All Intermediate, Middle, and High Schools

Student Engagement Impacted by Instructional Strategies

Primary Researchers
Ashlyn N. Bergethon, Intern, Baylor University
Aaron Snow, Mentor Teacher, Robinson High School, Robinson ISD
Rachelle Rogers, Ed.D, Clinical Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

Student engagement has been a passion of mine since I knew that I wanted to be an educator. I have witnessed the impact of students being engaged in a lesson as well as students not being engaged. As my internship began, one class period stood out to me regarding engagement levels. I recognized that my eighth period was composed primarily of students not consistently engaged in the lessons being taught and I wondered if they would benefit from various instructional strategies to increase engagement.

There are two specific articles I read that ignited my passion for researching student engagement and how to increase it by implementing instructional strategies. Research found that approximately 80 percent of elementary school, 60 percent of middle school, and 40 percent of high school students are engaged in school, according to a Gallop poll (Busteed, 2013). This alarming statistic encouraged me to find effective practices to increase student engagement. I have also discovered there is a sizable difference between engagement and productive engagement, the latter of which is essential in a classroom. According to Rieske et al, (2021), the difference is “engagement is how and to what degree students invest their behavior, intellectual energy, emotions, and interactions, whereas productive engagement is engagement that supports learning and longer-lasting investment with mathematics.” Student engagement is affected by many variables in a classroom. I researched the impact of instructional strategies on student engagement.

Question/Wondering

How might student grouping, instructional activities, and timing strategies impact the engagement levels of ninth-grade Algebra I students?

Methodology/Results

I gathered data on five ninth-grade Algebra I students from my eighth-period class. These students were purposefully chosen based on their engagement in class prior to this study. The students’ identities will be excluded for privacy purposes. The class is approximately 86 percent male, and all test subjects are male. Student one is Hispanic. Students two, three, and five are Caucasian. Student four is African American. 

There were multiple data-collecting experiences. A pre-and post-assessment, completed through a Desmos activity, examined how “into” math students are. For this study, “into math” will be defined as learning math and enjoying it or having fun, and this was the definition provided to students. The assignment consisted of questions asking students how into math they are and to graph their engagement so far in the semester. Three instructional strategies were each implemented one time for data collection. The first instructional strategy occurred on October 11, 2023. I collected student engagement data during the active portion of class, called musical graphing. When music was being played, students would walk around the classroom. The students graphed linear functions when the music stopped. The data was collected using an engagement log. The students filled out a short form describing if they were engaged in class and when, which also included a rating on a ten-point scale. On the scale, ten was fully engaged, five was sometimes engaged, and one was not engaged. The students filled out this same form each time I collected data on student engagement levels. The next instructional strategy used was timers. I completed a unit review through a station practice on October 25, 2023. The day consisted of observing how changing activities every twelve minutes impacted student engagement. I used a modified engagement form with the closure activity to gather data. My final gathering of data occurred over three days. The three different days were set up with 1) randomized groups, 2) student choice groups of three, and 3) intentional placement by mathematical ability groups. This data collection provided research on student engagement based on how groups were made. Students filled out a short form describing which day they felt most engaged in class. They recorded the day they felt most engaged in the math topic being taught and why. These three instructional strategies were analyzed to determine which approach most affected student engagement within the Algebra I classroom. 

The data was critically analyzed through a comparison of the three instructional strategies’ percentages from the engagement forms. The active lesson was observed with one engagement form. On the timing day, three forms were used and the average of the three was calculated for the engagement score. For the three group research days, I used one form per day and then averaged them to compile the engagement level. This included calculating the average of each student’s engagement on each engagement form. Comparing the averages was one indication of the instructional strategy that resulted in the highest engagement. The daily written reasons with ratings were evaluated to compare the scores from each instructional strategy day. The ratings showed how engaged the students felt during class for each of the days. I looked for student reflection results to align with the data collected from engagement forms. The engagement forms served as observational data since the responses were from students. The intent was to have triangulated data with observation data and student responses. The pre-and post-assessments from Desmos were analyzed by comparing and contrasting graphs from the first semester and the past month. The written answers were also analyzed to evaluate the impact of the three instructional strategies from student perspectives. For the Desmos assessments, I assessed any growth from the pre- to post-assessments overall and within specific times of testing instructional strategies. This data expressed the impact instructional strategies have on student engagement.

The means of on-task engagement levels for active, timing, and group instruction strategies being implemented are 89%, 60.5%, and 77.6% respectively. These forms show that active lessons resulted in the highest level of engagement for students. In addition to engagement forms, student feedback forms were compared. The active lesson engagement rating from the students was 9.2 out of 10. The stations lesson resulted in 8.6 out of 10. This is compared to 8.25, 6.4, and 3.2 from the three days of different grouping, with an average of 5.95 out of 10. The consensus of student feedback percentages showed students are most engaged during an active lesson. This finding aligns with the results of the gathered engagement forms. The final part of the data collected and analyzed was the post-assessment in Desmos. In the comparison of graphs from the pre- to post-assessment, four out of five students showed growth. The students' responses explain the “why” behind their graphs. Reflecting their understanding of math increased because of “math … mak[ing] more sense,” “more interactive games,” and “do[ing] activities.” These quotes are from students 5, 2, and 4 respectively. These findings correspond to the results of the engagement forms and student feedback. A final correlation between the post-assessment and all findings is when this question was asked, “What would make you more engaged or into math class?” 60% of students responded with more games in class. The triangulation of the data from the pre-post assessments, observation forms, and student responses verifies the result of active lessons being the most engaging from all aspects of data.

Implications/Recommendations

The findings of this study seem to imply that active lessons increase students’ engagement in mathematics. Therefore, educators should increase their use of active lessons and student-choice seating. There were, however, some limitations to this study. While definitions were given to observers who collected data, there were two different observers for the engagement forms. This may have varied data. Students could have interpreted daily feedback or the Desmos pre- and post-assessment questions in different ways. Student one was absent for the second half of the class period, on the first day of groups. The engagement levels from student one’s time in class were included in engagement form percentages, but there was no feedback on that day to be included. The study overall would have been more accurate if it were over a longer period and included multiple classes. 

Reference(s)

Busteed, B. (2020, March 13). The school cliff: Student engagement drops with each school year. Gallup.com.https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/170525/school-cliff-student-engagement-drops-school-year.aspx

Riske, A. K., Cullicott, C. E., Mirzaei, A. M., Jansen, A., & Middleton, J. (2021). Student engagement with the “into math graph" tool.Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 114(9), 677–684. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtlt.2020.0322 

Context-Specific Framing and Daily Review as Vocabulary Interventions

Primary Researchers
Jessica Best, Intern, Baylor University
Travis Horton, PhD, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Junior High School, Robinson ISD
Neil Shanks, PhD, Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

An understanding of course-specific vocabulary is essential to a well-rounded application of historical events and themes to everyday life. In educational settings, vocabulary is framed as something to be memorized and then tossed aside after the unit has passed, but I believe that incorporating course-relevant terms into students’ daily vocabulary is incredibly beneficial to students’ academic development as well as their ability to apply historical themes to contemporary events and issues.

Question/Wondering

How does the implementation of context-specific framing and daily review affect scores on pre-/post-assessments and quizzes of course-relevant vocabulary?

Methodology/Results

The participants of my study were 109 8^th grade students at Robinson Junior High School, ranging from 13 to 15 years old. The racial demographic breakdown of my students is as follows: 66% white, 27.5% Hispanic/Latino/a, 5.5% African American, and 0.9% Asian. 66% of the study participants have some kind of exceptionality such as giftedness or special education accommodations. 54.1% are female and 45.9% are male.

My research took place over a period of four weeks and two units, Sectionalism/Westward Expansion (Unit 9) and Civil War (Unit 10). The first unit was used as a control group of sorts to collect data on the academic performance of students using the vocabulary system we had used before my interventions, whereas the second unit included my interventions. These interventions included a more focused selection of fewer words, daily review of vocabulary terms, regular presentation of words in class context, imbedded time daily to add to vocabulary foldables, and group collaboration activities as review. In both units, students took a vocabulary quiz as well as a pre- and post-assessment over the words covered in that unit. I also did a student survey at the end of the research period with a series of questions where students shared their opinions based on a Likert scale. At the end of this survey, participants also had the opportunity to share additional thoughts or comments on the intervention methods.

On the first day of each unit, students spent about 10-15 minutes completing the pre-assessment, where they had a series of content-specific sentences with a blank in each sentence in which students picked the word that best fit in the sentence. This allowed me to collect data on the students’ prior knowledge of the words’ meanings and their ability to infer meaning from sentence context. Over the following days of the unit, I chose two words per day to introduce at the beginning of class and give the students around 2 minutes to add them to their vocabulary foldables. Each day also included a review activity, which ranged from individual Nearpod activities to timed matching using every student in the class. Once all words had been covered, usually around the two-week mark, students took a vocabulary quiz of ten of the terms for that unit. On the last day of the unit, students took the post-assessment, which is the exact same as the pre-assessment they took on the first day of the unit, as well as the questionnaire.

To analyze data, I focused primarily on individual student growth. For each student, I compared their scores on the first vocabulary quiz to the second, the Unit 9 and Unit 10 post-assessments, and the Unit 10 pre- and post-assessments. I also considered their responses to the student questionnaire. Across all six class periods, vocabulary quiz scores either increased or stayed the same for 67.9% of students after the implementation of the interventions described above. Effectiveness ranged between class periods, but the growth showed by comparing the scores of the pre- and post-assessments was that 84.6% of students throughout all class periods improved their scores over the two weeks of the unit.

The student survey included questions about student confidence in previous units v the then current unit (an increase of 24.5%), benefit of seeing words in course context (72.3% of students saying that it was “helpful” or “definitely helpful”) as well as their feelings toward the value of daily review (83.3% of students said it was helpful to their learning). Additionally, I asked students if they were interested in continuing this form of vocabulary intervention and 73.5% of students said they were “interested” or “very interested.”

On the last question of the student, I asked if they would like to elaborate on any previous answer or if they had anything else they would like to add in relation to this topic, and the answers to this question were ultimately the most valuable for me as their teacher. As general themes, students appreciated having fewer words and valued daily review and especially enjoyed the gamification of review. Below are five responses generated from this final question.

• “I love the interaction of learning the vocab it helps me learn better because I’m more engaged.”
• “I like when we do the card sorting activities, it’s a way to learn more and use our partnering skills to find the right answer. I would like to do this with our future vocabulary questions.”
• “I like how you gave us some words every day and went over them for our foldables, it was very helpful to stay on top of it.”
• “I felt the reduced number of vocabulary words allowed me to focus on learning them better. Having 24 words overwhelms me and causes me to forget crucial words while trying to learn new ones.”
• “Using vocabulary helps very much considering we do vocab review in a fun way, and foldables aren't hard to do.”

Overall, this survey gave me valuable quantitative and qualitative insight into the students’ opinions about various aspects of this system of vocabulary introduction.

