Enhancing Student Engagement Through Learning Science Principles
A Research-Based Approach Using a Classroom Management Tracking Tool and Video Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18060/28834Keywords:
Student engagement, Learning by Scientific Design principles, GoReact, Translational Research, video-analysisAbstract
Background: Due to disruptive student behavior, a K-5 urban school developed a problem of practice that focused on creating a classroom management plan and social-emotional plan for the students to regulate their emotions effectively and teachers can execute engaging lessons to increase student engagement. Informal observations conducted by a fellow provided insight into variability in instructional practices, which resulted in developing tools based on learning sciences principles (Deans for Impact, 2015) that guide the instructional practices and also measure their impact on student engagement.
Potential consequences: Addressing this issue will help the leadership team understand the importance and coach teachers in effective implementation of teacher actions using teacher actions rubric and consciously embed the teacher actions in their lesson plans to increase engagement. Effective implementation of the instructional practices will help to reduce the student disruptive behavior.
Method: A mixed method design was used to conduct 31 observations using the GoReact (Goreact, 2024) and classroom management tracking tools to investigate the impact of frequency of effective teacher actions on students’ engagement.
Findings: The quantitative data showed that there is a positive correlation between teacher actions and student engagement, and the qualitative data provided the importance of effectively executing those actions.
References
Author (2025). Translational Research: Collaboration of Post-Doctoral Fellow With K-5 Charter School. In J. Bailey Watters, G. Miller, & R. Rhone (Eds.), Reimagining the P-20 Landscape for School Leadership Learning (pp. 409-456). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-6220-4.ch015
Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York: Guilford Publications.
Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The Importance of Teachers’ Emotions and Instructional Behavior for Their Students’ Emotions—An Experience Sampling Analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.002
Berliner, D. C. (1990). What's all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). Teachers College Press.
Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J., & Haywood, D. E. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600411
Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denessen, E., Aelterman, N., & Haerens, L. (2020). Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: an observation study of teacher and student behaviours. Research Papers in Education, 36(6), 754–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1767184
Conner, T. B. (2011). Academic Engagement Ratings and Instructional Preferences.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Deans for Impact (2015). The science of learning. Austin TX: Deans for Impact.
Deans for Impact (2020). Learning by scientific design: Early insights from a network transforming teacher preparation. Austin TX: Deans for Impact.
DeVito, M. (2016). Factors Influencing Student Engagement. Unpublished Certificate of Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/edl/11
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., … Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884
Dorman, J. P. (2003). Relationship between School and Classroom Environment and Teacher Burnout: A LISREL Analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 107-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023296126723
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, pp. 2–4
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implications for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Everston, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.485
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
GoReact. (2024). How different types of feedback facilitate authentic assessments video assessment for skill development and feedback. GoReact. https://get.goreact.com/resources/feedback-facilitates-authentic-assessments/
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Identifying a Systemic School-Wide Problem of Practice. (n.d.-a). PDF. Kentucky Valley Educational Cooperative .
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Jones, S. L., Hall, T., Procter, R., Connolly, C., & Fazlagić, J. (2022). Conceptualising translational research in schools: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 101998.
Kraft, M. A., & Dougherty, S. M. (2013). The effect of teacher–family communication on student engagement: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 199-222.
Kuypers, L. (2023, October 26). What is regulation? The Zones of Regulation. https://zonesofregulation.com/3380-2/
Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive Video Technology: Enhancing Professional Learning in Initial Teacher education. Computers & Education, 54(3), 742–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.011
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of teacher education, 64(5), 378-386.
Pedler, M., Hudson, S., & Yeigh, T. (2020). The teachers’ role in student engagement: A review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 45(3), 48–62. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.270830255864389.
SAS on demand for academics. SAS. (n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https”//www.sas.com/en_us/software/on-demand-for-academics.html
Strambler, M. J., & McKown, C. (2013). Promoting student engagement through evidence-based action research with teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 23(2), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2013.757153
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.411
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pallavi Aggarwal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
