Download (ICS) in the Classroom

“Engaging Effectively with All Students”
Instructional Code Switching (ICS) in the Classroom
Teacher Support
<name of school here>
©HiScore 2016
Why Teacher-Student Engagement Matters!
“Student-perceived teacher connection was the
factor most closely associated with growth in
achievement from 8th grade to 12th grade.”
(Gregory & Weinstein, 2004)
©HiScore 2016
About Engagement
In this Section you will…
• Better understand the origins of engagement research
based on parenting socialisation frameworks
• Be able to define engagement
• Have a rationale for viewing the teacher-student
relationship from a “relational” perspective.
• Understand that positive engagement is pre-requisite
for optimal attainment and achievement.
©HiScore 2016
What is Engagement?
“Engagement is about the quality of person-environment
fit. Personal perceptions about the adequacy of alignment
of our unique fulfilment needs and preferences with extant
environmental supports for such, motivate us to move
toward, away-from or against interacting with others in
context”. (Pitcher, 2015)
THIS DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT HOLDS FOR STUDENTS,
TEACHERS AND PARENTS
©HiScore 2016
Ecology of Engagement
©HiScore 2016
Like Parents, Teachers Engage & Socialise Students in + & - Ways
In every classroom students and teachers posses unique preferences for particular
levels of contextual challenge, care and choice that pre-dispose each to different
interaction styles. For teachers these preferences manifest in different instructional
styles and for students different styles of engagement. Such preferences are the
product of socialisation over time, that start with the influence of parenting and family
and are further shaped by experiences at school, at work and in the community.
WHEN TEACHERS INTERACT USING DIFFERENT INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES THAT
MIRROR VARIOUS ENGAGEMENT STYLES, STUDENTS ARE MOTIVATED TOWARD
POSITIVE SOCIALISATION – e.g. they move toward adopting the values of the classroom
and school.
HOWEVER, if a teacher-student mismatch exists, this can motivate students to move
away from or move against the values of the classroom and school.
©HiScore 2016
Indicators of Engagement
• Engagement is a multi-factorial construct with psycho-social,
affective, academic and behavioural elements. Traditionally, in
schools only the academic and behavioural elements are measured.
• Academic and behavioural elements are easy to measure but the
little researched more “difficult-to-observe” internal psycho-social
(thoughts) and affect (feelings) that motivate individuals to engage
in any context are less obvious but no-less important.
• These unique internal personal factors are “inputs” to engagement
while behaviour and achievement are “outcomes” of engagement.
• In summary engagement correlates positively with student’s
perceptions about the adequacy of teacher supports for learning,
social connectedness and student autonomy.
©HiScore 2016
Teacher Support viewed “Through
Student Eyes”
• Student perceptions about the adequacy of teacher
support of student autonomy – Level of Choice
(flexibility & tolerance for individual difference)
• Student perceptions about the adequacy of teacher’s
social support – Level of Care (warmth, nurturance &
two-way communication)
• Student perceptions about the adequacy of teacher’s
support for learning – Level of Challenge (academic
press & attainment expectations).
©HiScore 2016
The Research Path Analysis
©HiScore 2016
Teacher Engagement and Student Proximity in Class
Attributes of individuals and their representation (perceptions)
of relationships influence, when and how they engage.
“Students choose their level of engagement through proximity from the teacher”.
About Teaching Styles
In this Section you will…
• Identify your dominant/default instructional style.
• Learn about the four main student engagement profiles.
• Understand how your default instructional style interacts with
the different engagement styles of students.
• Share classroom strategies that enable the instructional
adjustments needed to effectively engage with different
students.
©HiScore 2016
The Instructional Styles of Teachers Influence
Student Engagement
Teachers perceive themselves as either instructors or socializers (Brophy,
1985).
• Teachers who view themselves primarily as instructors (focus
predominantly on demandingness [standards/challenge]) tend to respond
more negatively to students who are underachieving, unmotivated or
disruptive during learning tasks.
