Helping beginning readers with phonics

By Trevor Cairney

1.Introduction - phonics as part of reading

Proficient readers need to orchestrate many skills as they read print. While most master spoken language in the first few years of life, written language poses new challenges. There are parallels between speech and writing, and together they make up language, but there are many differences. For example, writing doesn't include features such as intonation, rhythm, phrasing and pausing. And in parallel, talking doesn't indicate sentence and paragraphs. Secondly, speech and writing use different contexts for different purposes. So the meanings that we use in written contexts are not always easily translated into talk. Writing and talking also end up being used for different purposes. I could go on to discuss variations that occur that reflect the special and cultural groups to which we belong as speakers and writers (dialects). There are also functional variations that reflect what is going on, who is taking part and the role that language is fulfilling.

Written language places new demands on the child as they try to grapple with the fact that language can be represented symbolically. To read and write children need to learn the letters of the alphabet and to understand that they each have names and sounds. But on top of this they need to understand that in varied combinations with each other these letters can represent approximately 45 separate sounds (phonemes). They also need to apply their knowledge of syntax (the grammar of language) in new ways, which while based on that, which they have learned as speakers, is more complex. They need to bring their knowledge of word meanings and knowledge of their world and orchestrate this with everything else as they attempt to decode and recognise words.

Freebody and Luke (1990) in reflecting on the complexity of the reading process developed the idea of roles to describe what readers require to be successful. They saw the focus on roles as a more useful framework than just talking about reading skills. They suggested that the successful reader needs to be able simultaneously perform four different roles. They need to be:

Code-breakers and recognize and understand the fundamental features’ of written texts, including alphabetic knowledge, sounding out unknown words, spelling, punctuation, page layout, directionality (left to right, top to bottom) when reading and writing, typographical features and why they are used.

Text-participants and understand the meaning and structure of language, including the way the text is constructed to make meaning, the literal and figurative meanings of words and expressions. This role requires the reader to draw on their prior knowledge of the world to make sense of the language.

Text-users and understand that texts have culturally and socially acceptable uses in specific contexts. This involves understanding what counts as reading in specific situations and knowing how to perform this task. They need to learn how to participate in specific readings, use texts to achieve specific purposes, and interact with others concerning written language.

Text-analysts learning that texts are carefully constructed language forms that the authors see as having specific purposes. They are not ideologically neutral. They reflect the author’s particular view of the world. This role requires the child to learn to recognize bias, points of view, writer purpose etc. This might seem much too complex for the young reader, but consider the comment of my five-year-old grandson recently in response to a comment I made about the book Jack and Beanstalk. I commented that Jack had disobeyed his mother but that everything worked out well in the end. My grandson commented, “yes, but only because he stole lots of things from the Giant”.

2. So what about phonics?

I have outlined the above so that phonics is seen rightfully as part of what children need to know. If we lose sight of this we might well provide support that has limitations. There are some who see beginning reading as simply teaching children phonics. They seem to assume that if you teach them the sounds and how to decode words they will eventually read. This is simplistic. While children cannot read without decoding there is much more to being a proficient reader. If phonics is viewed as one of the areas of knowledge that readers require and decoding as one of the roles that the reader performs, it will affect the way we help children with phonics.

Most children require some help with phonics and generally a systematic approach to teaching letter-sound correspondence. There are four major methods for doing this:

a)Synthetic approaches – involve the systematic teaching of letter-sound correspondence and their combination into words. Even within this approach there are variations. One approach it to begin with single letters and move on to their combination into consonant and vowel words (c-v) before moving on to c-v-c words (e.g. c-a-t). A second approach (which in my teaching days we called the ‘Hay-Wingo’ approach based on the names of the authors of a key reference) involves teaching consonant vowel combinations first which are then blended with a consonant (e.g. ca-t).