Implications/Recommendations

The positive student response to this method of instruction was overwhelming, and I saw engagement of students through this process that previously were apathetic to the task of learning vocabulary. I will absolutely be continuing to use elements of these interventions moving into subsequent units.

An element of this study I would consider altering are the variety of review methods used, as I would love to include more creative and student generated approaches to the review process. I would also consider altering the format of the vocabulary foldables once I am fully in charge of my own classroom and develop procedures specific to my preferences that align more closely with my methodology.

A wondering I had throughout this study is how visuals can be incorporated into the review process as well as sentence construction and am very curious to see how implementing context-specific pictures/artwork would increase retention of meaning and context.

Reference(s)

Bintz, W. P. (2011). Teaching Vocabulary Across the Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 44-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23047715

Rosenbaum, C. (2001). A Word Map for Middle School: A Tool for Effective Vocabulary Instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 44-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40007630 

The Impact of Intentional Study Time for At-Risk Students 

 Primary Researchers 
Hannah Christensen, Intern, Baylor University 
Sarah Barry, Mentor Teacher, Midway High School, Midway ISD 
Maggie Bryant, M.Ed., Intern Supervisor, Ph.D. Student, Baylor University 

Rationale/Introduction 

As someone who was a high schooler and now teaches high school students, I have seen students struggle with maintaining high academic grades and having genuine motivation and focus within the classroom. I was curious if giving students designated study time with aided instruction would help them and increase an overall confidence in their academic learning. In an abstract by Dicken et. al, the authors explain how guided and intentional study hall helps students complete their homework as well as increase students’ understanding on the designated work. Not only did students’ incomplete homework rate drop from 8% to 4%, but it was also stated that it become more beneficial in maintaining students’ missing and incomplete work whenever a teacher assisted their students. Based on these statements and getting to know my students better throughout the semester, my study analyzes how intentional study hall and aide can increase student motivation and confidence, as well as their increase in overall GPA with these designated hours to work.  

Question/Wondering 

How does designated study time within school hours for students impact their overall GPA? 

Methodology/Results 

Over the course of the past two months, I chose to study my intervention students and how their grades increased over time as Mrs. Barry and I spent intentional time with them. We tracked their improvements over the course of the seven students comprised of our class, with two seniors and five juniors in our classroom. Out of those seven students, four of those students are in the ethnic minority while the other two students are Caucasian. These students were chosen to be placed in this course based on their results regarding the English I and/or II Benchmark, which is a requirement to pass in order to graduate. All of these students need hands-on intervention help, as all of these students did not only fail the benchmarks, but do not meet daily standards and expectations for passing grades in English courses.  

Looking at the data, Student A is an outgoing student, who is very vocal about his understanding within the classroom. At times, he becomes off task, but merely needs a gentle coercion to refocus and tends to get back on track once being reminded to do so. Student B refuses to work most of the time, and tends to be on his phone more often than not. He struggles with everyday English grammar and sentence structure, and it has been the crux of our focus with this specific student. Student C is someone who participates in class and tends to want the best academically, but struggles with staying focused and on task. Lastly, Student D is a disruptive student who has been in and out of DAEP, but when encouraged, tends to get on task. There are some behavioral problems we run into from time to time, which can cause an issue when completing coursework. However, this student respects Mrs. Barry and I, and it is evident by how he responds to instruction and following through after speaking with one of us.  The different personas that coincide with how they work shows the importance of having positive instruction while keeping students on task, as it helped motivate them to complete any unfinished work and increase their overall GPA.  

Students A, B, C, and D were each given a sheet to look at their score reports at the beginning of the semester. as this was an initial starting point to eventually see the potential growth. In Dickinson and O’Connell’s article, the two authors tested the relationship between studying intentionally and how it affected test scores. Even though this specific test was designated for college age students, I wanted to test the theory on our high school students and see if those who were struggling academically would benefit from intensive study periods and intentional instruction from teachers that were respected.  In my classroom, the test was administered verbally by explaining to the students what the expectations were and how everyday in Pathway (Interventions), students would be given specific time to study/catch up on work for specific assignments. Throughout the research period, I tracked four varying assignments and gave each student a certain amount of time to complete their designated assignment. These assignments could be from writing compound-complex sentences all the way to completing study guides. Not only does this break down and differentiate instruction for students, but it allows for the students to be able to engage more intentionally and compartmentalize fully exactly what they are working on in that moment rather than feel as though they are drowning. For example, if a student has to write five sentences for one specific class and has an essay due in another, I would break down the checklist and give the student 10 minutes to write the first five sentences, and then check back in and explain more in depth the essay, and give them verbal and visual instructions to assist them. Even though this may seem elementary and not make a difference, it helped my students to compartmentalize and take ‘baby steps’ in progress, as they were able to complete assignments, which in lieu, brought their grades up.  

At the end of the six week data study, the students filled out a questionnaire to determine if students not only benefited academically from the intentional study time, but also if they felt more motivated or accomplished by their intentional study tactics. This test was set in place to see the benefit of having an in-class study period, specifically helping those who may have failed a previous course. In addition to the test, the student’s grades were monitored by having daily check-ins and one-on-one conversations to ensure academic comprehension as well as emotional intentionality with the students. Student A felt as though this class helped him immensely, as his work schedule was too much to balance both school and work life. Student B benefited academically from the designated study period, but did not emotionally appreciate the time set aside for him. Student C benefitted from being kept accountable, on track, and his grades did improve immensely over the course of the testing period. Student D responded positively to the instruction and was helped. However, his grades did not jump as high as the initial hope was. The post-tests showed a tremendous amount of growth academically and improvement in their grades. In conclusion, I believe that having intentional study times and guidance with our students benefits their ability to do better in their classes, especially with specific time set in the school day to purely aid their questions.  

Implications/Recommendations 

After completing this study, I am not sure how I feel about the outcome of the study. I appreciated greatly how the pre-tests and post-tests showed their grades and by what percentage they grew. These students are ones that genuinely care about the social relationships around them, but not so much the academic aspect of school. That being said, by being able to build good relationships with the students and assist them in their learning, it was rewarding to see not only their motivation grow, but also their willingness to be coachable throughout the study. Over the course of the past semester, I have loved to see how their determination and focus has grown due to having a designated study period, but I believe having a designated study period can also distract from the responsibility of doing work (why it is called homework) outside of the classroom and the opportunity to complete work on their own time. It also can take away from other elective periods, which for some, can be detrimental to their determination to work in school. However, I would prefer for students to have a designated study time in efforts to raise their GPA, as I saw tremendous improvements over the course of this study.   

Moving forward into my first year of teaching, I believe that this study has helped me to appreciate designated instruction and intentional learning time for students who need the help. It is something that as I go through the next year, I will hope to incorporate into my teaching and advocate for students to have this designated study time if not initially allotted to do so. With students having to balance work, extracurriculars, and a multitude of classes, the benefits of having a study period are immense, and would help students to have the chance to be held accountable while also still doing well in their academics.   

Reference(s) 

Dickinson, D. J., & O’Connell, D. Q. (2024, March 20). Effect of Quality and Quantity of Study on Student Grades. Retrieved January 16, 2015,.  

Dicken, K. S., Foreman, C. D., Jensen, R. L., & Sherwood, J. A. (2024, March 20). Improving Homework Completion of Students through Tutored Study Hall. Retrieved May 2008,.  

The Impact of Incentives on Student Motivation 

Primary Researchers
Moriah Feng, Intern, Baylor University
Kristen Snedeker, B.S. Ed, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Junior High, Robinson ISD
Rachelle Rogers, Ed.D., Clinical Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

The students in this study seemed to lack a sense of purpose and caring for mathematics. According to Vallerand et al. (1992), motivation is essential to student success in the classroom, and “much research has shown that motivation is related to various outcomes such as curiosity, persistence, learning, and performance” (p. 1004). As my pondering of student motivation grew, an idea quickly emerged to test different reward systems and concepts to see if any of these would incentivize students to be motivated about mathematics. Upon diving deeper into the research, many different perspectives, and opinions on rewards in the classroom were seen. 

Along with the idea of how rewards impact student motivation, one must consider how a student’s natural inclinations tie into how rewards motivate them in the classroom, or if it even makes a difference. It will also approach how a student’s existing motivation type impacts their interaction with incentives in the classroom. By triangulating all these concepts and their associated data, this study examined the impact of rewards on eighth-grade students and their academic motivation. 

Question/Wondering

In what ways will incentives, such as small stickers, personal written notes, and peer-to-peer verbal shout-outs, impact students’ motivation in an eighth-grade pre-algebra classroom?

Methodology/Results

This five-week study examined the impact of incentives on student motivation in an eighth-grade pre-algebra classroom, following the interactions of one class with three different types of incentives. This class, referred to as 7th period, was the class that experienced changes in incentives and was observed for changes in motivation. In the 7th period, there were 24 students, 13 males, and 11 females. Additionally, 17 students were Caucasian, five were Hispanic/Latino, and two students identified as other. One student was in the Gifted and Talented Program, three students were in the Special Education Program, and three students had Section 504 documentation. 

The different incentives studied were compared to see which type of incentive most influenced student motivation. The incentives included small stickers, personal written notes from the teacher, and peer-to-peer verbal shout-outs. Each of these incentives appealed to a slightly different type of motivation. The different types of motivation were identified through the student academic motivation checklist (AMS-HS) (see Appendix A) and adjusted for relevance to middle school aged students. Individual student responses in the post-study questionnaire were compared to both anecdotal notes as well as the tracking sheet to see whether students received any of the incentives. To ensure the accuracy of student answers, the tracking sheet was used in comparison to anecdotal notes and to the post-study questionnaire. Each type of incentive was compared to student reactions as well as existing student motivation inclinations to discover the impact and effectiveness of incentives within the classroom. This allowed the researcher to examine which incentive might be more effective for specific students, and which might be more effective for students as a whole, if any.

Based purely on student feedback, students most preferred the individualized hand-written teacher notes. By a close second, the students preferred the sticker incentive for completing homework. Students least liked the peer-to-peer shout-outs. However, for each type of academic motivator, each student’s preference toward each different incentive varied. While each motivation type leaned toward different incentives, and some not at all, overall, most students seemed to indicate some form of incentive would aid in motivating them. However, incentives must be tailored to student needs, interests, and motivation types. For this specific class, since the students were overwhelmingly extrinsically motivated, this contributed to the success of various extrinsic incentives in the classroom.

Implications/Recommendations

Despite warnings and fears of the “Dark Side” of rewards, these findings show an overall increase in student motivation for incentives. When teachers implement incentives that allow students to gain a “healthy learning habit” through proper reward-giving (Chen, 2023, p. 1823), they can find success with incentives. After completing this research, I would recommend giving a survey to students at the beginning of the year to find out their motivation types. In some instances, students might vary in their motivations, differing through the various incentives. Regardless of the motivation of the students, as long as the teacher carefully tailors the incentives (whether physical or not), I believe the incentives would be effective and motivating toward students.

