The State of Teachers' Use of Engaging Classroom Practices in 2022

• In Event: New Approaches to the Study of Engaging and Motivating Classroom Instruction

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation was to catalogue the extent to which a national sample of U.S. teachers report exposing students to specific practices indicative of high-quality engagement-supporting or engagement thwarting.

Theoretical Framework

An extensive body of research has identified many promising teacher practices that support or thwart engagement (Patall et al., 2022). However, the current state of U.S. teachers’ reported use of such practices is not well known. We also know little about the current extent to which U.S. teachers’ use of engagement-relevant practices vary depending on school level, subject, and the characteristics of the students they serve. However, cataloguing current variation is critical for targeted training and given the following patterns routinely observed in education research. Namely, (a) student motivation declines across development (Lepper et al., 2005), (2) alarming racial and income disparities exist in academic success (McDonough, 2015; Reardon, 2013) and high-quality teacher inputs (Darling-Hammond, 1995), and (b) student interest in pursuing STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is low by college (Potvin & Hosni, 2014).

Methods

Full-time U.S. teachers were recruited to participate in a survey administered in May/June 2022 via emails, social media and digital banners initiated by education technology company, GoGuardian. Participants included 1,449 teachers (79% female, Mage=47) from 50 states and various communities (30% elementary, 93% public, 30% urban). Survey items were adapted from existing measures to assess the extent to which teachers used 19 engagement-supporting or thwarting practices. Teachers rated students’ behavioral and agentic engagement using items adapted from Rochester Assessment Package for Schools and the Agentic Engagement Scale (Reeve, 2013).

Results

On average, teachers reported using supportive practices often and thwarting practices sometimes (see Table 1). The most used supportive practices were soliciting student perspectives, high expectations, opportunities for responding, and teacher caring. Relatively lesser used supportive practices included choice provision, incorporating student interests/goals, contextualized teaching, and culturally relevant education. No less than 43% of teachers reported using thwarting practices at least sometimes.

There was variation by grade level, subject, and student characteristics (see Table 2). For 11 of 16 supportive practices, elementary teachers reported greater use compared to secondary teachers. Likewise, elementary teachers reported higher levels of student engagement. STEM teachers reported using 14 of 16 supportive practices less frequently than other teachers. Teachers who taught a greater percentage of Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) or eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) students used 6 of 16 supportive practices more frequently. For thwarts, STEM teachers and teachers serving more BIPOC or FRL students used an emphasis on grades more than counterparts.

Discussion and Scholarly Significance

Results highlight that many evidence-based engagement-supportive practices are well used by educators. However, a handful of lesser-used supportive practices could be the target for training, along with discouraging regular use of thwarting practices. Targeting secondary and STEM subject teachers for training could be a useful step toward addressing declining student engagement across grade levels and in STEM subjects.

Authors

• Erika A. Patall, University of Southern California
  Presenting Author

• Amanda Vite, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Author

• Diane Lee, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jeanette Zambrano, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Author

• Phil Janowicz
  Non-Presenting Author

• Mariana Aguilar
  Non-Presenting Author

• Rachel Ahrens
  Non-Presenting Author

• Alan Arkatov
  Non-Presenting Author