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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Blatchford, P. (2003). A systematic observational study of teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in large and small classes. Learning and Instruction, 13, 569–595.
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.
Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Longman.
Burstein, L., McDonnell, L., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T. H., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Cooksey, R. (2007). Illustrating statistical procedures: For business, behavioural and social science research. Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research, 44, 670–700.
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.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 387–425.
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.
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–185.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ruble, L. A., & Robson, D. M. (2007). Individual and environmental determinants of engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1457–1468.
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.
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.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix A: The learning and engagement questionnaire
-
1.
I identify activities and items that will be of interest to my students.
-
2.
I assess materials and resources so that I can be sure they will be effective with my students.
-
3.
I maintain student interest during lessons when I need to move from one activity to the next.
-
4.
I withdraw students who are difficult to engage for special instruction.
-
5.
I arrange students who are difficult to engage into smaller groups.
-
6.
I will press on with an important lesson even if students appear disinterested.
-
7.
I have a range of materials available during my lessons to provide students who are difficult to engage with some choices.
-
8.
I involve myself in activities that are chosen and enjoyed by my students.
-
9.
It don’t allow students to make their own activity choices if I am teaching something important.
-
10.
I monitor the learning of students who have not engaged well with my teaching.
-
11.
All my teaching includes multiple opportunities to learn and practice new skills.
-
12.
I use data on all my students’ performance to monitor progress, adjust goals and teaching strategies.
-
13.
I allow students to choose from an array of activities or materials.
-
14.
I investigate particular interests of my students and use this in my teaching.
-
15.
I deliberately plan ahead so that I can attend specifically to the needs of students who are difficult to engage.
-
16.
I plan the layout of my room including the seating arrangement of my students.
-
17.
I follow the interests of students if what I’ve planned is not achieving my goals.
-
18.
I alter my lesson ‘on the spot’ to capture students who have lost interest in my teaching.
-
19.
The signs that a student lost interest in my teaching are obvious to me.
-
20.
I can regain a student’s attention to my teaching within the first moments of observing that he/she is losing interest.
-
21.
By keeping my goals in mind, I create learning opportunities during just about any activity.
-
22.
I have procedures in place to constantly monitor my students’ performance.
-
23.
My goals and objectives are written so that I can easily observe when all students have met learning criteria.
-
24.
If some students do not engage with my teaching, I opt to let them be, as long as they are quiet.
-
25.
My teaching resources are carefully chosen before the day of my lesson.
-
26.
My teaching resources are ready to use when a lesson begins.
-
27.
I have alternative ideas and resources ready if students are not responding to my teaching.
-
28.
My teaching sessions allow students many opportunities to learn and rehearse new goal-related skills.
-
29.
My teaching sessions mostly consist of arranging and offering opportunities for learning and practice of skills.
-
30.
I seize upon opportunities across all classroom activities for learning and practice of goal-related skills.
-
31.
Some students in my group would be unfocused for more than 5 min during most lessons.
-
32.
I regularly record progress on goal learning for all my students.
-
33.
I provide one to one instruction for students who are difficult to engage.
-
34.
I begin all teaching sessions with activities that will capture my students’ interest.
-
35.
I create, or source, special teaching materials to assist students who are difficult to interest in my teaching.
-
36.
I am clear on what I’m trying to achieve for each of the students in my group.
-
37.
All opportunities for learning new skills in my classroom are offered when students are engaged.
-
38.
I prefer to teach new or important goals by joining in activities chosen or directed by my students.
-
39.
I can include learning opportunities in child directed activities without interrupting the flow/fun of the activity.
-
40.
Whole group instruction in my classroom caters for students who are easily distracted.
-
41.
I teach important skills to students who are easily distracted in a one to one learning environment.
-
42.
I keep all students focused on my teaching during whole group instruction.
-
43.
I plan what to do if students do not respond to my lesson.
-
44.
I am never short of a strategy or idea to re-engage students who appear to lose interest in my teaching.
-
45.
When I teach, I know exactly what I’m expecting each student to learn.
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0029-5