While incentives look different across grade levels and between different classrooms, they can successfully be used at any age with any student, despite how “big” or “small” the reward may seem. Some incentives may work better than others, but it would be foolish to say that incentives do not work in the classroom and need to be removed due to their potential consequences. However, the success of incentives is largely attributed to the teacher; the teacher’s ability to personalize the incentives to their class and their needs. The teacher also needs to be aware of the dangers of incentives, and carefully pick incentives as well as form relationships to find a healthy balance for both students and teachers. 

References and Appendices

The Impact of Technology on Academic Performance in a Middle School Math Classroom 

Primary Researchers
Hannah Hensarling, Intern, Baylor University
Austin McClinton, MS Ed, Mentor Teacher, Midway Middle School, Midway ISD
Rachelle Rogers Ed.D., Clinical Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

The use of technology in the classroom is an ongoing debate. There are many opinions about the positive and negative impacts of personal iPads and laptops highlighting student engagement, academic achievement, and the aura of the classroom environment. In a 2019 study, parents had an opportunity to share the concerns that they had about technology use in the classroom. The study found that parents were concerned “that technology would distract students” and would be “used to fill time and take away from other educational goals” (Maxwell et al., 2019). Students enjoy having access to technology for the very reasons that parents express concern. Teachers find themselves in a unique position to promote technology that is engaging while limiting the potential for it to be distracting. With middle school students and the desire for teachers to strengthen them in self-sufficiency and autonomy, this research looks to focus on what students are often concerned about, their test scores. Students are not worried about being engaged in class, but they do worry about their test scores and academic performance. Academic performance is a motivator that drives students to be successful. Students seek high scores so that they might participate in athletics, please their parents, and gain self-confidence and esteem. 

A research study conducted by the North Carolina State University, Raleigh explored the academic performance of college students enrolled in the same course. One section of the course was in a face-to-face format and the other section of that same course was in an online format. The study found “that students are 1.27 times less likely to obtain an ABC in online course compared to face-to-face courses” (Spencer & Temple, 2021). Although the study at North Carolina State University, Raleigh followed college students and the section of the course was entirely online, the wondering persists. How do students of different ages perform academically when participating in technology? Are students’ grades affected when they use technology in the classroom? How do students perform academically when utilizing technology? Are students’ grades affected when they use technology in the classroom? These wonderings lead to this research study to determine if a student’s academic performance can change based on the use or lack of use of technology in the middle school classroom.  

Question/Wondering

How might 7^th grade pre-algebra students’ academic performance change if students complete all schoolwork (warm-ups, notes, exit tickets, worksheets, quizzes, etc.) on paper as opposed to their iPads?  

Methodology/Results

The participants for this research study are 7th grade pre-algebra students. Pre-Algebra is an honors math course offered to 7^th grade students. Each student in this school is provided with an iPad to be used for instruction in the classroom. The two class periods that were participants in the study were 3^rd Period and 4^th Period, which was 48 total students. 3^rd Period consists of 24 students, with 11 girls and 13 boys. 4^th Period consists of 24 students, with 12 girls and 12 boys. 

Data was collected quantitatively and qualitatively. Students were given an exit ticket to complete. The graded exit tickets were comprised of multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank questions. Students completed this exit ticket on Schoology, an online learning management software. To adjust for the lack of technology, this same exit ticket was printed on paper. For students in the technology only class, all classwork was completed on technology. For the students in the paper only class, all classwork was completed on paper. The final piece of quantitative data that was collected was the test scores. A district wide test is required for each unit. All students, regardless of whether their class was technology only or paper only, completed the test individually on their iPads provided by the school district. 

In addition to students’ academic performance on assignments and assessments, qualitative data was collected. All students completed three questionnaires via Google Forms. A pre-questionnaire was distributed before the unit of study. On the day after each unit test, students completed a post-questionnaire. 

Data was analyzed daily through class assignments and exit tickets. Exit tickets were a source of real-time data that provided an opportunity to address the way that instruction was delivered. Test scores, however, showed the greatest difference in students’ academic performance between the technology and non-technology classes. Test scores were analyzed in comparison with the exit tickets from those class periods. The questionnaires following the tests allowed students to voice their opinions and preferences in the class. The questionnaires were analyzed by grouping emerging themes relating to students’ opinions. 

The quantitative results of the study are summarized in the district-wide unit tests. During Unit 3, 3^rd Period used paper only and had a class average of 87.84 on the Unit 3 Test. 4^th Period used technology only during Unit 3 and had a class average of 86.83 on the Unit 3 Test. During Unit 4, 3^rd Period used technology only and had a class average of 76.45 on the Unit 4 Test. 4^th Period used paper only during Unit 4 and had a class average of 75.03 on the Unit 4 Test. Student performance is measured by test scores; however, student success is more encompassing than a score. When students are asked if they were successful or not, researchers get insight into their thoughts and feelings. During the paper unit, 52.1% of students felt more successful. They attributed this success to the benefits of physically writing their work and less potential for distraction. Students felt most challenged by the lack of a system for taking printed work home to review and study. Following the technology unit, 46.3% of students felt more successful. This success was because students felt that technology provided more access to resources in the classroom, and a greater ability to study outside of class. Students thought the greatest challenges of only using technology were the impact of the screen on the head and eyes and the potential to become distracted. 

Implications/Recommendations

Overall, the results are inconclusive. After collecting data, the students' test scores for the Unit 3 Test and the Unit 4 Test were compared and analyzed using an independent sample t-test. For the Unit 3 Test, there were no significant differences between the students using paper only (87.03土10.08) and the students using technology (86.66土9.02) (P=0.89). For the Unit 4 Test. There were no significant differences between the students using paper only (75.03土9.37) and the students using technology (76.45土9.46) (P=0.55). The use of or lack of technology does not show a change in students’ academic performance. Additionally, students collectively do not prefer one to another. These opinions of the students should be considered when planning, however, they do not seem to change the results of the performance in the classroom. Previous research showed that students working in an in-person environment did not necessarily perform better than students who engaged in activities online (Spencer & Temple, 2021). Student distraction was a key concern of parents in prior research (Maxwell et al., 2019), and while several students commented on how they felt more likely to be distracted when using technology, this did not seem to impact performance. Weaknesses of this study included the difference in content and length of the unit between Unit 3 and Unit 4 and all tests were taken in an online format. However, because there was no significant difference in students’ performance, I would recommend that this study be repeated with a focus on student engagement. 

Reference(s)

Maxwell, J., Kamp, J., & Cullen, T. (2021). Parent perceptions of technology use in K-12 classrooms. Slate Journal, 30(1), 1-13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1306218.pdf  

Spencer, D., & Temple, T. (2021). Examining students’ online course perceptions and comparing student performance outcomes in online and face-to-face classrooms. Online Learning, 25(2), 233-261. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2227  

Grammar-Based Teaching vs. Proficiency-Based Teaching

Primary Researchers
Faith Hollinrake, Intern, Baylor University
Reyes Lopez, Mentor Teacher, University High School, Waco ISD
Lee Anne Brannon, PhD, Intern Supervisor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

The topic of grammar-based teaching versus proficiency-based teaching caught my attention when I discovered that it has been a popular topic among the LOTE departments in many school districts. Traditionally, educators have taught foreign languages by requiring students to memorize grammar concepts and vocabulary; oftentimes, little of this education has included authentic activities, such as speaking practice. Therefore, students may complete foreign language courses with little to no ability to apply their knowledge to real-world situations. Upon doing preliminary research, I found that others have researched the effects of authentic activities in foreign language classes as well, such as Ildeniz Ozverir, Ulker Vanci Osam, and Jan Harrington (2016). In their article the authors explain that “learners can talk about grammar rules, while they usually fail to use their knowledge for real communicative purposes” (p. 261). As educators become more aware of students’ needs, it is crucial that they gain an understanding of which teaching method yields success.  

Question/Wondering

How does proficiency-based teaching compare with traditional grammar-based teaching with regards to students’ resultant language abilities?

Methodology/Results

When conducting research, I used two methods of data collection: surveys and personal observations. Both yielded fascinating results. It is worth noting that while I strongly encouraged students to respond to the surveys, I did not require participation; therefore, the results may not represent the opinions of all students. The first survey I sent to my students asked questions about the activities they had participated in during class the previous week, all of which aligned with traditional methods of language learning, such as vocabulary memorization. Forty-three students responded to this survey. According to the results, 86% of students felt that the activities from the week helped them to understand and memorize the vocabulary words. A small percentage (approximately 14%) of students felt that the activities were not helpful with regards to vocabulary memorization. When asked which activity they found to be the most helpful, 60.5% selected Quizlet, a website that includes virtual flashcards and memorization games. Very few (7%) of the students found the Quizlet to be unhelpful. Students cited reasons such as Quizlet’s features, which are designed to make memorization “quick and easy,” as described by one student. The last question of the survey asked what types of activities students would like to participate in during future lessons, which resulted in replies such as “something where it involves everyone,” “a partner project,” and “work with the person in front of us.” Additionally, I received many requests for games in future lessons. 

The next week, I sent the students another survey about recent class-related activities. I received thirty-four responses for this survey. The activities they had done featured a lecture on the Spanish future tense, a fill-in-the-blank worksheet, and speaking practice with classmates. Once again, the majority of students (91.1%) felt that these activities helped them understand and be able to use the future tense in Spanish. A small percentage (8.8%) did not feel this way.  According to the results, most students (47.1%) found the worksheet to be the most effective, while a mere 14.7% found the speaking activity to be the most effective. Students explained that they liked the worksheet because they could see “how the tense is being used on paper” and could understand it better. The speaking activity proved to be largely unsuccessful because many students did not participate due to shyness or lack of motivation. My personal observations reflected these results; my observation sheet includes notes such as “people are confused and shy.” However, during my observation, I calculated that the students were on task approximately 90% of the time. According to my notes, engagement and participation improved once students became accustomed to the activity, which involved speaking to a partner about a given topic and then rotating to speak with a new partner. 

Following this set of lessons, I designed a stations activity. The five stations consisted of matching given Spanish sentences with their English translations, fill-in-the-blanks utilizing recently-learned vocabulary, translating a set of given sentences by writing them on paper, speaking practice in small groups, and studying vocabulary via Quizlet. Afterward, I gave students the final survey, which thirty-seven of them completed. Most students (81.1%) felt that the stations activity helped them understand and be able to use the future tense in Spanish. By contrast, 18.9% did not share this sentiment. The majority (37.8%) believed that the vocabulary fill-in-the-blank station was the most helpful to their learning; only 2.7% said the same regarding the group speaking practice. Upon reading through students’ responses, it appears that they responded favorably to the fill-in-the-blank because it was easy; the reasons the students disliked the speaking activity were more varied. Some complaints included: some students were already fluent in Spanish, thus rendering the activity unhelpful; the activity was too difficult; students were limited to utilizing sentence starters and specific vocabulary words; it was too “fast paced.” However, it is worth noting that over a quarter (approximately 27%) of students said that, generally, speaking activities do help them learn and understand Spanish. 