The synthetic approach has the advantage that you can systematically teach all sounds and then train children to blend them. However, the approach does not accommodate the many inconsistencies in language (e.g. ea can have the long vowel sound for ‘e’ in words like read but the short sound for ‘e’ in words like lead). As well, it encourages readers to rely primarily on letter-sound strategies and draw less on whole word recognition and the use of context to help them work out a word. For example, a beginning reader who has learned most of their single letter names and sounds and is starting to blend them to read simple words like dog, big, hot, top etc., will need to use context if they strike more phonically demanding words such as television, shine, walk, porch. While these words can be decoded, the beginning reader won’t have the decoding knowledge to do so. As well, there will be words that can’t be decoded (e.g. here, the, there). Using context will help them to work out the word, continue reading, understand the sentence and gain confidence.

b)Rule approaches – are based on the premise that some letter-sound generalisations are predictable enough to form rules that help the child to decode words. Examples include:

•when a vowel follows two identical consonants it is short (e.g. slapped);
•the letter ‘c’ is pronounced ‘s’ before ‘e’, ‘i’ and ‘y’, but ‘k’ otherwise;
•when two vowels go a walking the first one does the talking (e.g. oa in boat);
•when a word ends with a silent ‘e’, it makes the preceding vowel say its name.

The major limitation of this method is that few rules are absolutely consistent and the use of rules like the above are at best, only helpful for explaining some of the inconsistencies.

c)Phonic family approach – this approach is a variation of the synthetic approach and involves teaching specific phonemes, which are then blended with consonants to form words. For example, ‘at’ (c-at, s-at, h-at, p-at etc). Typically teachers when using this approach teach a few consonants and vowels then begin to focus on families before moving on to more difficult phonemes (e.g. ow, au, ph etc). The main difference with this approach is that it offers practice in specific groups of words (word families) not just separate sounds. It is usually a more interesting and enjoyable approach and tends to make beginning readers feel more successful as they apply their phonic families to learn lots of word.

d)Analytic approach – this approach focuses on consistencies and inconsistencies within words that are being encountered as part of simple books that they are attempting to read, or being read with an adult as part of a shared reading experience (e.g. big format books). While within this approach children are taught to read some words by sight (i.e. words that are hard to decode such as ‘the’ and which are basically learnt from the shape of the word and their appearance from memory), and some sounds are still taught systematically, sounds are typically taught less systematically as needs are observed.

The major weakness of this approach is that it is less systematic and has limitations for less able learners and those with less language proficiency. As well, the use of whole texts can mean that readers rely heavily on context and memorisation to read simple books. Supporters of analytic approaches argue that the reading of whole texts is the purpose of reading and that methods that help beginning readers to utilise decoding in unison with other skills and knowledge is preferable.

3. An integrated approach to phonics

My preferred approach to phonics is an integrate one. Primarily, I use a combination of synthetic, phonic family and analytic approaches. No this isn’t a mad form of eclectism, it simply recognises the features of each that are helpful. The following sequence is consistent with how I have taught young children how to read as well as older children who have experienced reading problems. Again, it situates phonics within an overall approach to beginning reading.

i) Stimulate language – from birth talk to, sing to, read with, question; in short, engage with your child. This should continue through the pre-school years with increasing attention being given to the symbolic representation of meaning and language from the start (e.g. pointing to a picture in a book, a photo, a model etc and saying “Look, that’s a ….”). It goes without saying that you should read to them every day (preferably more than once).

ii) Direct attention to symbols (pretty much from birth but certainly by 12 months) - In time (very early on in relation to print in books) you begin to point to words in their world. Words are found in many places when you look, including books, posters, signs, TV, computers, clothing etc. The earliest symbolic representations that your child will recognise will probably be advertising slogans or logos (the big ‘M’ in McDonalds, Weet Bix, STOP etc).

iii)Read increasingly varied material (from age 2) – try to introduce a variety of fiction and non-fiction. Perhaps join a local library and go weekly as a special treat. Try some poetry, chants and rhymes as well as songs (that are read as well as sung). As well, begin to read interesting things on screen as you use digital literacy in your life. From about two you could visit children’s websites together (e.g. ABC Kids) and look and enjoy the written language as well as the images and sound.

iv) Begin to focus on letters and individual words (from about 2) – As you read together or as you’re out and about doing things together begin to focus some of your child’s attention on letters and words. “This word says Mum”. “B for ball”. “Your name starts with the sound J”. “That says ABC Kids”. “That says OPEN”. And so on. Note, this is all part of daily life, this is not the time for lessons.