• Teachers who view themselves primarily as socializers (focus
predominantly on responsiveness [care and choice]) tend to respond
more negatively toward students they view as hostile, aggressive or
interpersonally disconnected.
What is your Instructional Style?
©HiScore 2016
Activity Part “A”– Grouping teachers by their interaction
preference (responsiveness)
Which students do you least enjoy teaching?
Type “A” – those who lack motivation, underachieve
and are disruptive (instructor).
□
move to the left
Type “B” – those who are distant and socially
disconnected (socialiser).
□
move to the right
©HiScore 2016
Activity Part “B” – Group teachers by their organisational
preference (demandingness)
Which instructional approach do you prefer?
Approach “A” – teaching whole-class (high structure)
□
move to the front
Approach “B” – teaching one-on-one (low structure)
□
move to the back
©HiScore 2016
Teacher Perceptions about their own Instructional Styles
Focus on “Whole-ofClass” Engagement
MOTIVATOR
EXPERT
Focus of learning is
negotiated
Focus of learning is
teacher directed
FACILITATOR
DELEGATOR
Focus on “Individual”
Engagement
©HiScore 2016
“Expert” Instructional Style
• Teachers who have a formal authority teaching style tend to focus on
content. This style is generally teacher-centred, where the teacher feels
responsible for providing and controlling the flow of the content and the
student is expected to receive the content. This instructional style aligns
well with authoritarian contexts. Most effective in traditional (academic)
classrooms.
High Challenge – Moderate Care – Low Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
“Motivator” Instructional Style
• Teachers who have a motivator teaching style tend to run teacher-centred
classes with an emphasis on demonstration and modelling, this type of
teacher acts as a role model by demonstrating skills and processes and
then as a coach/guide in helping students develop and apply these skills
and knowledge. This instructional style aligns well with authoritative
contexts. Most effective in contemporary (social) classrooms.
Moderate Challenge – High Care – Moderate Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
“Facilitator” Instructional Style
• Teachers who have a facilitator teaching style tend to focus on activities.
This teaching style emphasizes student-centred learning and there is much
more responsibility placed on the students to take the initiative for
meeting the demands of various learning tasks. This instructional style
aligns well with permissive contexts. Most effective in alternative
(personalised) classrooms.
Low Challenge – Moderate Care – High Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
“Delegator” Instructional Style
• Teachers who have a delegator teaching style tend to place much control
and responsibility for learning on individuals or groups of students. The
teacher defines the outcome required but then allow students to take
their own pathway toward achieve a result. This instructional style aligns
well with impersonal contexts. Most effective in technical (skills-based)
classrooms.
Low Challenge – Low Care – Low Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
Activity: In your Instructional Style Clusters - Share,
Discuss & Report Back
What does Engagement look like in your Classes?
• What are the signs when you get the balance
wrong (e.g. too much or too little) and when you
get it right?
• On the “post-it-notes” list the visual, verbal and
behavioural cues for each element of
engagement, challenge, care & choice.
• Stick notes to the large post-its as each group
reports back.
©HiScore 2016
Level of Classroom Challenge
Not Enough
Too Much
Just Right
Increased noise
Walking around
room
Restless
Bordom
Low Self-esteem
Stress/Anxiety
Low Motivation
Calling out to
teacher
Whinging
Refusal
Stunned silence
Attention
seeking/avoidance
behaviours
Completed tasks
Collaboration
Thoughtful enquiry
Ideas exchanged
Constructive noise
On-task
Positive discussion
Busyness
Sense of
achievement
©HiScore 2016
Level of Classroom Care
Not Enough
Too Much
Just Right
Refusal to follow
instructions
Defiant
Withdrawn
Passive compliance
Argumentative
Avoiding
Embarrassed
Personal space
Overly familiar
Manipulative
Try to get away
with things
Dependency
Don’t want to let
the teacher down
Want to impress
Feel comfortable
Sense of belonging
More confident
Feel safe
Harmony
Prepared to take
chances
©HiScore 2016
Level of Classroom Choice
Not Enough
Too Much
Just Right
Out of seat
Asking for toilet
Apathy
Defiance
Resentment
Breaking rules
Complaining
Work refusal
Frustration
Confusion
Tension
Distraction
Anxiety
Indecisiveness
Inertia
Sharing
Creativity
Collaboration
On-task discussion
Motivation
Productivity
Sense of
contribution
Happy/content
atmosphere
©HiScore 2016
Instructional Literacy and Self-Awareness
Teachers use all four instructional styles in different contexts and with
different students but in busy classrooms and when a mismatch occurs they
tend to default to their dominant style (as does the student).