Aside from the survey results, it is necessary to review the notes I made during my personal observations. While observing different classes, I paid attention to and noted whether students were engaged in a given activity. Afterward, I calculated how much time students spent being actively engaged. Due to the many requests I received regarding the inclusion of games in class, I acquiesced and planned a day for students to participate in Quizlet Live. During this game, a vocabulary word appears on the screen of students’ devices, and they must select the correct translation. Overall, the results were favorable, considering that students were engaged approximately 95% of the time; the only negative note I made was that some students were “engaged at first, then lost interest.” 

I completed another observation during students’ independent work time, during which they worked on their fill-in-the-blank future tense worksheet. While many students responded to the survey saying that this was one of the best activities for learning, my personal observation indicated otherwise. According to my calculations, students were only engaged and on task about 67% of the time, a significantly low percentage when compared with other activities. 

The last activity I actively observed was the first speaking activity. As previously mentioned, many students did not participate at first, owing to shyness or a lack of understanding about the expectations of the activity. While one may expect that this would imply low engagement levels, the results proved otherwise. As students adjusted to the procedure of the activity, they spoke more and with higher levels of confidence; my calculations show that students were engaged and active in the activity approximately 90% of the time. Considering many students gave negative reviews to this activity, this percentage is quite high.   

Implications/Recommendations

Moving forward, I believe some improvements could be made to the methods of data collection as well as the activities I executed. Concerning the data collection, I could have made the instructions of the survey clearer to the students. Due to the fact that the survey results sometimes differed from the results of my personal observations, I suspect that students answered the survey questions based on which activities they enjoyed rather than which ones had the most successful effect on their learning. On the other hand, I recognize that the activities, particularly the speaking ones, could have been better executed. First of all, I found that students participated and appeared to be more comfortable in small groups compared with speaking with a single partner. Additionally, during the small group speaking activity, I acted as facilitator for each group, which may have dissipated some of my students’ self-consciousness or stress. One complaint that I found to be informative and valid is that students felt limited by the sentence starters sheet they had to reference during the conversation. In short, I believe that future activities could yield better results if there is a facilitator, students are grouped instead of partnered, and there is more freedom to discuss various topics. 

Reference(s)

Ozverir, I., Osam, U. V., & Harrington, J. (2017). “Investigating the effects of authentic activities on foreign language learning: A design-based research approach.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20 (4), 261–74. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26229222.

What’s more engaging? Parallel Teaching or Team Teaching?

Primary Researchers
Mallory Keehn, Intern, Baylor University
Kenneth Maedgen, BS Ed, Mentor Teacher, La Vega Junior High, La Vega ISD
Dr. Rachelle Rogers, Ed.D., Clinical Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

In September 2023, my 8th grade math classes experienced parallel teaching for the first time, with a noticeable positive difference in engagement compared to a typical class day of one teach, one observe. Parallel teaching involves each teacher instructing half the class. They address the same instructional material and present using the same teaching strategies. Parallel teaching, “Allows for small group instruction, which can be especially helpful for students who learn and think differently,” (Morin, 2023). This produced a desire to learn more about the parallel teaching strategy. Is parallel teaching the most engaging co-teaching strategy? How does it compare to other co-teaching strategies such as team teaching? In September 2023, the 8th graders were given a team-taught lesson. When team teaching, both teachers are actively involved in the flow of the lesson. There is no clear defined leader as the teachers share the instruction. Team teaching provided students with a new sense of direction and pace throughout the class period. The team-taught lesson appeared to be more inclusive, as it appealed to all students, and maintained high engagement. It seemed that both parallel and team teaching promoted higher levels of student engagement, but was one better than the other? This study was designed to further analyze both styles of co-teaching in the classroom and study the effects on student engagement levels.

Question/Wondering

How does parallel teaching compare to team teaching affect student engagement in a mathematics classroom?

Methodology/Results

A total of 29 8^th grade students from two class periods from La Vega Junior High participated in the study. The first class, 5th period, was an on-grade level pre-algebra class of 14 students. The class consisted of 9 male and 5 female students from different races: 7 African American, 6 Hispanic, and 1 Caucasian. The classroom atmosphere is generally talkative, and students often have difficulty completing assignments. The second class, 8th period, is an honors-level pre-algebra class with 15 students. The eighth period consists of 7 male and 8 female students from different races: 1 African American, 8 Hispanic, 1 Asian, and 5 Caucasian. A typical day in the 8th period class consists of students engaged and eager to learn, but occasional problems with excessive talking can arise. 

Research was to begin in late October. Each week, a day was designated for collecting data for parallel teaching, and another day for team teaching. Data was collected over 3 weeks. Three forms of data were gathered for this study. The first was a student pre-survey given in October 2023 to gain more knowledge on how students felt about math class in general. A student engagement survey provided by the Baylor School of Education was utilized. Finally, anecdotal notes were used to gain more knowledge on student engagement for parallel teaching, team teaching, and a typical day of one teach, one observe. Data from the student pre-surveys, engagement surveys, and anecdotal notes were triangulated and analyzed. Both classes were observed separately, and their results were compared later. 

Students took their pre-surveys, consisting of 9 questions, on October 25, 2023. The first 5 questions followed a Likert Scale, where students ranked their responses on a scale of 1-5, 1 being disagree, 3 neutral, and 5 agree. The first 2 questions were, “I believe I am good at Math,” and, “I enjoy coming to Math class.” In the 5th period class, only 36% of students believed they were good at math; however, 48% enjoyed coming to class. In the 8th period honors class, 53% of students believed they were good at Math and 66.6% enjoyed coming to class. When asked if they believed they tried their hardest, 57% of 5th period, and 60% of 8th period students agreed. The fourth question asked students if it was easy to pay attention in Math. 65% of 5th period and 60% of 8th period students indicated paying attention in mathematics was easy. The final two Likert scale questions asked students if they believed their teachers cared about their learning, and if they cared about their learning. In both classes, 100% of students agreed that their teachers cared about their learning, and 65% of 5th period, and 87% of 8th period honors students agreed that they cared about their learning. The last section of the pre-survey included 3 free-response questions that provided personal insight into the students' opinions. The first question asked what students enjoyed in Math class. Many students wrote that they enjoyed the activities and the problems they got to solve. Secondly, students were asked if they had any struggles in Math. Many students in both classes mentioned that they struggled to pay attention, some 5th period students went into more detail about their struggles, and some 8th period honors students claimed they did not struggle at all. Finally, students were asked to list ways their teachers could make the class more enjoyable. The most common response given was to include more math games and activities in the lessons. The second most common responses were, “I don’t know,” or, “Class is already enjoyable.” Overall, the pre-survey gave a good overview of how students felt about math class in general before any research was done. The pre-surveys also included improvements students would like to see to increase engagement. While the survey may not connect directly to parallel or team teaching, it was a crucial part of the study as it allowed the researcher to gain knowledge of initial student engagement to form a foundation for the research to build on.

A student engagement survey was implemented during 5th period while team teaching was utilized. Six students were studied throughout the class period. In summary, Students A and B struggled to pay attention, and often became a distraction to others, despite who was teaching. Student C was very disengaged and slept most of class even when asked to wake up and participate. Students D and E remained very engaged throughout the whole class. Finally, Student F is known to be easily distracted by Students A and B but was also able to stay engaged throughout most of class. Anecdotal notes were taken during a different team-teaching lesson in 5th period, and very similar behaviors were noticed. These actions did not vary from how these six students typically acted in class. Team-teaching showed no change in student engagement during 5th period. Anecdotal notes were also used to observe how 8th period honors students engaged with team-teaching. In general, the 8th period became distracted at times but was easily redirected back to their work. There were minimal transitional issues as the two teachers swapped places. Students volunteered to answer questions and assist in problem-solving. Overall, the honors students seemed engaged in the team-teaching lesson, and they remained engaged as they completed their independent work. 

When studying parallel teaching, there was only one documented day due to scheduling conflicts. Anecdotal notes were used in both 5th and 8th periods to examine student engagement. 5th period initially had difficulties adjusting to the change in classroom set-up. It took several minutes to get everyone settled. Class began with an intro problem that helped everyone focus. Once the parallel teaching began, the class ran much smoother. Having the class split, stopped the unwanted behaviors from arising. Since students were in a smaller group setting, it was easier for the teachers to work one-on-one with them. Ultimately, parallel teaching made for a much more engaging environment in the 5th period, with fewer distractions, and students were also able to gain a better connection to the content. As for the 8th period, some were talking at first, but the students were easily redirected. However, as class went on, some students became more focused on the other group acting as if it were a race to finish class for the day. As an honors class, results on student engagement were very similar to the 5th period. 

Implications/Recommendations

This study found that parallel-teaching and team-teaching do not show significant differences in student engagement. In both cases, engagement levels were very similar to the classroom norms. However, a significant weakness of this study was the time constraint. Ultimately what seemed to engage students more was not the co-teaching method, but the quality of the lesson activities. This raises the question of whether lesson activities or co-teaching strategies such as parallel and team-teaching engage students more. To have more conclusive results, this study should be repeated for a longer length of time.

Reference(s)

Morin, A. (2023). 6 co-teaching models. Understood. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/6-models-of-co-teaching#:~:text=In%20parallel%20teaching%2C%20the%20team,material%20in%20a%20smaller%20group.

Enhancing Equitabilitiy in the Classroom:
Exploring the Impact of Fidget Tools on Student Engagement and Outbursts

Primary Researchers
Lela Kimball, Intern, Baylor University
John Pedrotti, Mentor Teacher, La Vega High School, La Vega ISD
Justina Ogodo, Ph.D., Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

In today's diverse educational landscape, the importance of addressing the unique learning needs of individual students cannot be overstated, particularly for those facing attention-related challenges such as ADHD. Students in low socioeconomic status (SES) environments are often at a higher risk of encountering academic and behavioral difficulties due to various socioeconomic factors, including limited access to resources, inadequate support systems, and increased exposure to stressors outside the classroom. Within such environments, traditional teaching methods may prove insufficient in fully engaging and supporting students, potentially making existing inequalities or differences worse in academic achievement and perpetuating cycles of underachievement. As an aspiring educator, recognizing the critical role of intervention in mitigating these challenges, I embarked on this research project to explore the effectiveness of implementing a fidget toy in enhancing the classroom experience for students with ADHD in an at-risk, low SES environment. By addressing the specific needs of students with attention-related difficulties within the context of a disadvantaged socioeconomic setting, this study aims to contribute valuable insights into practical strategies for promoting equity and inclusivity in education. Moreover, by focusing on interventions tailored to the unique needs of students in low SES environments, educators can play a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of academic underachievement and fostering a more equitable and supportive learning environment for all students.