v) Try to encourage them to read along (from about 2+) – As you read predictable storybooks encourage your child to join in by predicting the next word, or the next phrase. “But where’s the Green sheep?” “Not by the hair of my chiny …..” (child encouraged to complete). At first this is largely verbal, but in time you point to the words on the page and your child will be trying to recognise the symbols as well. Moving from the verbal to the visual takes a long time. Some children begin to get this at about age 3, whereas others won’t get it till they are 5+. Be patient.

vi) Begin to write their stories or experiences down (from about 3-4) – and have them show this tom others and perhaps even try to read what it says. The language will be simple. Perhaps your child has drawn a picture of a shark after a trip to a museum. You might simply ask you to tell you what it is and write the words as a label, e.g. “A White Pointer Shark”. Later, you might write down descriptions of events that you’ve shared, with your child dictating the words and you scribing for them.

vii) Begin to teach some words, sounds and numbers (from 4) – some children will be trying to do this earlier than four; encourage it if they show interest (older brothers and sisters often motivate them early). At first this is likely to be linked to their name, environmental signs, language on clothing, TV words (children’s television will begin to teach them numbers and sounds) but later you will see countless opportunities to point to symbols at home and when you’re out driving, shopping etc. If your child is in institutional childcare then they will also experience other opportunities as well. This is not to suggest that preschool is better for language acquisition, it isn’t. Nothing is as good as the close attention and love of a parent. However, childcare can be a stimulating learning environment with well-trained and caring childcare workers and teachers.
viii) Begin some simple phonics and whole word recognition (from 4) – this should happen naturally if you’ve implemented all of the above. Some children will be ready earlier than others but once they reach 5 you should more systematically focus on print. If you need to make an error, then err by being slower to do this. If you have your child sitting down to ‘do school’ then you run the risk that you might make reading more difficult and take all the joy out of it (with obvious negative long-term impact). Of course some children (most likely girls) will want to play school early. I need to stress that this should be informal, fun and intellectually stimulating. I’d suggest that you use the three approaches to phonics that I suggest (synthetic, analytic and phonic family. Here’s a sequence for phonics:

Teach some consonants (e.g. b, t, c, s, g, s, m, f, l) and a few whole words – don’t do ‘b’ and ‘d’ at the same time, virtually every child will reverse them right up to school age (this is normal) so don’t complicate things further. Use the name as well as the sound. “Look, that’s a ‘b’.” “Can you see the ‘r’ in Rebecca?”.

While you’re pointing out letters teach a few whole words. For example, their name, mum, dad, kids (as in ABC Kids), STOP etc.

Point to letters, numbers and words as you read things and also write them down with them and encourage them to write as well.

Introduce the vowels (a, e, I, o, u) – while you can point to the vowels separately these are better introduced as part of words or in combination with consonants. “That says ‘u’ in mum”. “Let’s look for some ‘at’ words on this page”. “Let’s write some ‘at’ words together.” You might even sound out special words in stories. For example, in books that use sound words you should say them and point to them. “Mr McGee is saying OWWWW and OOOOO”. “Look, that says BANG”.

Point out other print conventions – as your child begins to learn more about written language he/she will have lots of questions that you should try to answer. As well, you might point out punctuation, the difference between upper and lower case letters.

Play games that use words, sounds and numbers – Word BINGO and I Spy are simple examples but there are many commercial examples. Many games can make car trips seem shorter and act as a catalyst for families doing things togethers (including brothers and sisters).

Other sounds and words – your child’s responsiveness to reading will determine how much more that you will need to do but in the first two years of school most children will learn the following sounds in roughly this sequence. NOTE – many of these sounds will still be difficult for some seven year olds and few parents of pre-schoolers need to worry about the complexities of this sequence:

•Simple word familles (c-v or v-c) – e.g. in, up, am, us, at, on, it etc.
•Simple c-v-c words – e.g. cat, dog, mum, dad, hat, pup, pot, hop etc.
•Three letter word families (cvc) – e.g. ing, ong, ant.
•Initial consonant digraphs – e.g. sh, th, ck, wh etc.
•Initial consonant blends – e.g. tr, dr, gr, cr, st, bl, fr, fl, gl, pl, pr etc.
•Final consonant blends (usually with a vowel before it) – e.g. st, mp, nd, nt, nk, ft, ld, lt.
•Simple vowel digraphs and diphthongs – e.g. ee, oo, ay, ar.
•Long vowel ‘y’ as in ‘my’ and then later other long vowels.
• Three letter initial consonant blends – e.g. str, spr, shr, thr, squ.
•Other harder digraphs and diphthongs – e.g. oy, er, oa, ai, or, ar, ou, ow, ea, ur, ay, ir, aw, ie, ui, ph.
•Silent letters – e.g. ‘k’ as in knee.
•Other complex phonograms – e.g. augh, ough, aught, ought, eight, our.

One final comment. Most learning about phonics will occur once children reach school age. The best thing that parents can do is gently teach some sounds and sight words (i.e. whole words recognised from memory). If any sounds are taught remember to use a combination of the three approaches I mentioned above. Teach some sounds and practice blending (e.g. c-v-c), play with phonic familles (write down some at words or just read “The Cat in the Hat”) and point to whole words and sounds as you read with your child as part of everyday life. And remember that the ability to decode is just one of the strategies at the disposal of readers.

References

Cairney, T.H. (1990). Balancing the basics, 2nd Edition. Scholastic: Sydney.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7-16.

http://www.trevorcairney.com/Trevor_Cairney/Helping_beginning_readers.html

Observation Guidelines: Assessing the Emotions of Children and Adolescents

Happiness
Look For:

Smiles
Laughter
Spontaneity
Example:

Paul, age 17, chatters with his friends during his school’s end-of-the-year athletic field day. He is happy about having schoolwork over and looks forward to his summer job and paychecks.

Implication:

Happiness helps people enjoy life and seek similar pleasurable experiences. Help children and adolescents find appropriate outlets to express their joy, and celebrate with them. Encourage them to talk about things they are happy about.

Anger
Look For:

Frowns and angry expressions
Possible retaliation toward the target of anger
Example:

Aranya, age 14, is furious that she wasn’t admitted into an elective course, whereas her two closest friends were. Aranya is angry with her teacher, who she thinks dislikes her.

Implication:

Anger helps people deal with obstacles to their goals, often spurring them to try new tactics. Help youngsters express their anger appropriately and determine how they can redirect their energy toward new solutions.

Fear
Look For:

Scared face
Withdrawal from circumstances
Physiological responses, such as sweating
Example:

Tony, age 21⁄2, sits on his mat, eyes wide, body tense. He stares at a new poster of a clown in his preschool classroom. On this particular day, he becomes downright scared; he runs to his teacher and buries his head in her lap.

Implication:

Fear occurs when people feel threatened and believe that their physical safety and psychological well-being are potentially at stake. Fear motivates people to flee, escape from harm, seek reassurance, and perhaps fight back. Help children articulate their fears. Offer reassurance.

Sadness
Look For:

Sad expression
Crying
Pouting
Being quiet
Possible withdrawal from a situation
Example:

Greta, age 15, sits quietly on a bench near her locker. With her head hung low, she rereads the letter from a cheerleading organization. She has not been admitted to the prestigious cheerleading summer camp.

Implication:

People are sad when they realize they cannot attain a desired goal or when they experience a loss, such as a friend moving to a distant city. Sadness causes some people to reassess their goals. Reassure children, help them express their sadness, and encourage them to consider ways to deal with sad feelings.

Disgust
Look For:

Wrinkled nose
Remarks such as “Phew!”
Withdrawal from the source of displeasure
Example:

Norton, age 8, looks skeptically at the meal he has just purchased in the school cafeteria. He wrinkles his nose and averts his gaze from the “tuna melt” on his plate.

Implication:

Disgust occurs when people encounter food, smells, and sights they find repulsive. Disgust is nature’s way of getting people to be wary of something that is potentially troublesome or threatening to their health. Respect children’s feeling of disgust, but also encourage them to reflect on why they might have this reaction.

Anxiety
Look For:

Frequent worrying
Excessive fidgeting, hand wringing, or nail biting
Avoidance of source of anxiety


Example:

Tanesha, age 16, has to give an oral presentation to her class. She has spent time preparing but is worried that, when she is standing all by herself in front of the group, she might get so nervous that she forgets everything she wants to say.

