Skip to main content
Log in

Teacher self-report on learner engagement strategies in the early years classroom

  • Original paper
  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective engagement of young children in the classroom is a critical step toward achieving positive learning outcomes. The Learning and Engagement Questionnaire (LEQ) was developed by the first two authors to identify ways in which teachers strive to engage learners in the classroom. In this study, the factor structure of the LEQ is examined. Participants were 274 teachers of children in their first 3 years of formal schooling. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and supported a five factor solution: Goal Directed Learning; Task Selection; Teacher Responsiveness; Intensive Teaching; and Planning the Learning Environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatchford, P. (2003). A systematic observational study of teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in large and small classes. Learning and Instruction, 13, 569–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, F., & Yarnold, P. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, L., McDonnell, L., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T. H., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, R. (2007). Illustrating statistical procedures: For business, behavioural and social science research. Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endicott, K., & Higbee, T. S. (2007). Contriving motivating operations to evoke mands for information in preschoolers with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Best practices in defining student goals and outcomes. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 553–563). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, S. M., & Frijters, J. C. (2009). A review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research, 44, 670–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Dawson, H. (2000). Ecobehavioral assessment systems software (EBASS): A system for observation in education settings. In T. Thompson, D. Felce, & F. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 229–251). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 387–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helf, S., Cooke, N. L., & Flowers, C. P. (2009). Effects of two grouping conditions on students who are at risk for reading failure. Preventing School Failure, 53, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., et al. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, D., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2009). Assessment, disability, student engagement and responses to intervention. In C. M. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishida, Y., & Kemp, C. (2006). A measure of engagement for children with intellectual disabilities in early childhood settings: A preliminary study. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31, 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, G., Kaiser, A., Girolametto, L., MacDonald, J., Robinson, C., Safford, P., et al. (1999). Parent education in early intervention: A call for a renewed focus. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, G., & Wheeden, C. (1998). Effects of teacher style on the engagement of preschool aged children with special learning needs. Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 2, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, G., & Wheeden, C. A. (1999). The effect of teacher style on interactive engagement of preschool-aged children with special learning needs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1992). Promoting engagement and mastery. In D. B. Bailey & M. Wolery (Eds.), Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 230–255). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1995). Effects of classroom social structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, R. A., & de Kruif, R. E. L. (1998). E-Qual III: Children’s engagement codes. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, R. A., Zulli, R. A., & de Kruif, R. E. L. (1998). Teaching styles rating scale. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K., & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (1997). The effect of object preference on task performance and stereotypy in a child with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2008). Mplus short courses topic 2: Regression analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling for categorical, censored, and count outcomes. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Available at: www.statmodel.com.

  • O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2009). Teacher involvement in the development of function-based behaviour intervention plans for students with challenging behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33, 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 402–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odom, S. L., Favazza, P. C., Brown, W. H., & Horn, E. M. (2000). Approaches to understanding the ecology of early childhood environments for children with disabilities. In T. Thompson, D. Felce, & F. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 193–214). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhartsen, D., Garfinkle, A., & Wolery, M. (2002). Engagement with toys in two-year-old children with autism: Teacher selection versus child choice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruble, L. A., & Robson, D. M. (2007). Individual and environmental determinants of engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1457–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: The role of perceived control in children’s engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeltzer, S., Graff, R. B., Ahearn, W. H., & Libby, M. E. (2009). Effect of choice of task sequence on responding. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 734–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, J., & Blair, K. S. (1996). The effects of preference, choice, and attention on problem behavior at school. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 3, 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this paper was supported in part with a grant from the Faculty of Education, Griffith University and from the Australian Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deb Keen.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix A: The learning and engagement questionnaire

  1. 1.

    I identify activities and items that will be of interest to my students.

  2. 2.

    I assess materials and resources so that I can be sure they will be effective with my students.

  3. 3.

    I maintain student interest during lessons when I need to move from one activity to the next.

  4. 4.

    I withdraw students who are difficult to engage for special instruction.

  5. 5.

    I arrange students who are difficult to engage into smaller groups.

  6. 6.

    I will press on with an important lesson even if students appear disinterested.

  7. 7.

    I have a range of materials available during my lessons to provide students who are difficult to engage with some choices.

  8. 8.

    I involve myself in activities that are chosen and enjoyed by my students.

  9. 9.

    It don’t allow students to make their own activity choices if I am teaching something important.

  10. 10.

    I monitor the learning of students who have not engaged well with my teaching.

  11. 11.

    All my teaching includes multiple opportunities to learn and practice new skills.

  12. 12.

    I use data on all my students’ performance to monitor progress, adjust goals and teaching strategies.

  13. 13.

    I allow students to choose from an array of activities or materials.

  14. 14.

    I investigate particular interests of my students and use this in my teaching.

  15. 15.

    I deliberately plan ahead so that I can attend specifically to the needs of students who are difficult to engage.

  16. 16.

    I plan the layout of my room including the seating arrangement of my students.

  17. 17.

    I follow the interests of students if what I’ve planned is not achieving my goals.

  18. 18.

    I alter my lesson ‘on the spot’ to capture students who have lost interest in my teaching.

  19. 19.

    The signs that a student lost interest in my teaching are obvious to me.

  20. 20.

    I can regain a student’s attention to my teaching within the first moments of observing that he/she is losing interest.

  21. 21.

    By keeping my goals in mind, I create learning opportunities during just about any activity.

  22. 22.

    I have procedures in place to constantly monitor my students’ performance.

  23. 23.

    My goals and objectives are written so that I can easily observe when all students have met learning criteria.

  24. 24.

    If some students do not engage with my teaching, I opt to let them be, as long as they are quiet.

  25. 25.

    My teaching resources are carefully chosen before the day of my lesson.

  26. 26.

    My teaching resources are ready to use when a lesson begins.

  27. 27.

    I have alternative ideas and resources ready if students are not responding to my teaching.

  28. 28.

    My teaching sessions allow students many opportunities to learn and rehearse new goal-related skills.

  29. 29.

    My teaching sessions mostly consist of arranging and offering opportunities for learning and practice of skills.

  30. 30.

    I seize upon opportunities across all classroom activities for learning and practice of goal-related skills.

  31. 31.

    Some students in my group would be unfocused for more than 5 min during most lessons.

  32. 32.

    I regularly record progress on goal learning for all my students.

  33. 33.

    I provide one to one instruction for students who are difficult to engage.

  34. 34.

    I begin all teaching sessions with activities that will capture my students’ interest.

  35. 35.

    I create, or source, special teaching materials to assist students who are difficult to interest in my teaching.

  36. 36.

    I am clear on what I’m trying to achieve for each of the students in my group.

  37. 37.

    All opportunities for learning new skills in my classroom are offered when students are engaged.

  38. 38.

    I prefer to teach new or important goals by joining in activities chosen or directed by my students.

  39. 39.

    I can include learning opportunities in child directed activities without interrupting the flow/fun of the activity.

  40. 40.

    Whole group instruction in my classroom caters for students who are easily distracted.

  41. 41.

    I teach important skills to students who are easily distracted in a one to one learning environment.

  42. 42.

    I keep all students focused on my teaching during whole group instruction.

  43. 43.

    I plan what to do if students do not respond to my lesson.

  44. 44.

    I am never short of a strategy or idea to re-engage students who appear to lose interest in my teaching.

  45. 45.

    When I teach, I know exactly what I’m expecting each student to learn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keen, D., Pennell, D., Muspratt, S. et al. Teacher self-report on learner engagement strategies in the early years classroom. Aust. Educ. Res. 38, 293–310 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0029-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0029-5

Keywords

Navigation