Question/Wondering

The central question guiding this research is: How can educators create a more equitable classroom environment to effectively support the diverse learning needs of all students? Specifically, how does the implementation of a fidget toy intervention influence the engagement, behavior, and academic performance of a single 11th-grade physics student diagnosed with ADHD? These questions stem from a profound interest in understanding how classroom accommodations, such as fidget toys, can contribute to fostering inclusivity and meeting the unique needs of students with attention-related challenges. By focusing on the experiences of one student within the broader context of equitable education, this study aims to uncover insights into effective strategies for promoting student engagement and success in the classroom. Through a comprehensive exploration of the student's interactions with the fidget toy intervention, the research seeks to provide valuable guidance for educators seeking to create supportive learning environments that accommodate diverse learning profiles.

Methodology/Results

This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyze data. The targeted student was an 11th-grade physics student identified as having ADHD, aged 16, male, Hispanic, from a low SES background, and classified as low achieving. These demographic characteristics were considered significant factors in understanding the student's learning needs and potential challenges within the classroom setting. The student's ADHD diagnosis indicated potential difficulties with attention regulation, impulse control, and sustained focus, which are commonly associated with this condition. Additionally, factors such as being male, Hispanic, and from a low SES background may contribute to unique contextual influences on the student's educational experiences and academic performance. Understanding the intersectionality of these characteristics was essential for designing and implementing appropriate interventions tailored to the student's individual needs and circumstances. 

Over three days, data were collected to assess the impact of a fidget toy intervention on the student's classroom experience. Baseline data on the student's engagement and behavior were gathered before the intervention, followed by the implementation of the intervention on the second day during testing, and then the use of the intervention during collaborative group work. Throughout the study, observations were conducted to assess the frequency and duration of the student's fidget toy usage, as well as its impact on their engagement and behavior.

The results of the study revealed significant improvements in the student's on-task engagement after the introduction of the fidget toy intervention. Before the intervention, the student's level of on-task engagement hovered around 60%, indicating a moderate level of focus during classroom activities. However, upon the implementation of the fidget toy intervention, there was a discernible surge in the student's on-task engagement, with post-intervention data demonstrating a substantial increase to an impressive range of 90-95%. This substantial improvement strongly suggests a significant enhancement in the student's ability to maintain focus and attention throughout various classroom tasks and discussions.

Furthermore, qualitative insights garnered from a post-intervention interview provided invaluable depth to these quantitative findings. The student's feedback revealed a profound appreciation for the fidget toy intervention, highlighting its positive impact on various aspects of their classroom experience. Specifically, the student articulated notable improvements in focus, describing how the fidget toy helped them channel their attention more effectively toward academic tasks. Moreover, the student noted enhanced impulse management, indicating a newfound ability to regulate impulsive behaviors and maintain composure during classroom interactions. This qualitative feedback not only corroborates the quantitative data on improved engagement but also underscores the broader benefits of the fidget toy intervention in fostering a conducive learning environment and enhancing the overall classroom experience for the student.

Additionally, a significant reduction in student outbursts was observed following the implementation of the fidget toy intervention. Before the intervention, the student exhibited sporadic outbursts, disrupting the classroom environment, and detracting from the learning experience. However, post-intervention data revealed a notable decrease in such occurrences, indicating a positive shift in the student's behavior and emotional regulation. This reduction in outbursts further underscores the effectiveness of the fidget toy intervention in promoting self-regulation and mitigating disruptive behaviors, ultimately contributing to a more harmonious and productive learning environment for both the student and their peers.

Implications/Recommendations

The findings of this study have several implications for educators and practitioners working with students with attention-related challenges. Firstly, the significant increase in the student's on-task engagement underscores the potential effectiveness of fidget toy interventions in enhancing student focus and participation in the classroom. Educators are encouraged to consider implementing such interventions as part of a comprehensive approach to supporting students with ADHD and similar attention-related difficulties. Moreover, the qualitative insights from the student's interview emphasize the importance of incorporating student feedback into the design and implementation of classroom accommodations and supports. By actively involving students in the decision-making process, educators can better understand their individual needs and preferences, thereby fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure the effectiveness of interventions for students with attention-related challenges. Educators should regularly assess the impact of interventions on student engagement, behavior, and academic performance, adjusting as needed to meet the evolving needs of students.

The literature surrounding interventions for students with attention-related challenges offers valuable insights into effective strategies for promoting engagement and academic success. Alzahrani (2021) emphasizes the importance of flexible seating arrangements in creating inclusive learning environments, while Aspiranti and Hulac (2022) highlight the efficacy of fidget toys in improving on-task behavior among students with ADHD. Additionally, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2016) advocate for individualized accommodations and ongoing support for students with ADHD, emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches that address both academic and behavioral needs. By synthesizing insights from these studies, educators can develop evidence-based strategies tailored to meet the diverse needs of students with attention-related challenges, fostering a supportive and inclusive learning environment.

Incorporating insights from this study, educators can work towards creating dynamic and inclusive learning environments that promote the engagement and success of all students, regardless of their background or learning profile.

Reference(s)

Alzahrani, A. "Applying Flexible Seating in the Classroom to Enhance Learning." Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, vol. 20, no. 2, 2021.

Aspiranti, K.B., and Hulac, D.M. "Using Fidget Spinners to Improve On-Task Classroom Behavior for Students With ADHD." Behavior Analysis Practice, vol. 15, 2022, pp. 454–465.

Stoutjesdijk, R., Scholte, E. M., and Swaab, H. "Behavioral and Academic Progress of Children Displaying Substantive ADHD Behaviors in Special Education: A 1-Year Follow-up." Journal of Attention Disorders, vol. 20, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21-33.

The Effects of La Vega’s Cell Phone Policy According to Students and Teachers

Primary Researchers
Kendall May, Intern, Baylor University
Christine Black, MA, Mentor Teacher, La Vega High School, La Vega ISD
Neil Shanks, PhD, Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

This school year, La Vega ISD has implemented a new policy regarding the use of cell phones by students in the classroom. Students are given a special pouch that is magnetically sealed at the start of the day when they arrive at school, and they are not allowed to open the pouch until they leave school for the day. Cell phones have been a point of conflict between students and teachers due to the distractions provided by their presence; however, some teachers also included cell phones effectively in their instruction in their classroom. By studying how teachers and students perceive the effect of this policy in the classroom, I will be able to present information on how teachers view the policy, discern how I would enact cell phone policy in my classroom, and offer perspectives to administrators on the effectiveness of such a policy. 

Question/Wondering

How do students and teachers perceive the effects of the new cell phone policy at La Vega High School?

Methodology/Results

In this study, I used a quantitative Likert scale to gather data about student and teacher perceptions regarding the effects of the cell phone policy in the classroom as well as short response questions allowing for students and teachers to provide open ended answers about their honest opinions on the cell phone policy. This method most effectively measures how teachers and students perceive the effectiveness of the cellphone policy by allowing them to assign a numeric value to the impact of the cell phone policy. I began by asking a list of questions to both students and teachers that were closely related to one another with the language changed to fit the receiver of the questions. The first set of questions were all meant to be answered about the schooling experience before the cell phone policy was enacted. Then I repeated the same questions but asked the respondents to answer based on after the cell phone policy was enacted. After the Likert scale section I asked a few short response questions for teachers and students to be able to explain their thoughts in a more board way. This allowed me to better understand their perception of the effects of the cell phone policy by studying their explained experiences. The conclusion of the study confirmed my initial thoughts that students and teachers both generally disagreed with the effects of the cell phone policy. There seems to be a disconnect between students and teachers regarding the effectiveness of the cell phone policy.

Implications/Recommendations

This study will affect my instructional practices as I wager the effect of using cell phones in the classroom, by learning from other teacher’s perspectives and honest student feedback on how the policy affects their work and lives in the classroom. The strengths of this study were the large sample size of students and teachers that participated in the survey. If I could redo one thing, I would choose to interview a few students and teachers about their experiences. 

Reference(s)

Thomas, Kevin M., Blanche W. O’Bannon, and Natalie Bolton. “Cell Phones in the Classroom: Teachers’ Perspectives of Inclusion, Benefits, and Barriers.” Computers in the schools 30, no. 4 (2013): 295–308.

The Impact of Setting Content-Specific Goals on Student Motivation and Performance 

Primary Researchers
Flynn Moter, Intern, Baylor University
Julie Cervantes, Mentor Teacher, Midway Middle School, Midway ISD
Lee Anne Brannon, PhD, Intern Supervisor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

The purpose of this study was to see if there is a relationship between setting content-specific goals and student performance and motivation in the classroom. I first became interested in the role of setting goals in the classroom through an experience I had in one of my Lifetime Fitness classes at Baylor. In Beginning Ballet, the instructor had us each write three personal goals about what we wanted to get out of the class. Even though I was already interested in the material, these goals helped me focus my attention and gave me a clearer idea of the areas in which I wanted to see improvement. I wanted to see if setting goals had a similar effect in an eighth-grade Spanish I classroom. The beginning of this project coincided with the dip in motivation that students tend to experience after Winter Break, and I wondered if setting goals would help combat this lack of motivation by giving students a feeling of personal investment in the class.

Question/Wondering

The questions that guided this project were: What impact does goal setting have on student achievement in Spanish class? What impact does it have on student motivation in Spanish class? I collected both qualitative and quantitative data to answer these questions.

Methodology/Results

At the end of January, I had the students in each of our class sections fill out a Google form. One hundred and forty-six students completed the form. They were asked questions about their motivation in Spanish class during the first semester, their motivation level in Spanish class during the second semester up to that point, their reasons for taking the class, what made them feel most and least motivated, and a few other demographic questions, such as their Spanish-speaking background. After they filled out the survey, I gave a brief explanation of the nature of the action research project and walked them through the process of setting two goals – one goal was supposed to focus on continuing to develop an area in which the student already felt confident, and the other was supposed to focus on developing greater competence in an area in which the student struggled. I used a Google Slides presentation, and they followed along and completed their goals on a worksheet that they turned in at the end of class. I broke the goal setting process into three main steps, with each step building on the one before it, loosely based on the procedure recommended by Estrapala and Reed (2020). I also gave them ideas of areas of language acquisition to consider as they brainstormed, based on my own experience with language classes and on the areas mentioned throughout the article by Mikulski (2006). I had them set a specific type of goal called a mastery goal, which is distinguished from other kinds of goals in the article by Guan et al. (2020). Mastery goals are focused on developing competence and increasing understanding in a particular area, which seemed to best fit the purpose of the goals in the context of the Spanish classroom. The goals were designed with the time in between class activities in mind, as this was the time I wanted the students to utilize when working toward their goals. After about seven weeks, the students were asked to fill out another survey that included follow-up questions designed to see whether or not the students’ motivation had changed and whether or not the goals they set influenced that change. There was also a section of questions that had students make evaluations about their progress toward their individual goals as well as about any actions or other factors that would have helped them better achieve their goals. One hundred and thirty-four students completed this form. In the weeks between the two surveys, I occasionally provided reminders at the beginning of class for students to use the time in between activities to work on their goals. 

I analyzed the results of the two surveys as well as the students’ grades from the first and second six weeks and the fourth and fifth six weeks. I made various comparisons among the different components of the surveys to look for any relationships between the variables. For the grades, I looked at the differences between the average grades of the first two six weeks and the average grades of the fourth and fifth six weeks. 