Instructing from a single (default) perspective can somewhat alienate
students who have engagement preferences for levels of classroom challenge,
care and choice that differ from the teachers instructional approach.
Many teachers are “unconsciously” skilled at switching between instructional
styles. Code switching is most beneficial when used as a conscious
instructional strategy.
The real skill and challenge for teachers is in “setting aside” ones dominant
approach to explore different approaches in the classroom.
©HiScore 2016
Tip-Sheet – What are your Instructional Strengths?
Print Handout on Instructional Style Descriptors (see “ICS Summary Table for
Teachers” in the “Articles & Research” sitemap link at www.HiScore.com.au ).
Read the instructional style descriptors and rank them from 1 (most
dominant) to 4 (least dominant) for you.
Self-Reflection Questions:
• Did your perception of your own instructional style “match” that which
was predicted by the research?
• When people were reporting back did you notice differences in the way
teachers with different instructional styles engage?
• When is it easiest/most difficult for you to code switch?
Q&A
©HiScore 2016
Coffee/Tea
10 min break……
©HiScore 2016
About Styles of Students
In this Section you will…
• Access online tools to profile your students
engagement styles.
• Understand how students are motivated to
engage.
• Identify different student engagement styles
©HiScore 2016
Pupil Perception Matters
Student Perceptions
about the Adequacy
of Teacher Supports
for Challenge, care &
Choice
Student Engagement
Thinking
Student Action
Quality of Engagement
Relationship Outcome
Aligned
Teacher is child
focussed and attempts
to adapt to meet
different student
needs (aware).
Moving toward
Positive Engagement
High levels of satisfaction,
motivation, expectations
and participation from
both student and teacher
Moving away
Disengagement
Low levels of satisfaction,
motivation, expectations
and participation from
both student and teacher
Moving against
Negative Engagement
Oppositional Behaviours
from both student and
teacher
Thought -teacher is
interested in me!
Common Fit
Teacher is “subject”
focussed and does not
consider the needs of
different students
(unaware).
Thought - teacher
doesn’t care about
me!
Misfit
Teacher instructs only
in their “own way”
and refuses to meet
the needs of different
students (unwilling).
Thought - teacher
does not want me to
succeed!
©HiScore 2016
Engagement Thinking
Perceived Needs
Fulfilment (“Fit”)
Outcome
Expectancy
(Teacher-Student Alignment on
Challenge – Care - Choice )
(Can I do this?)
Strength of
Motivation for
Learning
Goal-Achievement
(Is this important?)
(Will I Enjoy this?)
Internal Locus of
Control
(Is this interesting?)
©HiScore 2016
Four Common Student Engagement Profiles
Student have different needs and therefore have different reasons for engaging. These are the
questions that each of the different styles of student ask themselves while contemplating
engaging:
•
•
•
•
Cooperative – “Is this important?
Social – “Will I enjoy doing this?”
Independent – “Does this interest me?”
Withdrawn – “Is this useful?”
©HiScore 2016
“Cooperative” Engagement Style
Cooperative students are compliant. The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Is this task important?
Such students have a preference for contexts that are authoritarian in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are assimilating information
using Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking) and Reflective Observation (Watching). They are motivated to answer the question, "what is there to know?"
They are good at creating theoretical models. They are less interested in people and are more concerned with abstract concepts. They are interested in
basic sciences and mathematics and generally assimilate schoolwork well. They are dependent on the teacher providing the information. They like accurate,
organized delivery of information and they tend to respect the knowledge of the expert. They aren't that comfortable randomly exploring a system and
they like to get the 'right' answer to the problem.
