December 2013

RSE-TASC reporter

LO N G I S LAN D REG I ON AL S PE C I AL E DUCATI O N—T EC HN I C AL AS S I S TAN C E S UPPORT C E N TE R

A Relationship Between Instruction and Behavior: Keeping Students Engaged By Marjorie Guzewicz ~ Special Education School Improvement Specialist

In today’s complex world of

classroom instruction, teachers

need to continuously develop skills

that extend beyond the delivery of

curriculum in order to encourage

sustained engagement in their

classrooms. This requires the

utilization of a variety of teaching

styles and approaches to meet the

needs of all learners. Classroom

populations, in this day and age,

typically include an intellectually

and socially diverse student body

that cannot be approached with a

one-size-fits-all mindset. As a

result, teachers need to understand,

be sensitive to, and most

importantly, be responsive to the

many instructional factors that may

affect student engagement for all

learners. One such factor that a

teacher has direct control over is

the classroom environment (see the

October edition of the RSE-TASC

Reporter). Also, teachers need to

continuously develop a more

informed understanding of how

children learn best, and then plan

accordingly. Some examples of

such purposeful planning are the

inclusion of students’ preferences

and interests as a context for

curricula material, Activating Prior

Knowledge (APK) before

introducing a new concept, and

utilizing Explicit, Direct

Instructional (EDI) strategies, such as

formative assessment, to inform real

time classroom decisions. With such an

array of factors to consider as an

integral part of instructional planning,

this article explores the relationship

between effective instruction and

engagement, how to prevent low student

engagement from creating classroom

disruptions, and how sustained

engagement supports positive learning

outcomes for all students.

One instructional challenge, as reported

by teachers who were asked what

factors impede their ability to meet

student needs, was the ability to keep

them engaged and interested in learning

(Godzicki, et.al., 2013). Low levels of

engagement in the classroom raises the

risk of disruptive behavior, decreases

class participation and attentiveness, and

has the potential to result in a lack of

assignment completion. This, in turn,

will typically result in lower student

learning and performance outcomes. In the

research study, Increasing Motivation and

Engagement in Elementary and Middle School

Students Through Technology-Supported

Learning Environments, researchers looked at

what elements had an impact on student

motivation and engagement, as perceived by

both students and teachers. A substantial

percentage of students interviewed (33%)

believed that class activities were not designed

to be considerate of their personal preferences

and interests. A disconnect between instruction

and student interest can create a disruption in

student focus, negatively impacting engagement.

Making personal connections between students’

preferences and interests and the lesson,

including utilizing the Career Development and

Occupational Studies (CDOS) Foundational

Skills as a part of instruction (see the November

edition of the RSE-TASC Reporter), has the

potential to increase students’ attention and

motivation. Increased attention to learning is

likely to decrease distractions which create

classroom disturbances (Cakir, Simsek, Tezcan,

2009), and therefore has great potential to

improve student outcomes. (cont. on pg. 2)

In this issue: A Relationship Between Instruction and Behavior ~ Page 1 EDI Lesson Components ~ Page 2 Long Island RSE-TASC Regional Workshops ~ Page 3 Contact Information & Related Resource s ~ Page 4

“...the best solution for discipline is effective

instruction that prevents discipline problems from

happening in the first place.” ~ John Hollingsworth, President, DataWORKS

L.I. Regional Special EducationTechnical Assistance Support Center

Checking for understanding the TAPPLE way

Source: Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI): The power of the well-crafted, well-taught lesson/John Hollingsworth and Silvia Ybarra. DataWORKS

Educational Research, © 2009

each First

sk a Question (not an opinion)

ause (repeat ? or pair and share)

ick a Non-Volunteer (3; data mining)

isten to the Responses (determines your next move)

ffective, Explicit Feedback (echo, elaborate or explain)

T

A

P

P

L

E

Please visit us on the web, at: http://www.esboces.org/Page/89

Figure 1

2

In the same study, teachers reported that disruptive behaviors and

lack of participation were two of the main factors that had an

adverse impact on student engagement. Conversely, the study

also indicated that student concentration (i.e. engagement)

increased when students felt safe and perceived that a caring

relationship with their teacher was established. As a result,

teachers can actually promote engagement and learning by

fostering a positive environment (safety), teach in close

proximity to their students (contributes to a sense of caring), and

organize the classroom space to support a variety of learning

opportunities (teacher-to-peer interaction, peer-to-peer

interaction, small groups, partners, etc.) (Archer & Hughes,

2011) that allow students to explore and express ideas through

various means and mediums. In sum, building a positive

environment that takes students’ preferences and interests into

consideration is likely to improve engagement and have a

positive impact on students’ academic outcomes. A study

conducted by Wright, Horn, & Sanders (1997) concluded that,

“the most important factor affecting student learning is the

teacher”.