There were two particularly noteworthy results from the first survey. It showed that the most common motivation for taking the class was the high school credit, with 122 students citing this as at least one of their motivators and twenty-seven students citing this as their only motivator. The other factors were, in decreasing order of popularity, wanting to learn Spanish for the first time, future job opportunities, being able to communicate with others (not family), being able to communicate with family members, wanting to learn more about Spanish, future travel opportunities, and other reasons (responses varied). Additionally, the survey showed an overall decrease in reported motivation levels between the fall semester and the spring semester, as seen by the increase in the number of students who chose one of the lower numbers on the five-point motivation scale where one stood for “not motivated at all” and five stood for “very motivated.” 

When looking at the results of the second survey, I used the responses of one particular question to guide the way I analyzed the answers to the other questions. When asked if setting goals for Spanish class at the beginning of the semester increased their motivation in the class, 74 students answered “yes,” 57 students answered “no,” and three students left the question blank. I analyzed the answers to other questions in the survey in two separate categories: one including the students who answered “yes,” and the other including the students who answered “no.” When asked to rate their motivation level in the class during the spring semester, the students who answered “yes” made up most of the reported fours and fives on the five-point motivation scale, while those who answered “no” made up most of the reported ones, twos, and threes. There were responses for each number from both “yes” and “no” students, but the students who reported an increase in motivation after setting goals reported higher levels of motivation in general. Similarly, when asked to report how much their motivation increased after setting the goals, the students who answered “yes” made up the majority of those who reported that their motivation increased “somewhat” or “a lot,” while the students who answered “no” made up the vast majority of those who answered “not at all.” Finally, when asked if they felt that they made progress toward their goals, 93.5% of the students who said that setting goals increased their motivation reported making progress, while 48.2% of those who found that setting goals did not increase their motivation reported making progress.

With regard to analyzing students’ grades, there was a decrease of about 5.09 points between the average of the first and second six weeks (90.45) and the average of the fourth and fifth six weeks (85.36). Of the 72 students who answered “yes” to the motivation increase question whose grades were usable (two had to be disregarded because the student’s grades were incomplete or because the student’s identity could not be confirmed), there was an average decrease of 3.75 points per person, while the 56 students who answered “no” had an average decrease of 6.01 points per person. Thus, even though both groups of students showed an average decrease in grades, the students who answered “no” had a larger average decrease than those who answered “yes.”

Implications/Recommendations

Though there is little prior research related to the effects of setting content-specific goals in middle school academic classes, these findings show that it could be a promising method of increasing student motivation and performance in the classroom during a time of year when motivation typically wanes. This is something that should be further explored. Goal setting is something I would like to continue to implement in my classroom in the future, though there are a few things I would change when doing this activity again. If possible, I would dedicate more time to going through the process of setting the goals. I would also clarify some of the language on the worksheet that proved to be confusing and had to be further explained. Finally, I would provide more frequent reminders for students to work toward their goals as well as more opportunities for self-evaluation along the way.

There are a few factors that could have influenced the results of this research project unexpectedly. Due to time constraints, I could not wait until the end of the fifth six weeks to record student grades; therefore, the average of the grades for the fourth and fifth six weeks is actually an average of the fourth six weeks and the first half of the fifth six weeks. This may have influenced the differences in grade averages. Additionally, for a variety of reasons, not every individual was able to complete all three components of the study (the first survey, the goal worksheet, and the final survey). I used the data I had for each section when analyzing, but the results may have been influenced by who did or did not complete each component.

Reference(s)

Estrapala, S., & Reed, D. K. (2020). Goal-setting instruction: A step-by-step guide for high school students.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(5), 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219881717

Guan, J., Xiang, P., Keating, X. D., & Land, W. M. (2020). Junior high school students’ achievement goals, social goals, and self-reported persistence in physical education settings. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19846912

Mikulski, A. M. (2006). Accent-uating rules and relationships: Motivations, attitudes, and goals in a Spanish for native speakers class. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 660–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02282.x

Optimizing Student Focus and Behavior: Natural Elements in Classroom Environments

Primary Researchers
Rachel Nabors, Intern, Baylor University
Rachel Stolle, Mentor Teacher, La Vega High School, La Vega ISD
Justina Ogodo, Ph.D., Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction:

As educators, we can shape students' intellects and influence the settings in which learning unfolds. The physical setting of a classroom, encompassing elements such as lighting, layout, and decor, plays a crucial role in influencing student behavior and focus. In my research, I delve into the significance of these environmental factors and their impact on the overall learning experience, drawing upon empirical research and insights gleaned from practical investigations. The rationale behind my inquiry stems from the recognition that intentional manipulation of classroom elements can yield profound effects on student engagement and academic performance. By investigating how educators can optimize these elements to foster optimal behavior and focus among students, I aim to provide valuable insights that can inform teaching practices and classroom design strategies.

Question/Wondering:

As an educator deeply committed to the success and well-being of my students, I've always been fascinated by the multifaceted nature of the learning environment and its impact on student outcomes. Throughout my experience as a teacher assistant and intern, one of the biggest differences I noticed between my two experiences is the physical environment of both classrooms. Therefore, when brainstorming what I wanted to do for my action research, I wanted to know the why behind Mrs. Stolle’s classroom design and the effects it has had on her student's success in her classroom. Recognizing the potential of the physical classroom environment to shape student behavior and focus, I am intrigued by the idea of intentionally manipulating elements such as lighting, layout, and decor to create an environment that maximizes student engagement and learning. Hence, my wondering question arises: How can teachers intentionally manipulate elements of the physical classroom environment, such as lighting, layout, and decor, to foster optimal student behavior and focus, ultimately enhancing the overall learning experience? By exploring this question, I hope to uncover effective strategies that empower educators to design classrooms that not only facilitate academic achievement but also cultivate positive behaviors and attitudes toward learning. Ultimately, my interest in this matter stems from a desire to create learning environments that nurture the holistic development of each student, fostering a love for learning that extends far beyond the classroom walls.

Methodology/Results:

I collected three types of data to help achieve the overall objectives and goals of my research: empirical data through student behavior logs, quantitative data through formal assessments using Google Forms exit tickets, and qualitative data through post-experiment surveys.

When selecting a class for the study, there were different criteria considered. The class had to be scheduled when no other classes were in session in classroom 2 to minimize external influences. Additionally, students from the selected class needed an average testing data score to ensure the accuracy of reflections on how changes in the classroom environment may affect their performance. Furthermore, the class had to exhibit a mixture of on-task and off-task behavior to accurately assess the impact of different classroom environments on student attention and engagement. The chosen class for the study was the 8th-period class, comprising 22 students, including 13 boys and 9 girls. The class was one of my 9th-grade Biology classes, with a class average of 75% on testing data. Demographically, the class consisted of 11 Hispanic, 8 African American, and 3 White students, with one student under a 504 plan, one under Special Education (SPED), and four English Language Learners (ELL). 

In analyzing the quantitative data collected through exit tickets via Google Forms, consistent trends emerged regarding student performance and behavior across the two classrooms. While I utilized similar instructional approaches in both classes, the differences in the physical environment had notable effects on student focus and behavior. When comparing the focus of students in Classroom 1 and Classroom 2, it was evident that Classroom 1 yielded higher performance percentages of correct answers, with 73.3% and 61.5% for question one. Although Classroom 2 saw slight improvements for questions two and three, the overall grade average revealed a significant difference. Classroom 1 obtained an overall grade average of 72.2%, while Classroom 2 received 68.8%, indicating a 4.7% decrease in performance upon transitioning between classrooms. This decline supports the hypothesis that students' ability to stay focused to retain instructional knowledge suffers in environments lacking engagement and excitement. 

Moreover, behavioral logs unveiled extreme differences in off-task behavior between the two classrooms. Classroom 2 experienced a shocking 116.6% increase in off-task behavior compared to Classroom 1, highlighting the importance of fostering a positive classroom culture that cultivates exemplary student conduct and reinforces positive behavior. 

Lastly, qualitative data from student reflections provided validation of the quantitative findings. For example, students expressed preferences in color used in the classroom and collaborative seating, emphasizing their positive impact on focus and comfort. Comments such as "the color and the way we can talk to each other" and "Mrs. Stolle's classroom makes me feel more focused" echoed the correlation between the physical environment and student experience in the classroom. In conclusion, integrating quantitative and qualitative data supported my original hypothesis and highlighted the importance of attending to physical classroom elements. Teachers must never overlook the power of crafting a classroom environment conducive to student engagement, ultimately influencing behavior and academic achievement.

Implications/Recommendations:

The findings of this research, coupled with evidence from empirical studies, highlighted the importance of optimizing the physical classroom environment to enhance student engagement and academic achievement. Research studies, such as "The Impact of Classroom Design on Pupils' Learning: Final Results of a Holistic, Multilevel Analysis," have demonstrated the significant effect of color on cognitive performance and mood regulation. Specifically, colors like green and blue have proven to have a calming effect on students, promoting focus and relaxation (Barrett, 2015). Additionally, investigations into the effects of lighting in educational settings have revealed that natural and softer lighting sources, such as fairy lights and lamps, can create a conducive learning environment. Barrett's research further emphasizes the role of lighting in reducing stress and promoting well-being in educational spaces (Burrett, 2015). Moreover, research from articles like “Designing Classrooms to Maximize Student Achievement” emphasizes the importance of having fun and culturally relevant classroom decorations to enhance students' sense of belonging and academic motivation. These decorations, including posters and displays representing diverse cultures, backgrounds, and student interests, have positively impacted student engagement and academic outcomes (Sapna, 2014). Additionally, research conducted by A.F. Koç in “Designing Classrooms to Maximize Student Achievement,” has demonstrated how collaborative flexible seating arrangements can promote focus and active learning, leading to improved academic outcomes (Koç, 2020). Therefore, educators and policymakers should consider integrating these evidence-based strategies into their practices to create learning environments that foster positive student behavior, engagement, and academic success.

Reference(s):

Barrett, Peter, et al. "The Impact of Classroom Design on Pupils' Learning: Final Results of a Holistic, Multi-level Analysis." Building and Environment, vol. 89, 2015, pp. 118-133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013. Accessed 23 Mar. 2024.

Cheryan, Sapna et al. “Designing Classrooms to Maximize Student Achievement.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (2014): 12 - 4.

Koç, A. F. (2020). The Effects of Classroom Environment on Student Learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(1), 111-121. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1304613.pdf

Vertical vs Non Vertical Boards

Primary Researchers
Claire Nance Intern, Baylor University
Rachel Rudloff Mentor Teacher, Robinson Intermediate School, Robinson ISD
Rachelle Rogers, Ed.D., Clinical Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

The study explores the impact of Building Thinking Classrooms (BTC) utilizing vertical boards on student academic performance, aiming to contribute to discussions on effective teaching methods. This inquiry is significant in education as BTC is increasingly adopted in classrooms, understanding its effects on student learning outcomes. Through the research, there's a focus on optimizing instructional strategies to enhance academic results and student engagement in their classrooms. Peter Liljedahl's "Building Thinking Classrooms" model emphasizes the importance of vertical non-permanent surfaces for promoting collaborative problem-solving and student engagement (Liljedahl, 2017). Liljedahl claims that groups working on vertical whiteboards exhibit more productive classroom behaviors and provide support for the potential for BTC to transform traditional teaching methods and cultivate a culture of deep thinking in classrooms. This inquiry is significant for educators as it addresses the need to optimize instructional strategies, foster improved academic outcomes, and create engaging learning environments through innovative classroom designs.