Implication:

As long as it is not excessive, anxiety can spur people to take steps to avoid problems and achieve valued goals. Teach youngsters strategies that keep anxiety at a manageable level, as well as strategies that help them achieve their goals.

Shame
Look For:

Signs of embarrassment
Attempts to withdraw from a situation
Looking down and away from other people
Example:

Luke, age 9, is stunned. He’s just had an accident, urinating on the floor. He had felt a bit antsy beforehand but wasn’t aware that he needed to go to the bathroom. Now 20 pairs of eyes are glued on him.

Implication:

When children feel ashamed, they are aware of other people’s standards for behavior and know they are not meeting these standards. Shame motivates children to try harder. Shame works only when it comes from within; adults should never intentionally ridicule students. Help children redirect their behavior so they can meet their own standards.

Guilt
Look For:

Sad expression
May appear self-conscious
May show concern for a person who has been harmed
Example:

A. J., age 12, regrets bad-mouthing his friend Pete to other classmates. A. J. sinks down low in his chair, feeling remorse for what he said behind Pete’s back and for Pete’s sadness.

Implication:

Guilt occurs when people do something that violates their own standards. It leads people to right the wrong. More generally, it causes people to behave in socially appropriate ways that protect others from harm. Help children express their feelings and realize that they can behave differently next time.

Pride
Look For:

Happy expression
Desire to show off work and accomplishments to other people
Example:

Jacinda, age 5, is beaming. For the last 20 minutes, she’s painstakingly pasted sequins, stars, and feathers onto a mask. Her final product is a colorful, delicately adorned creation. She is happy with her work, as is evident from her ear-to-ear grin.

Implication:

People are proud when they earn others’ respect and meet their own goals. Pride fosters continued commitment to behaving appropriately and achieving high standards. Pride motivates people to share their accomplishments with others. Encourage children to identify things that make them proud. Share in their joy when they accomplish something meaningful for them.


Excerpted From: Child Development and Education

"Ways with Words"

Reading and writing is much more than a collection of basic skills. Reading and writing are essentially social and communicative practices (Bruffee, 1984). Each act of reading or writing involves socially developed and culturally embedded ways of using text to serve particular social or cultural purposes (Moje, Dillon, & O'Brien, 2000; Gee, 1999; Hourigan, 1994; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). All texts are shaped by specific conventions and structures of language, and proficient reading of all texts therefore demands the use of these conventions to navigate layers of meaning (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; New London Group, 1996; Scott, 1993). Additionally, the resources and processes used by proficient readers are influenced by the specific contexts and situations in which reading occurs and the social
functions that it serves (Courts, 1997; Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981).

The implications of this view for the literacy learning of diverse populations of students are profound. Increasingly, students come from a variety of economic, linguistic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, bringing significantly different experiences and expectations about how to initiate and sustain conversations, how to interact with teachers and peers, how to identify and solve different types of problems, and how to go about particular reading and writing tasks (Greenleaf, Hull, & Reilly, 1994; Lee, 1995; Moje, Dillon, & O'Brien, 2000). In addition, literacy practices become increasingly specialized throughout the school career, reflecting the broader literate, scientific, or historical conversations that characterize the academic disciplines (Applebee, 1996; Eeds & Wells, 1989; Grossman, 1990; Grossman & Shulman, 1994; Harste, 1994; Langer, 1995; Langer, Confer, & Sawyer, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Rabinowitz & Smith, 1998; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Wineburg, 1991; Wineburg & Wilson, 1990). Academic literacy at higher grade levels therefore requires particular interpretive and communicative competencies, or specialized "ways with words" (Heath, 1983) for skilled participation as a reader or writer (Bartholomae, 1985; Gee, 1996; Hull, 1989; Rose, 1985).