Extensive research has also concluded that for all students, and

especially students with disabilities, at-risk students, and English

Language Learners, Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) improves

student engagement and learning. DataWORKS, an educational

research company dedicated to using real data to identify best

practices for teaching low performing students, concluded the

following: “we have found that the best solution for discipline

is effective instruction that prevents discipline problems from

happening in the first place.” EDI is an instructional

framework consisting of several researched validated

components (see Figure 2 above) that combine the design and

delivery of lessons that explicitly teach content. New Annual

Professional Performance Review (AAAR) mandates and New

York State’s dual Accountability Systems place an emphasis on

increasing performance outcomes for all students, including

students with disabilities. A meta-analysis of over twenty years

of research revealed that the best evidence-based practice in

special education content area instruction is EDI. One such

reason is that, when analyzed separately, each component of EDI

promotes sustained student engagement, increased time-on-task,

and a decrease in classroom disruption.

John Hollingsworth, President of DataWORKS, believes that the

most important component of EDI is the continuous Checking for

Understanding (CFU). Checking for understanding is the

essence of formative assessment and is defined as:

(cont. from pg. 1)

“…a process used by teachers and students during

instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing

teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of

intended instructional outcomes.” (CCSSO, 2008)

Further research has concluded that the use of formative assessment

alone can significantly increase student engagement and outcomes,

especially for lower achieving students. The research, by Black and

Wiliams (2010), reveals that when achievement gains for students

exposed to enhanced instruction (stronger use of formative

assessment practices) is compared to achievement gains of students

where instruction is not enhanced, significant and often substantial

achievement gains are noted for the students who received the

treatment (enhanced instruction). Black and Wiliams also agree that

lower achieving students benefit more from formative assessment

then higher achieving students, in part because of resultant increased

engagement, therefore reducing the achievement gap while raising

overall classroom performance.

To put this into a statistical perspective, consider the following

achievement measure:

The effects of effective formative assessment on

achievement can be as much as .4 to .7 standard

deviations, the equivalent of moving from the

50th percentile to the 65th or 75th percentile on

a standardized test.

(ASCD, 2010)

By utilizing formative assessment strategies to CFU, teachers not

only ensure that students are learning more, it also increases

attention to the lesson, increases student participation, and

consequently decreases the occurrences of distracting and off-task

behaviors (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2009). This principally occurs,

according to Hollingsworth, because teachers are continuously

requiring students to “do something” of an academic nature.

As an example, Figure 1 (page 1) depicts the strategy TAPPLE.

This is one EDI strategy used to guide teachers in CFU throughout

instruction. In following the components of EDI (figure 2), lessons

can be designed to increase student participation and engagement,

resulting in an increase in student outcomes. Since an engaged

student is less likely to participate in disruptive classroom

behaviors, a positive environment may evolve into one that supports

learning for all.

Teacher effectiveness directly impacts student achievement (Wright,

Horn & Sanders, 1997). By increasing student engagement through

the design of instruction that is considerate of students’ preferences

and interests, creating a caring and safe environment, and utilizing

EDI strategies, such as formative assessment, research strongly

suggests that disruptive classroom behaviors will decrease and

positive student outcomes will improve, creating a win-win situation

for all.

EDI lesson design components

Learning Objective - CFU

Activate Prior Knowledge - CFU

Concept Development - CFU

Skill Development - CFU

Lesson Importance - CFU

Guided Practice - CFU

Lesson Closure - CFU

Independent Practice - CFU

Strategies for Increasing Student Engagement:

Design instruction that is considerate of students’ preferences and interests

Create a caring and safe environment that supports a variety of learning opportunities

Utilize research validated EDI strategies

Figure 2

3

L ON G I S L A ND RS E - TA SC RE GI ON AL W OR KS H OPS

behavior workshops • bilingual workshops • non-district workshops • regulations • transition

To Register for our Regional Workshops, you may visit our new and improved website by clicking on this link: http://www.esboces.org/Page/89, or...