Question/Wondering

In what ways does Building Thinking Classrooms, through the use of vertical boards, affect students’ academic performance?

Methodology/Results
The study involved forty 6th-grade advanced math students, ensuring gender balance and diverse ethnic representation to understand teaching strategies' impact across demographic groups. Data collection was comprised of formative and summative assessments, including real-time observations in two different classrooms as well as test and quizzes. More specifically, the researcher gathered observational notes in one classroom with the use of vertical boards and one classroom without vertical boards. Data analysis combined quantitative and qualitative methods, comparing assessments and observations between the two classrooms to determine differences in student engagement and academic performance. 

The classroom with vertical boards saw greater student participation and discussion compared to the classroom without. Results indicated that vertical boards helped increase student engagement and discussion, empowering students to actively take charge of their learning experiences. Despite similar academic grades, students in vertical board classrooms demonstrated more dynamic and interactive learning and accommodated diverse learning styles. These findings emphasize the importance of innovative classroom tools like vertical boards in enhancing student participation and collaboration. Incorporating vertical boards empowered students to take charge of their learning experiences and stimulated their engagement. Despite similar academic grades, students in vertical board classrooms showed dynamic problem-solving and reasoning skills. The tactile nature of vertical boards accommodated various learning styles, fostering more student engagement in the classroom, and benefiting students with diverse preferences. This approach aimed to establish a clear connection between instructional methods, collected data, and academic outcomes, providing insights into the effectiveness of Building Thinking Classrooms in 6th-grade mathematics education.

Implications/Recommendations
This study highlights the effectiveness of vertical boards in enhancing student engagement in 6th grade math classrooms. Despite similar academic performance, classrooms with vertical boards saw increased participation and collaboration among students, promoting peer-to-peer teaching and collaborative problem-solving. The research findings support the claim that vertical boards enrich classroom discourse and empower students to take ownership of their learning experiences (Lijiedahl, 2021). The results support the notion that vertical boards facilitate student collaboration and discourse, enriching the overall learning experience in mathematics. Strengths of the study include the comparison of two similar classrooms learning the same material with and without vertical boards. Weaknesses include the short observation period and the use of anecdotal data to measure student engagement. While this study has limitations, the researcher recommends the use of vertical boards to support student collaboration, problem-solving, mathematical discourse, and engagement. Future research should explore how various instructional approaches to using vertical boards in Building Thinking Classrooms might affect students’ academic performance. 

Reference(s)

Lijiedahl, P. (2021, November 11). Vertical non-permanent surfaces and Mini White Boards.      

https://saskmath.ca/vertical-non-permanent-surfaces-and-mini-white-boards/

Liljedahl, P. (2017, October 17). Building a thinking classroom in math. Edutopia.  https://www.edutopia.org/article/building-thinking-classroom-math/

The Effects of Student Perceptions on Varied Assessments on Academic Performance

Primary Researchers
Kari Pakarinen, Intern, Baylor University
Brandy Farquhar, BSEd, Mentor Teacher, Midway High School, Midway ISD
Maggie Bryant, M.Ed., Intern Supervisor, Ph.D. Student, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

As teachers, we are called to serve our students to the very best of our abilities. Our classrooms are supposed to be spaces where students can not only learn and grow academically, but also spaces where students enjoy the learning process. In my time as a preservice teacher at Baylor University, I have realized first-hand how bringing authentic engagement, excitement, and relevance into the classroom creates an enhanced learning environment for students, which is of utmost priority for me. When students are authentically immersed into an invigorating learning experience, their drive to engage with the material and perform to the best of their ability heightens.

Creating a classroom culture centered around joy in learning is no small feat for teachers, but for the students it is a practice that reaps a multitude of benefits. Neuroimaging and neurochemical researchers’ findings suggest that “enjoyable classroom experiences that capitalize on students’ interests and relevance to their everyday lives heighten their learning” (Chugani, 1998). Of course, this is a consideration that teachers should consider with day-to-day classroom instruction, but how is this a consideration that can show up in how teachers ask their students to demonstrate their knowledge in forms of assessment?  My action research project explores how student perceptions of varied assessment formats affect their academic performance, and the subsequent implications of the findings. 

Question/Wondering

How do student perceptions of varied assessment formats affect their academic performance in Honors English II?

Methodology/Results

To investigate my action research question, I administered four different types of assessments to each of my four class periods of Honors English II students over the course of a given grading period. My student demographic includes a total of 119 students, made of 45 male and 74 female students. Of those students, there is 1 emergent bilingual student, and 11 students with 504 plans. I administered a multiple-choice vocabulary test, a short-constructed response (SCR) question, an extended-constructed response (ECR) question, and a quote analysis project. Data collected for this research question includes the data on students’ performance on the assessments, as well a survey given to the students upon the completion of the assessments, where the students were asked to rank each of the four assessments in terms of how much they enjoyed completing the type of assessment and that gave them an opportunity to provide feedback on their rankings. The following explanations describe the conclusions I have made based on the data collected. 

Before I discuss the actual student performance on the assessments, I want to discuss the quantitative data that I pulled from my student survey. According to the students’ responses, the most enjoyable form of assessment is the multiple-choice test, as illustrated by 48% of students ranking it as their first choice, closely followed by the project at 40%, and then the SCR and ECR both receiving 1% of first choice rankings. Not surprisingly, 68% of students ranked the ECR as the least enjoyable form of assessment, followed by the project at 16%, the multiple-choice test at 10%, and the SCR receiving 6% of last choice rankings. 

When looking at the qualitative student feedback on the survey that I conducted, I noted three recurring themes across their perceptions of the assessments: assessment anxiety, freedom in subjectivity, and boredom. Depending on the assessment format, assessments bring students a great deal of anxiety that can be overbearing. In conversation with my students, I have learned that many high school honors students are under extreme pressure to excel academically, so when it comes time for large assessments, the pressure can really be on some of them to succeed. The reason that 68% of students ranked the ECR as their last choice for assessment format could be tied to the stress that it brings. For example, one response to my survey states “essays take a long time and they make me stress,” which is not a healthy feeling for students to experience in an Honors English II classroom. To mitigate the assessment anxiety, a great option is to administer project-based assessment. When it comes to the project, there is a degree of creative freedom and student subjectivity that can be liberating for students, which could be why it ranked second in terms of an enjoyable form of assessment. For example, one student said that the specific assessment format is “SO much fun because [they] get to be really creative and projects are usually kind of more vague, so [they] get to kind of experiment with stuff.” Students also enjoy a sense of efficiency with assessments, which is most likely why 48% of students ranked the multiple-choice test as the most enjoyable form of assessment, with one student saying that “tests are easier and quicker than the rest” as their rationale for ranking the multiple-choice test as their first choice. Another student stated, “Multiple choice is easier and doesn’t require much, a project could be fun but a lot of work, and an SCR and ECR are both time consuming and not enjoyable.”  Ultimately, students want to complete assessments efficiently, to the best of their ability, and with a degree of autonomy over illustrating their learning. 

In an Honors English II classroom, the students consistently perform at an extremely high level. Even if they do not care for an assessment, they will still likely complete it to a very high academic degree, and with very intentional demonstration of their understanding. In pulling the Honors English II averages for the assessments, the students performed the highest on the quote analysis project, with an average of 95.3%, then the ECR with 92.2%, then the SCR with 86.8%, and finally the multiple-choice vocabulary test with 85.3%. Ultimately, the students likely performed the highest on the quote analysis project and the ECR, though more time consuming, due to the creative freedom that is given with project and essay assessments, which often leads to more flexibility with how the students interpretations of the assessments are graded, whereas the SCR and multiple choice tests, though quicker to complete, are far more objective, without much or any space for student liberty in illustrating their learning. 

Implications/Recommendations

The findings of this research indicate that teachers must be mindful of ensuring that their assessment formats are student-centric, considering their strengths, interests, and needs. As teachers, our classrooms are “responsive to the mosaic of our students…Students are the center of our work” (Gallagher & Kittle, 2018). When it comes to assessment, student autonomy should be at the forefront, granting students the opportunity to demonstrate their learning in a way that is not only authentic, but also enjoyable from their perspective, responding to their very needs. One of the best ways to do this from a teacher’s perspective is by varying student assessments in any given grading period or school year, not limiting oneself to just administering one type of assessment to evaluate student understanding of material. This practice becomes not only redundant and boring for the teacher, but also can bear lots of stress from the student perspective. Rather, teachers should give students a plethora of opportunities to showcase their learning, appealing to the various types of learning style, and potentially offering students a degree of choice or autonomy over their learning. The more students can take agency in their assessment, the more likely they are to achieve. Providing students with a project menu, allowing them to make the choice in what assessment they feel most excited and confident about, is also a great way to boost student agency and subsequent success in a classroom. Even just allowing students a choice in what they are writing about, whether for an ECR or an SCR, is another great way to create a degree of autonomy and agency in a classroom. Ultimately, the more students perceive enjoyment in their assessment, the higher their academic performance is likely to be, which is an important consideration for teachers to consider in their classroom instruction and assessment protocol. 

Reference(s)

Chugani H. T. (1998). Biological basis of emotions: brain systems and brain development. Pediatrics, 102(5 Suppl E), 1225–1229.

Gallagher, K., & Kittle, P. (2018). 180 days: two teachers and the quest to engage and empower adolescents. Heinemann.

Movement Integration and Motivation/Engagement in the Secondary Classroom 

Primary Researchers
Cailyn Riordan, Intern, Baylor University
Ivette Torres, BS, Mentor Teacher, Midway High School, Midway ISD
Lee Anne Brannon, PhD, Intern Supervisor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

While interning at Midway High School in Honors Spanish 2, I have observed behaviors and comments displaying students’ restlessness. These behaviors include leg bouncing, getting up from their seat, knuckle popping, and stretching. I realized how often students spend hours sitting at a desk learning. Meanwhile, research shows the benefits to the brain of physical activity generally and cognitively. It is important that students have an optimal learning environment. I felt that there was a change needed in my classroom to improve focus and engagement during one hour and 45-minute class periods. The majority of students are freshman and sophomores. These adolescents are experiencing transitions from middle to high school, childhood to adulthood. Their classroom experiences will form their identities as adults. It is important to me that students see the value of Spanish. However, on multiple occasions, students expressed disinterest in material through off-task behavior and there has been a decrease in completion of student work. Kiss and Pack (2023) discuss the dynamic network of motivation and the etymological link between the words motivation and movement in multiple languages. Multiple factors influence a child’s motivation such as preconceived notions, how material is presented, and intrinsic and extrinsic factors. They suggest that the relationship of dynamic links in a network analysis stems from an interaction of motivation constructs with student-specific factors in and outside of the classroom. I have limited control of factors outside of the classroom, but I do have control in the classroom. I thought if movement and motivation are related linguistically maybe there is an internal relationship. I desire to give students the best learning experience possible by creating a positive classroom environment. Part of this includes engaging lessons with high standards of performance. Being mentally active is common in education, but physical activity is subsidiary to curriculum. Romar et al. (2023) studied the benefits of movement integration (MI) in schools in Finland by examining seven different lessons that have movement incorporated, in which students report increased focus and that they are more involved in their lesson. Additionally, most research regarding movement integration in education pertains to elementary education. In this study, I examine how students’ behaviors and opinions might change as a need is met with the integration of physical activity in the secondary Spanish classroom. 