High Challenge – Moderate Care – Low Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
“Social” Engagement Style
Students who are peer focused. The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Is this task enjoyable?
Such students have a preference for contexts that are authoritative in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are connecting
divergent information using Concrete Experience (Feeling) and Reflective Observation (Watching). Their greatest strength lies in imaginative ability.
They are interested in interacting with their peers in the learning process. These students are very good at viewing concrete situations from many
perspectives (understanding how people and things connect). They engage best with “Motivator” instructional approaches.
High Challenge – High Care – High Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
“Independent” Engagement Style
Students who are self-determined. The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Am I interested in this task?
Such students have a preference for contexts that are permissive in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are
accommodating learning into action using Concrete Experience (Feeling) and Active Experimentation (Doing). Their greatest strength lies in
doing things and involving oneself in the experience. This person can be more of a risk-taker and tends to adapt well in specific circumstances.
This person tends to solve problems in an intuitive trial and error manner, relying often on other people’s information rather than on own
analytic ability, they are suited for action-oriented jobs such as business, marketing and sales. These learners are good with complexity and
are able to see relationships among aspects of a system. They engage best with “Facilitator” instructional approaches.
Low Challenge – Moderate Care – High Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
“Withdrawn” Engagement Style
Students who are disaffected. The key engagement question that these students ask themselves is – Can I do this task?
Such students have a preference for contexts that are impersonal in engagement culture. Their dominant learning abilities are in applying Abstract
Conceptualization (Thinking) and Active Experimentation (Doing) to achieve goals. They are motivated to discover the "how" of a situation and their
greatest strength lies in the practical application of ideas. Application and usefulness of information is increased by understanding detailed
information about the system's operation. They are relatively unemotional, self-directed individuals and prefer to deal with things rather than
people. They engage best with “Delegator” instructional approaches.
Low Challenge – Low Care – Low Choice
Percent
Classroom Engagement Preferences
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
Observations
What do you notice about the student and
teacher engagement profiles?
©HiScore 2016
Profiling the Psycho-Social Engagement Characteristics
of Students
www.HiScore.com.au
©HiScore 2016
School Suitability Survey
©HiScore 2016
Profiling Reports
©HiScore 2016
About the Teacher-Student Engagement Interaction
In this Section you will…
• Learn about an instructional approach to improve both
your teaching experience and the learning experience of
your students
• Inform how to personalise your instructional approaches to
better engage with the diverse range of students in
contemporary classrooms
• Explore how to “switch” from your dominant/default
instructional style to a more effective approach as required.
• Motivate you to apply ICS approaches in your classrooms
in 2016.
©HiScore 2016
What is Instructional Code Switching?
Instructional Code Switching (ICS) is the skill of adjusting
their instructional approach such that levels of classroom
challenge, care and choice align more effectively with a
diverse range of students.
Insightful teachers are often unconsciously skilled at ICS.
However, to optimise engagement with a broad range of
students teachers must learn to “set-a-side” their default
engagement style to allow a “natural” switch to occur.
Given the opportunity students will elicit from teachers the
supports that they need to engage positively.
©HiScore 2016
ICS Framework for Teachers
Grouping students in class by their engagement
style provides an instructional framework to
helps teachers code-switch effectively.
ICS in the Classroom ensures that you always
know the engagement style of the students who
are in front of you.