For these reasons, learning to read at early grade levels will not automatically translate into higher level academic literacy. Instead, literacy researchers have argued that for all students to learn to perform high-level, academically linked literacy tasks, teachers will need to make explicit the tacit reasoning processes, strategies, and discourse rules that shape successful readers' and writers' work (e.g., Delpit, 1988, 1995; Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Freedman, Flower, Hull, & Hayes, 1995; Gee, 1996, 1999; Hillocks, 1995; Pressley, 1998). Our own work with students from richly different backgrounds has underscored the necessity of not only telling students what to do and providing engaging and authentic opportunities for them to do it, but also painstakingly and explicitly showing them how, building bridges from their cultural knowledge and language experiences to the language and literacy practices valued and measured in school and society.

Helping students master academic literacy practices, however, does not mean a return to isolated skills-based instruction. Rather, ample studies over the past few decades have demonstrated that integrating the explicit teaching of comprehension strategies, text structures, and word-level strategies into compelling sense-making activities with texts increases student reading achievement (Baumann & Duffy, 1997; Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997; Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Dowhower, 1999; Duffy et al., 1994; Fitzgerald, 1995; Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995; Guthrie, McGough, Bennett, & Rice, 1996; Hillocks, 1995; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Pearson, 1996; Pressley et al., 1992; Pressley, 1998; Roehler & Duffy, 1991; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). These researchers argue that for the reading and reasoning processes of the academic disciplines to become part of the repertoires of a broader population of students, teachers need to engage all students in complex academic literacy tasks while at the same time providing the explicit teaching and support necessary for students to perform these tasks successfully (Pearson, 1996,).

Drawing from both sociocultural studies of learning and cognitive studies of expert and novice performance on a variety of complex mental tasks, some researchers have adopted the metaphor of "cognitive apprenticeship" to describe a type of teaching designed to assist students in acquiring more expert, or proficient, cognitive processes for particular valued tasks, such as reading comprehension, composing, and mathematical problem-solving ( Bayer, 1990; Brown, Collins, & Newman, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lee, 1995; Rogoff, 1990). In an apprenticeship, an expert practitioner or mentor draws on his or her expertise to model, direct, support, and shape the apprentice's growing repertoire of practice. Apprenticeship also generally involves learning while doing. It is hard to imagine learning to paint without actually working with canvas and brush, or learning to jump hurdles without getting out on the track.

When the desired proficiency is a cognitive practice such as composing or comprehending a text, the invisible mental processes involved in the task must be made visible and available to apprentices as they actually engage in meaningful literacy activities (Freedman et al., 1995; Pearson, 1996). To help students develop as readers and writers, then, teachers must begin to create "literacy apprenticeships," engaging students in meaningful and complex literacy practices while demystifying these literacy practices (Brown et al., 1989; Lee, 1995; Schoenbach, Greenleaf, Cziko, & Hurwitz, 1999).

This conception of literacy apprenticeship also suggests that the best teachers of specific discipline-based literacy practices are those who themselves have mastered these practices. These include the subject-area teachers and academicians who have acquired scientific, historical, mathematical, or literary discourses during their own educational careers. We argue, therefore, that for all students to attain high-level literacy, apprenticeships that demystify the literacy practices and discourses of the academic disciplines must be embedded in subject-area instruction across the curriculum, rather than becoming the sole purview of the English department. For subject-area teachers to embrace this work, they must reconceptualize subject-area teaching as an apprenticeship into discipline-based practices of thinking, talking, reading, and writing (Applebee, 1996). To assist teachers in constructing this new conception of teaching and, specifically, of reading in the content areas, we have developed an instructional framework, Reading Apprenticeship, derived from the socially and cognitively complex view of literacy and drawing on the core metaphor of cognitive apprenticeship described above.

http://www.wested.org/stratlit/pubsPres/HER/p01green.htm

Assessing Student Engagement Rates

Assessing Student Engagement Rates.

From ERIC Digest.

Given the emphasis placed on levels of academic achievement in schools, the way in
which students acquire knowledge through the learning process has become a primary concern. Several studies have highlighted the significant role that affective factors can play in learning (e.g., Mathewson, 1994; Wigfield, 1997), placing particular emphasis on student engagement. This Digest defines student engagement and describes various methods used to measure it, both in empirical research studies and at the classroom level.

"WHAT IS STUDENT ENGAGEMENT?"