Please go to http://webreg.esboces.org to register online. Under “Search Options”, pull-down and check RSE-TASC and then click “Search”.

Then, simply scroll down to register for the workshop you are interested in. Clicking on the hyperlinked

workshop dates below will bring you directly to the respective MyLearningPlan® registration page.

• LONG ISLAND RSE-TASC REGIONAL CATALOGUE SAMPLE • FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF WORKSHOPS, GO TO WEBREG

December New York State Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) (Suffolk) — 12/2/13

Commencement Credential—Module I—Overview (Nassau) — 12/5/13 & 12 6/13 facilitated by Ms. Arlene Crandall

New York State Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) Commencement Credential—Module III Connecting the CDOS Standards to Work Based Learning Opportunities (Nassau) — 12/17/13 facilitated by Ms. Cathy Pantelides

Making Decisions at CSE for an English Language Learner—Diff. Vs. Disability (Suffolk) — 12/19/13 facilitated by Ms. Elizabeth DeFazio-Rodriguez

January Exit Summaries (Nassau) — 1/9/14

facilitated by Ms. Cathy Pantelides

Transition Assessment to Inform the Development of the IEP (Suffolk) — 1/22/14 facilitated by Mr. Matthew Jurgens

Evidence Based Practices in Classroom Management (2 Day Training) (Suffolk) — 1/16 (1) 1/23 (2) facilitated by Ms. Michelle Levy

Quality IEP: Measureable Annual Goals (Suffolk) — 1/28/14 facilitated by Ms. Arlene Crandall

February New York State Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS)

Commencement Credential—Module II—The Three CDOS Learning Standards (Suffolk) — 2/7/14 facilitated by Mr. Matthew Jurgens

Adapting Instruction to Address Behavior (Suffolk) — 2/27/14 facilitated by Ms. Michelle Levy

4

Resources Archer, A., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Efficient and effective teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Brookhart, S.M. (2010). Formative Assessment Strategies for Every

Classroom: An ASCD Action Tool. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Cakir, O., Simsek, N., & Tezcan, N. (2009). A web based generation

system for personalization of e-learning materials. International

Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 283-286 retrieved from http://www.waset.org/journals/ijhss/v4/v4-4-40.pdf on August 21, 2013

CCSSO (2008). Formative assessment: Examples of practice. A work product initiated and led by Caroline Wylie, ETS, for the Formative

Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) Collaborative.

Council of Chief State School Officers: Wash., DC.

DataWORKS at http://www.dataworks-ed.com/

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). The Purposeful Classroom: How to

Structure Lessons with Learning Goals in Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013). Increasing Motivation and Engagement in Elementary and Middle

School Students through Technology-Supported Learning

Environments. Online submission retrieved from http://

www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED541343

Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2009). Explicit direct instruction:

The power of the well-crafted, well-taught lesson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment and

Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We Losing an Opportunity? prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and

classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for

teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 57-67.

IN SUFFOLK CALL • 631.218.4197 IN NASSAU CALL • 516.396.2989

CENTRAL OFFICE (Suffolk office): Vincent Leone, Coordinator

Sharon Van Winckel, Senior Account Clerk Lynn Hayes, Senior Clerk Typist

NASSAU SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS (SESIS):

Naomi Gershman Monique Habersham

Matthew Zegers Roxane Diamond, Senior Typist Clerk

SUFFOLK SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS (SESIS):

Marjorie Guzewicz Elizabeth Silva

REGIONAL TRAINERS (Suffolk office):

Arlene B. Crandall, Regional Special Education Training Specialist Elizabeth DeFazio-Rodriguez, Bilingual Special Education Specialist

Michelle Levy, Behavior Specialist Cathy Pantelides, Nassau Transition Specialist Matthew Jurgens, Suffolk Transition Specialist

Non-District Specialist, TBD

• RSE-TASC STAFF •

Creating Student Engagement

“Student engagement is created when the teacher asks the student to

do something.” DataWORKS

Check that all stu-dents are learning Promote rehearsal of the new language Processes new infor-mation to understand Refocuses students during the lesson Helps students read new words

Supports students with pronunciation

Stores information in multiple ways

For more information on student engagement

go to: http://www.dataworks-ed.com/