©HiScore 2016
Rationale -Matching Instructional Approach with
Student’s Engagement Style Preferences
The importance of teachers using flexible classroom pedagogy was highlighted in a recent UWA doctoral study conducted by Dr
Russell Pitcher (2015). The study applied a parenting socialisation research framework to classify students by their different
engagement styles. Transitioning Year 8 students (n = 306) from a sample of public, independent and single-gender private
schooling contexts were found to cluster by their preferences for particular levels of contextual challenge (learning support), care
(social support) and choice (support of pupil autonomy) into four engagement style groupings: cooperative (those who are
compliant), social (those with a peer connectedness focus), independent (those who are self-determined) and withdrawn
(those who are disaffected). These findings support earlier research conducted in the United States that found both teachers and
parents also self-identified into similar engagement styles as do students. Alignment of teacher instructional supports for levels
of classroom challenge, care and choice with the contextual engagement preferences of each of these four student
engagement styles was evaluated and was subsequently found to mediate pupil perceptions about the adequacy of teacherpupil relations in positive ways. For example, pupil perceptions about the adequacy of teacher supports correlated positively
with their satisfaction, participative behaviours, academic outcome expectations and sense of overall schooling suitability. Thus,
alignment in the goodness of person-environment “fit” predicted pupil perceptions about the suitability of particular contexts,
both at a distal level (school culture overall) and at a proximal level (in classrooms).
©HiScore 2016
ICS Classroom Floor-Plan
Instructional Code Switching Classroom Engagement Strategy
Front of
Classroom
• Delegator
Style
• Facilitator
Style
Withdrawn
*40%
Individual
Social
Cooperative
*20%
*10%
*30%
• Motivator
Style
• Expert Style
Back of
Classroom
*Estimate of proportion of time spent at each instruction point
©HiScore 2016
Activity: Making Adjustments to Teacher-Student Engagement
On the “Match” sheet provided draw your default instructional
style overlayed on the different student engagement style
profiles.
Note which student styles are most & least aligned with your
default instructional style.
On the sticky notes list ways in which you can adjust your levels
of classroom challenge, care & choice to better align with the
different styles of students.
©HiScore 2016
Teacher-Student Match Sheet
Code Switching from your “Default” Instructional Style
Adapt Your Approach to Engage with Social Students
Percent
Percent
Adapt Your Approach to Engage with Cooperative Students
Challenge
Care
Choice
Challenge
Choice
Adapt Your Approach to Engage with Independent Students
Percent
Percent
Adapt Your Approach to Engage with Withdrawn Students
Care
Challenge
Care
Choice
Challenge
Care
Choice
©HiScore 2016
Classroom Code-Switching Strategies
Increase Levels of Classroom
Challenge
Decrease Levels of
Classroom Challenge
Increase in conceptual
learning (thinking outside the
box).
Higher order questioning.
Extension of task.
Give purpose behind activity.
Identify goals.
Modulation of voice – direct
tone.
Straight to the point.
Clear/concise.
Emphasise importance of
task.
Chart class progress.
Encourage competition.
Achievement focus.
Establish clear class routines.
Model expectations.
Use stepwise instructional
processes.
Predictable tasks.
Chunking of tasks.
Realistic time-frames.
Personalised instruction.
Less proximity.
Lower tone of voice.
Conversational approach.
Differentiation of curriculum.
Allow students to work
individually.
©HiScore 2016
Classroom Code-Switching Strategies
Increase Levels of Classroom
Care
Increase proximity.
Listen to student concerns.
Spend time on student
issues.
Soften tone of voice
Smile.
Know student names.
Show interest in students
personal lives.
Have a joke/laugh.
Be accessible.
Calm approach.
Focussed on individual needs
& preferences.
Decrease Levels of
Classroom Care
Rushing
Loud.
Focus on subject matter.
Inflexible.
Demanding.
Unhelpful.
Impersonal.
Inconsistent.
Emotional.
Serious manner.
Punitive.
Focussed on organisational
standards.
©HiScore 2016
Classroom Code-Switching Strategies
Increase Levels of Classroom
Choice
Negotiate the curriculum.
Provide electives.
Adjust to student strengths.
Appropriate assessment
tasks.
Multi-modal learning.
Options of learning tasks.
Thematic/interest-based
learning opportunities.
Student-centred activities.
Students are empowered to
learn.
Decrease Levels of
Classroom Choice
Teacher controls all aspects
of the learning environment.
Assessment is prescriptive.
Whole-of-class
instruction/same tasks for all.