Early studies of student engagement often focused on time-on-task behaviors (e.g.,
Fisher, et al., 1980; Brophy, 1983). More recently, however, other definitions have
appeared in the literature. Student engagement has been used to depict students'
willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending classes,
submitting required work, and following teachers' directions in class. For example,
Natriello (1984) defined student engagement as "participating in the activities offered as part of the school program" (p.14). Negative indicators of engagement in this study included unexcused absences from classes, cheating on tests, and damaging school property.

Another definition focuses on more subtle cognitive, behavioral, and affective indicators of student engagement in specific learning tasks. This orientation is reflected well in the definition offered by Skinner & Belmont (1993):

Children who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest.

The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected children are passive, do not tryhard, and give up easily in the face of challenges [they can] be bored, depressed,
anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom; they can be withdrawn
from learning opportunities or even rebellious towards teachers and classmates. (p.
572.)

From a different perspective, Pintrich and & De Groot (1990) associated engagement levels with students' use of cognitive, meta-cognitive and self-regulatory strategies to monitor and guide their learning processes. In this view, student engagement is viewed as motivated behavior apparent from the kinds of cognitive strategies students choose to use (e.g., simple or "surface" processing strategies such as rehearsal versus "deeper" processing strategies such as elaboration), and by their willingness to persist with difficult tasks by regulating their own learning behavior.

Use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies (e.g., I went back over things I didn't
understand" and "I tried to figure out how today's work fit with what I had learned
before") may be taken to indicate active task engagement, while use of shallow
strategies (e.g., "I skipped the hard parts") may be taken to indicate superficial
engagement (Meece, Blumefield, and Hoyle, 1988).

"HOW IS STUDENT ENGAGEMENT MEASURED?"

The most common way that student engagement is measured is through information
reported by the students themselves. Other methods include checklists and rating
scales completed by teachers, observations, work sample analyses, and case studies.
Each of these methods is described briefly below.

"Self-Reports." Students may be asked to complete surveys or questionnaires
regarding their level of task engagement. Items relating to the cognitive aspects of engagement often ask students to report on factors such as their attention versus distraction during class, the mental effort they expend on these tasks (e.g., to integrate new concepts with previous knowledge), and task persistence (e.g., their reaction to perceived failure to comprehend the course material). Students can also be asked to report on their response levels during class time (e.g., making verbal responses within group discussions, looking for distractions, and engaging in non-academic social interaction) as an index of behavioral task engagement. Affective engagement questions typically ask students to rate their interest in and emotional reactions to learning tasks on indices such as choice of activities (e.g., selection of more versus less challenging tasks), the desire to know more about particular topics, and feelings of stimulation or excitement in beginning new projects.

In addition to asking the question of whether students are engaged in learning tasks,
self-report measures can provide some indication of why this is the case. Research into achievement goal orientations, for example, has indicated positive relationships
between task or mastery goals, which reflect a desire for knowledge or skill acquisition, and students' use of effective learning strategies (e.g., Covington, 2000). Studies have also demonstrated positive relationships between students' perceived learning control and adaptive learning processes (e.g., Strickland, 1989; Thompson et al., 1998).

"Checklists and Rating Scales." In addition to student self-report measures, a few studies have used summative rating scales to measure student engagement levels. For example, the teacher report scales used by Skinner & Belmont (1993) asked teachers to assess their students' willingness to participate in school tasks (i.e., effort, attention, and persistence during the initiation and execution of learning activities, such as "When faced with a difficult problem, this student doesn't try"), as well as their emotional reactions to these tasks (i.e., interest versus boredom, happiness versus sadness, anxiety and anger, such as "When in class, this student seems happy"). The Teacher Questionnaire on Student Motivation to Read developed by Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng (1996) asks teachers to report on factors relating to student engagement rates, such as activities (e.g., enjoys reading about favorite activities), autonomy (e.g., knows how to choose a book he or she would want to read), and individual factors (e.g., is easily distracted while reading).

"Direct Observations." Although self-report scales are widely used, the validity of the data yielded by these measures will vary considerably with students' abilities to accurately assess their own cognitions, behaviors, and affective responses (Assor & Connell, 1992). Direct observations are often used to confirm students' reported levels of engagement in learning tasks. A number of established protocols are available in this area (e.g., Ellett & Chauvin, 1991). Most of these observational studies have used some form of momentary time sampling system. In these methods, the observer records whether a behavior was present or absent at the moment that the time interval ends or else during a specific time period.

