Minnesota, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and University of Toronto, 42, 50. Sinay, E., Jaipal-Jamani, K., Nahornick, A., & Douglin, M. (2016). STEM teaching and learning in the Toronto District School Board: Towards a strong theoretical foundation and scaling up from initial implementation of the K-12 STEM strategy. Research Series I. (Research Report No. 15/16-16 Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board 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(4), 571.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. United Kingdom, York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/studentengagement/Research_and_evidence_base_for_student_engagement Victoria State Government Department of Education and Training. (2015). Identifying students at risk. Retrieved from: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/disengagedrisk.aspx Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3): 231-250, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414. Willms, D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association. Willms, J.D. (2011). Student engagement: A leadership priority. In Conversation, 3(2), 1-12. Wilson, A.A., Smith, E., & Householder, D.L. (2014). Using disciplinary literacies to enhance adolescents’ engineering design activity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(8), 676-686. Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education 19(6): 697–708. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.901956.

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/studentengagement/Research_and_evidence_base_for_student_engagement



http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/disengagedrisk.aspx

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/disengagedrisk.aspx

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES Table A1: Cognitive Engagement

Table A2: Emotional Engagement

Table A3: Social Engagement: Students

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 8% (5) 20% (12) 72% (43) 5.63 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (4) 22% (36) 76% (126) 5.73 p = .209

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 13% (8) 42% (25) 42% (25) 5.22 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 14% (23) 32% (53) 54% (90) 5.39 p = .149

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 9% (5) 36% (21) 56% (33) 5.47 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (7) 34% (56) 62% (103) 5.58 p = .252

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 10% (6) 42% (25) 45% (27) 5.28 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (4) 13% (22) 36% (60) 48% (80) 5.30 p = .880

0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 2 % ( 4 ) 10 % ( 2 4 ) 3 5 % ( 8 3 )5 4 %

( 12 8 )5 . 4 0 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 1% ( 5 ) 8 % ( 5 6 )

3 1%

( 2 0 5 )

6 0 %

( 3 9 9 )5 . 5 0

NON-STEM (60)

Always

STEM (167)

COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT

Of t en

I try my hardest to perform w ell w hile teaching.

While teaching, I really "throw " myself into my w ork.

While teaching I pay a lot of attention to my w ork.

While teaching, I w ork w ith intensity.

Somet imes Of t en M EAN On OccasionRarely NeverFrequent lyNever Rarely On

OccasionAlways

S i g ( 2 -

t a i l e d)M EAN Somet imes Frequent ly

Significant difference between groups (p<0.05) Significant difference between groups (p<0.05)

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 10% (6) 12% (7) 32% (19) 47% (28) 5.15 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 3% (5) 8% (14) 31% (51) 58% (96) 5.41 p = .044

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 8% (5) 8% (5) 45% (27) 38% (23) 5.13 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (4) 13% (22) 39% (65) 46% (76) 5.28 p = .277

0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (1) 7% (4) 8% (5) 25% (15) 58% (35) 5.32 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 2% (4) 4% (7) 29% (48) 64% (107) 5.53 p = .080

0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (1) 8% (5) 15% (9) 38% (23) 37% (22) 5.00 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 4% (7) 8% (13) 41% (68) 47% (78) 5.28 p = .039

0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 1% ( 2 ) 8 % ( 2 0 ) 11% ( 2 6 ) 3 5 % ( 8 4 )4 5 %

( 10 8 )5 . 15 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 1) 1% ( 2 ) 3 % ( 2 0 ) 8 % ( 5 6 )

3 5 %

( 2 3 2 )

5 4 %

( 3 5 7 )5 . 3 8

Always

NON-STEM

I love teaching.

I f ind teaching fun.


Of t en M EAN

I am excited about teaching.

I feel happy w hile teaching.

Never Rarely On

OccasionSomet imes Of t en Frequent ly Always M EAN Never Rarely On Occasion Somet imes Frequent ly

S i g ( 2 -

t a i l e d)

STEM


0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (1) 13% (8) 25% (15) 60% (36) 5.43 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (2) 7% (11) 29% (48) 63% (105) 5.54 p = .308

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5% (3) 15% (9) 40% (24) 40% (24) 5.15 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (3) 8% (14) 41% (68) 49% (82) 5.37 p = .053

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5% (3) 3% (2) 33% (20) 58% (35) 5.45 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (11) 27% (45) 66% (110) 5.60 p = .145

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (1) 7% (4) 27% (16) 65% (39) 5.55 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 9% (14) 24% (40) 67% (110) 5.57 p = .851

0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 4 % ( 8 ) 10 % ( 2 3 ) 3 1% ( 7 5 )5 6 %

( 13 4 )5 . 4 0 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 1% ( 6 ) 8 % ( 5 0 )

3 0 %

( 2 0 1)

6 1%

( 4 0 7 )5 . 5 2

Always

NON-STEM

In class, I am empathetic tow ards my students.

SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: STUDENTS

In class, I show w armth to my students.

In class, I am aw are of my students' feelings.

In class, I care about the problems of my students.

Rarely On Occasion Somet imes Frequent lyOf t en Frequent ly Always M EAN NeverNever Rarely On

OccasionSomet imes

S i g ( 2 -

t a i l e d)Of t en M EAN

STEM





Table A4: Social Engagement: Colleagues


0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 17% (10) 20% (12) 46% (27) 14% (8) 4.49 1% (2) 0% (0) 2% (4) 3% (5) 15% (25) 44% (74) 35% (59) 5.07 p < .001

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 22% (13) 36% (21) 39% (23) 5.10 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 9% (15) 34% (57) 56% (94) 5.46 p = .001

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5% (3) 17% (10) 32% (19) 47% (28) 5.20 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (3) 11% (18) 28% (46) 60% (100) 5.46 p = .035

0% (0) 2% (1) 3% (2) 15% (9) 24% (14) 34% (20) 22% (13) 4.51 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 4% (7) 17% (29) 40% (67) 38% (63) 5.10 p = .001

0 % ( 0 ) 1% ( 1) 2 % ( 4 ) 10 % ( 2 4 ) 2 1% ( 4 9 ) 3 7 % ( 8 7 ) 3 1% ( 7 2 ) 4 . 8 3 0 % ( 2 ) 0 % ( 0 ) 1% ( 5 ) 3 % ( 16 ) 13 % ( 8 7 )3 7 %

( 2 4 4 )

4 7 %

( 3 16 )5 . 2 7

Always

STEM

At school, I connect w ell w ith my colleagues.

At school, I am committed to helping my colleagues.

At school, I value the relationships I build w ith my colleagues.

At school, I care about the problems of my colleagues.

SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: COLLEAGUES

Somet imes Frequent lyOf t en M EAN Always M EAN Never Rarely On OccasionNever Rarely On

OccasionSomet imes Of t en Frequent ly

NON-STEM

S i g ( 2 -

t a i l e d)