Rigid curriculum/students
expected to strive for an
extrinsic standard .
Low tolerance for deviation
from teacher expectations.
Strictly enforced rules.
Student voice is not heard or
acted upon.
Initiative is discouraged.
©HiScore 2016
Experience is not Essential for Successful
Instructional Code Switching
You don’t have to be an expert at code-switching to
engage better with a broader range of students.
The structure built into the ICS approach ensures
that on average more students in your class will
perceive to have had their needs better met.
When you use this approach students appreciate
your effort to connect with them and they will
frequently “bridge the gap” and move toward
engaging positively with you.
©HiScore 2016
ICS has Particular Utility during Transitions
“The classroom engagement project has been
instrumental in ensuring attendance,
participation, development of skills, and the
productivity of my Year 7 media class”.
TZ – Nov 20th 2015
©HiScore 2016
ICS Classroom Trial – Intervention Results
School 1: This trial was conducted in a “traditional” school located in a lower socio-economic area
servicing an ethnically diverse community.
Mean Student Perceptions Adequacy of "FIT"
Experienced Teacher ICS Intervention Class - Yr 9 Home Econ.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pretest
Posttest
Learning Support
(Challenge)
Social Support (Care)
Autonomy Support
(Choice)
Teacher-Student Engagement (n=20)
School 2: This trial was conducted at a “distinctive” school located in a lower socio-economic area
servicing an ethnically diverse community with approx. 20% indigenous student population.
Mean Student Perceptions Adequacy of "FIT"
"Early Service" Teacher ICS Intervention Class - Year 8 Science
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pretest
Posttest
Challenge
Care
Choice
Teacher-Student Engagement (n=18)
©HiScore 2016
School 3: This trial was conducted in a “traditional” secondary school context located in a “mixed”
socio-economic area with 15% indigenous population.
Experienced ICS Intervention Class - Yr8 Math
10
9
8
7
6
5
Pre
4
Post
3
2
1
0
Challenge
Care
Choice
Overall students in ICS intervention classes reported improved “adequacy of fit” for levels of
classroom Challenge, Care and Choice, irrespective of whether their teacher was “experienced”
(over 10 years) or “early service” (under 3 years). This suggested that the engagement effect of the
ICS pedagogy was not mediated by prior teaching experience. Furthermore, improvement in overall
student perceptions of “FIT” suggested that the ICS pedagogy better met the needs and preferences
of a broader range of students in these classes.
©HiScore 2016
ICS Classroom Trial – Control Results
Mean Student Perceptions of Adequacy
of "FIT"
School 1
Control Class (no ICS intervention) - Experienced Teacher Yr
10 English
10
8
6
4
Pretest
2
Posttest
0
Learning Support
(Challenge)
Social Support (Care)
Autonomy Support
(Choice)
Teacher-Student Engagement (n=18)
School 2:
Mean Student Perceptions of Adequacy
of "FIT"
Control Class (no ICS intervention) - Experienced Teacher Yr 10 English
9
8
7
6
5
4
Pretest
3
Posttest
2
1
0
Challenge
Care
Choice
Student-Teacher Engagement (n=19)
©HiScore 2016
School 3:
Control Class (no ICS intervention) - Experienced teacher Yr 8
Math
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pre
Post
Challenge
Care
Choice
Students in non-ICS intervention “control” classes were instructed by “experienced” teachers (10
plus years). Overall these cohorts reported reduced perceptions of “adequacy of fit” during the 5
week trial period. Thus, when teachers instruct class using their preferred “default” style, overall
student engagement was shown to diminish. These results suggest that those students who were
originally mismatched with the teacher’s dominant instructional approach at pre-test becoming even
more disaffected with time.