Question/Wondering

Upon my observations, realizations, and reading, I began to ponder whether or not it is best for students, specifically those learning a language at the secondary level, to sit at a desk doing robust, repetitive activities using pencil and paper. I contemplated whether there was another way; could it be possible for students to learn content while moving? Would students benefit from movement when they return to their seat? Although this is integrated more frequently in elementary grades as opposed to higher levels, I felt like these practices would potentially have a positive impact on motivation at the high school level as well. I also considered how both Honors Spanish 2 class periods are taught in the afternoon and perhaps this could contribute to dwindling motivation and less than optimal engagement. As both articles suggested, there could be a relationship of movement and motivation in completion and learning. I proposed the question: How does physical movement affect student engagement in the Spanish classroom? 

Methodology/Results

The data collected was from students in each of two Honors Spanish 2 class periods taught by my mentor teacher and I. In these classes, approximately 63 percent of students are male and over half are in their first year of high school. Students come from various ethnic backgrounds. Ethnicities present in this population are African-American, Asian, Latino, Indian, and Caucasian. Students participating in the research study number 41 (N=41). 

In order to study how physical movement affects student engagement in class, I planned various activities within my full teach lessons with MI. To collect data, I utilized qualitative and quantitative measures. I observed student behavior before and during whole group instruction, using an engagement data form assessing observational behavior of six randomly selected students, which yielded a result of on-task behavior 87.99 percent of a 10-minute sample time on average among three class periods. 

Prior to implementing physical movement integrated into content lessons, students completed a survey regarding their school experience. Questions asked pertained to physical activity and feelings during school. I divided the results by class period to analyze how participants felt regarding their corresponding class period. Only 17 percent of the population reported feeling most motivated during Spanish, meanwhile half reported being least motivated. When asked about the effects on their mind and body of sitting, 12 students stated being bored and 21 mentioned being tired or sleepy. When asked about suggestions for their teachers pertaining to activities in class, 12 mention being able to move or being active and 10 want more engaging/fun activities. This solidified my rationale. 

After collecting pre-implementation data, I incorporated lessons with content related activities including physical movement. Activities were inside-outside circles, working in groups, writing sentences using pictures posted around the classroom, making crepes, human bingo, seis, breaking up exercises on a worksheet into problems around the room, Quizlet live team relays. I personally observed students transition into activities quicker, a quieter work environment with activities around the room yet students were collaborating. My Intern Supervisor stated that it was easier to observe what students were doing without disturbing them. 

After experiencing lessons with MI, students completed a second survey. The survey had questions to elicit their opinions of lessons and the effects of movement. They were asked, on a scale of 0-10, if “being able to move [had] any effect on [their] performance in class,” 0 being a very negative effect, 5 no effect, and 10 a very positive effect. On average, students reported an 8. No one reported lower than a 5, which demonstrates that even if movement does not have a positive effect on students, it is not hindering them. Most of the students who I specifically think needed a change in structure reported 9s and 10s. When asked to explain their answer one student said, “being able to move had a very positive effect on my performance in class because 5th period is an hour long and with all of the work it becomes tedious, but I feel like moving around makes the class move faster and just more fun overall.” Another student stated that they “got excited to learn.” Other anecdotal evidence includes students thanking me for letting them move instead of doing a worksheet. They still completed all the material on the worksheet, it just was chunked into smaller tasks and movement was required. Analyzing themes in answers, the population indicates that MI improves focus, engagement, and makes students excited to learn. One said “Spanish, when movement is included, makes learning the language engaging and more enjoyable. This allows for the daunting task of learning Spanish seem much less dreadful.” Fifty four percent of students reported that they feel better in class because they do not have to sit and/or they feel less restless. There also was a trend in desire for interactive lessons.

As a result of compiled data, MI had a positive impact on student engagement in this study, as well as a positive relationship between movement and engagement. These results support findings in Romar et al. (2023) as they reinforce the benefits of movement on student learning experiences. Students feel the impact of deviation from standard secondary pedagogical practices. The benefit of physical activity has been proven in early childhood, and this study supports the benefits among adolescents. 

Implications/Recommendations

In the future, I will include more MI in instructional practices. This study has allowed me to hear student voices, which I will continue to do as my teaching career continues. The study demonstrates that students do enjoy movement in the classroom, especially relating to content. A strength of the study is the amount of student input that was received. I strategically allowed spaces for students to put their own comments. Some weaknesses include that I was only able to fill out an engagement form prior to implementation, not during it. Also, had the sample time been during independent work, the results may be different. Not every activity I planned with MI was utilized in class due to time constraints. In further studies it would be better to have daily consistency of MI. Now I wonder how using games would impact student learning, because competition appears to be a common theme in what they liked about their favorite physical activities. I would like to look at grades as a data point to see whether students are actually learning more, perhaps using a control and experimental group. I recommend that teachers try using movement in the classroom. 

Reference(s)

Kiss, T., & Pack, A. (2023). A dynamic network analysis of L2 motivation system: The role of central relational links. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/5/1/1

Romar, J.E., Enlund, M., Lind, S., & Björkgren, M. (2023). Movement integration in academic classrooms: A focus on secondary students’ experiences. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 23(4), 918-928. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2023.04115

Effects of Music and Videos on Student Learning

Primary Researchers
Courtney Stahlhoefer, Intern, Baylor University
Dennis Hataway, BSEd, Mentor Teacher, La Vega High School, La Vega ISD
Neil Shanks, PhD, Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

We live in a day and age where students have short attention spans and are addicted to their devices. Students want to have constant engagement with their devices through music and videos. Many teachers let students listen to music during independent work for a number of reasons, one of which being that it does help keep noise level down. Also, some teachers may not let students listen because they think that it harms learning. Understanding the effect of background music and videos on student learning can help all teachers better know what action to take in their classroom.

Question/Wondering

Does listening to music or watching a video while completing work help, hurt, or not affect students’ quality and accuracy of work? 

Methodology/Results

The study was conducted in a 4^th period U.S. History class of about 15 students, with special attention to an ELL student. Over a two-week period, students that were listening to music or watching a video during independent work time were documented. After the two-week period, every assignment grade was pulled from that period. The days that students were noted to have listened to music or watched a video with their grades were compared to days that they did not listen or watch anything. The grades from days that students did not listen or watch music or videos were considered control days which provide a basis to see if music and/or videos improve or hurt understanding. Lessons were designed to sometimes allow them to independently work and other times students did not have the opportunity to listen or watch. The results suggest that watching a video had a negative impact on their learning. Listening to music had mixed results which suggests that music can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the type of assignment and student. Of note: during assignments or questions that required high levels of thinking, such as connecting to previous knowledge or inferencing, listening to music tended to have a negative impact. The ELL student showed to do worse under all circumstances involving music or videos.

Implications/Recommendations

The results of the research show that listening to music or watching a video tends to have an overall negative impact on student learning which suggests to teachers that they should not allow it in their classrooms. There were some limitations to the study. The control data could be skewed as students frequently conversed with their peers and could have still been distracted for other reasons while completing their assignments. Further research with students’ full attention on the assignment is suggested. Furthermore, there was only one ELL student which is a small population sample. Testing the impact of music and videos on ELL students should be a separate study. 

Reference(s)

Alfaridzi, Fahri, and Udi Utomo. “Reading Books While Listening Music: Case Study To Students Of Universitas Negeri Semarang.” JSM (Jurnal Seni Musik) 11, no. 2 (2022): 174–178. 

Kerchner, Jody L. Music across the Senses : Listening, Learning, and Making Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Zhang, Han, Kevin Miller, Raymond Cleveland, and Kai Cortina. “How Listening to Music Affects Reading: Evidence From Eye Tracking.” Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition 44, no. 11 (2018): 1778–1791.

How Timely Grading Increases Student Submission Punctuality

Primary Researchers
Jessica Stokes, Intern, Baylor University
Ferrah Horton, BS Ed, Mentor Teacher, Robinson High School, Robinson ISD
Neil Shanks, PhD, Professor, Baylor University

Rationale/Introduction

Students are always assigned due dates, however, because they know there is not a consequence for late work in our class, there is only consistently about 60% of students turning in work on-time. Students always have the option to redo work for a higher grade, and so it would even be better for students to turn in work and then redo it later. I think if they have an immediate consequence they will work harder.  The need is to improve student engagement and work ethic, which I anticipate will occur through the knowledge of immediate gratification of their work, or knowing they will immediately receive a zero for a missed assignment.

Question/Wondering

How does the work ethic and participation of students improve when they receive immediate gratification for their assignments?

Methodology/Results

The first method of study I used was analyzing student products.  I used student products for two things, the first to track the percentage of student work being turned in. As the time to turnover grades slowly I increased, I kept track of how many more assignments (or lack thereof) were being completed on time.  The average of class assignments consistently turned in increased about 15%. I also kept track of how many students would, within 48 hours, complete an assignment if they initially received a zero for missing work.  The next method of study I chose to do was to take field notes every two weeks during the research period, which was six weeks.   I chose a group of students, one from each class, to study and watch if their class participation increased over the course of the research period, with the knowledge that they would receive grades faster than what they were used to.  This study was interesting because I found it heavily depended on time and structure of the class period.  For example, a girl in a naturally quiet first period class increased participation much quicker than a boy in the rowdy last period class. Lastly, I gave out a survey to every student in my three world history classes, which asked them a basic series of questions, all pertaining to the length of grading periods and how that correlates to the timeliness of their work.  They largely said that they will not worry as quickly about work for a teacher who does not have a grading policy, but they will do the work once the zero goes into the gradebook. 

Implications/Recommendations

This study will affect my teaching because it reinforced the idea of a grading policy.  As a new teacher, implementing a structured grading policy is something I have considered a lot, due to the already never-ending list of tasks.  It can be incredibly difficult to have students unaffected by a non-existent grading policy and, in turn, complete 10 assignments twenty-four hours before the deadline.  While I do not think it is necessary to have a strict “all-or-nothing” policy, this study demonstrated that a grading policy is a strong extrinsic motivation factor for students.