In classwide observations, approximately 5 minutes of observational data can generally be collected on each target student per lesson. Thus, a 30-minute observation period would allow observations of approximately 5 target students, with 6 to 7 sessions being required to observe a full class. In addition, to obtain a representative sample of students' behavior over the full course of a lesson, observations are generally rotated across students so that each student is observed continuously for only one minute at a time.

"Work Sample Analyses." Evidence of higher-order problem-solving and metacognitive learning strategies can be gathered from sources such as student projects, portfolios, performances, exhibitions, and learning journals or logs (e.g., Royer, Cisero, & Carlo, 1993; Wolf, et al., 1990). The efficacy of these methods hinges on the use of suitably structured tasks and scoring rubrics. For example, a rubric to assess the application of higher-order thinking skills in a student portfolio might include criteria for evidence of problem-solving, planning, and self-evaluation in the work. A number of formal and informal protocols for assessing students' self-regulated learning strategies also incorporate components that focus on metacognitive skills (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Ward & Traweek, 1993). The Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring Assessment and the Assessment of Cognitive Monitoring Effectiveness are more targeted measures suitable for use in classroom situations and with demonstrated sound psychometric properties in empirical evaluations (Osborne, 2001).

"Focused Case Studies." When the focus of an investigation is restricted to a small
group of target students, it is often more useful to collect detailed descriptive accounts of engagement rates. Case studies allow researchers to address questions of student engagement inductively by recording details about students in interaction with other people and objects within classrooms. These accounts should describe both students' behaviors and the classroom contexts in which they occur. This might include, for example, the behavior of peers, direct antecedents to the target student's behaviors (e.g., teacher directions), as well as the student's response and the observed consequences of that response (e.g., reactions from teachers or peers). Case studies generally attempt to place observations of engagement within the total context of the classroom and/or school, and are concerned as much with the processes associated with engagement as they are in depicting engagement levels.

Teachers interested in assessing student engagement in the classroom should consider using separate measures to get at the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of task engagement. Within each of these domain areas, using a range of methods can also strengthen the validity of findings and provide alternative perspectives on the results. Teachers may wish to include measures that address the question of why students do, or do not, engage with particular types of tasks. Clearly, however, final decisions on protocol components must also take into account any practical constraints within the given context.

REFERENCES

Assor, A., & Connell, J.P. (1992). The validity of students' self-reports as measures of performance-affecting self-appraisals. In D.H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom (pp.25-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-215.

Covington, M. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: an integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Ellett, C.D., & Chauvin, E. (1991). Development, validity, and reliability of a new
generation of assessments of effective teaching and learning: Future directions for the
study of learning environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(2): 25-36.

Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980).
Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Mathewson, G.C. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon reading and learning to read. In R.B. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 3rd. Ed. (pp. 1131-1161). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Meece, J.L., Blumenfield, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4): 514-523.

Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14-24.

Osborne, J. (2001). Assessing metacognition in the classroom: the assessment of
cognition monitoring effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript, the Department of
Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma.

Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1): 33-40.

Royer, J.M., Cisero, C.A., & Carlo, M.S. (1993). Techniques and procedures for
assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63(2): 201-243.

Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4): 571-581.

Strickland, B.R. (1989). Internal-external control expectancies: From contingency to creativity. American Psychologist, 44(1): 1-12.

Sweet, A.P., Guthrie, J.T., & Ng, M. (1996). Teacher Perceptions and Students'
Motivation To Read (Reading Research Report No. 69). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

Thompson, M., Kaslow, N.J., Weiss, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Children's Attributional Style Questionnaire revised: Psychometric examination. Psychological Assessment, 10(2): 166-170.

Ward, L., & Traweek, D. (1993). Application of a metacognitive strategy to assessment, intervention, and consultation: A think-aloud technique. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 469-485.

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: a rationale for theory and teaching. In J.T. Guthrie and A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading Engagement: Motivating Readers Through
Integrated Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1990). To use their minds well:
Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.