©HiScore 2016
ICS Effect – Challenge by Student Engagement
Style
12
10
8
Pretest
6
Posttest
4
2
0
Cooperative
Social
Independent
Withdrawn
©HiScore 2016
ICS Effect – Care by Student Engagement Style
10
9
8
7
6
Pretest
5
Posttest
4
3
2
1
0
Cooperative
Social
Independent
Withdrawn
©HiScore 2016
ICS Effect – Choice by Student Engagement Style
9
8
7
6
5
Pretest
Posttest
4
3
2
1
0
Cooperative
Social
Independent
Withdrawn
©HiScore 2016
What Teachers’ Say about ICS!
Special Needs Teacher
Loved the concept. Greater engagement
Students happy about the room change. Quickly become familiar with groups. Very collaborative
Students are learning and get on together better. Maturation.
Collaborative learning is good
Early Service Science Teacher
Cooperative kids have good opportunity to get on with work without being distracted by social kids.
Withdrawn kids are happy to accept support
Independent student cooperates really well when allowed to do work in own way. Many social
students who stay on-task produce amazing work when channelled using appropriate attention
levels.
Another independent girl who usually gets low scores received a significantly above-average test
score when allowed to be tested alone in a room
Experienced Home Economics Teacher
Students are seated with like-minded individuals
Students not clustered in friendship groups allows new working partnerships with other students
Students are settled in their seats and do not question where they are sitting. They are interested in
their personal learning strengths.
Student choice led to greater engagement. Having a choice of 4 activities not just a free-choice
meant higher engagement yet higher safety
Set-up of room allows for easy discussion/instruction with each group
Early Service Year 8 Teacher
Ability to identify student’s individual strengths & weaknesses.
Students can develop relationships with those of similar engagement style.
Early Service Year 9 Teacher
Allows direct targeting of multiple intelligences in the classroom.
Identification of each student’s learning styles.
Helps to identify the links between “taught content” and student engagement.
Moving around the class classroom while instructing has helped me to engage the “avoidant
learners”. Understanding why students sit where they do has given me insight into the link between
engagement and teaching styles.
I have become more aware of when I fall back to my default teaching style and actively try to create
content/activities that push me outside my instructional comfort zone.
For higher ability classes the survey is a great way to begin a semester and provides useful
information to the teacher before they begin implementing strategies.
©HiScore 2016
Preparing for the New Cohort
Where possible have students complete the survey online as an
activity during the orientation visits to their chosen destination
school.
or
Send the www.HiScore.com.au link to all families transitioning to
the school. Surveys can be completed at home.
or
In the school newsletter request students go online with a
parent over the holiday break to complete a survey.
or
Survey as many students as possible before the end of the school
year or as early as possible in the current school year.
©HiScore 2016
References
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E.(1997).Caring school communities. Educational
Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Brophy, J. (1985). Teachers’ expectations, motives and goals for working with problem students. In C. Ames &
R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 175–213). New
York: Academic Press.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004).Intergenerational bonding in school: the behavioral and
contextual correlates of student–teacher relationships: Sociology of Education, 77, 60–81.
Felner, R., Favazza, A., Shim, M., & Brand, S. (2001). Whole school improvement and restructuring as
prevention and promotion: Lessons from project STEP and the projecton high performance learning
communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 177–202.
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004).Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth in
achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 405–427.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2001).Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school
outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and
associations with caregiver behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
297–318.
Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation, self-esteem, and level of voice in
adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school
adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pitcher, R.G. (2015). Making Better School Choice Decisions: Aligning Students with Schools based on
Socialisation Styles. A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education, University of
Western Australia.
Purkey, W. W, & Novak, J. M. (2008). Fundamentals of invitational education. GA: International Alliance for
Invitational Education.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S.(1989).Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics
before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–992.
Roeser, R., Eccles, J., & Sameroff, A. (1998).Academic and emotional functioning in early adolescence:
Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 321–352.
Roeser, R. W., & Galloway, M. K. (2002).Studying motivation to learn during early adolescence: A holistic
perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urban (Eds.) Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 331–
372).Greenwich, CT: LAP Information Age Publishing.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994).Representations of relationships to teachers, parents and friends
as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
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, 571–581.
©HiScore 2016
Questions
Thank you for engaging!
©HiScore 2016