Effects of The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning on Early and Late Middle School Students’ Engagement

Copious research has reported that student engagement is influenced not only by student characteristics but also by what happens at school (Community Health Systems Resource Group, 2005; National Research Council, 2003; Willms, 2003; Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009). Learning environments have powerful effects on students’ responses, including their engagement, satisfaction, achievement, and their likelihood to graduate (Appleton, Christenson & Furlong, 2003; Bowlby & McMullen, 2002; National Research Council, 2003; Pope, 2001). Sadly, research has also shown that less than one half of Canadian students are engaged in meaningful ways in their learning at school (Willms, 2003; Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009). While students begin schooling with high engagement levels, these levels begin to drop in the middle years of schooling but appear to recover somewhat in 10th grade, suggesting that the middle years of schooling are an especially vulnerable time in terms of student engagement (Willms et al., 2009). Trends showing decreases in engagement as children move through schooling are not limited to Canadian children: patterns of disengagement are evident in the above-average number of children who “skip” school in Turkey, Poland, Italy, Spain, and Thailand, among other countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013). Moreover, disengagement is most common in students who are traditionally underserved at school, including minority students, Indigenous students, poor students, and students with special educational needs (Caledon Institute for Social Policy, 2006; Community Health Systems Resource Group, 2005; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013; Richards & Vining, 2004). Given the strong relationship between learning environments and engagement, the current study sought to investigate the effects of a pedagogical model based on the principles of universal design for learning on the engagement of a group of diverse learners. Furthermore, we sought to investigate its effects on both early and middle years students, with the intension of determining whether the intervention would be effective in addressing the drop in engagement that has been observed over the course of these school years.A broad research base has examined student characteristics that are associated with low student engagement. Of particular interest is the engagement of students who are male, have special learning needs, and are of minority ethnic status, specifically Aboriginal Canadians. Given that these students are less likely to be engaged in schooling and in turn less likely to graduate, addressing disengagement in these students can be framed as an equity issue (Dunleavy & Milton, 2009).Males have traditionally shown lower engagement in their schooling than have females, which in turn leads to lower achievement (Bausch, 2007; Noble, Brown, & Murphy, 2001). Males are more likely to demonstrate actions that interfere with their engagement at school, such withdrawal or rebellious behaviors (James, 2007; Noble et al., 2001; Schlechty, 2002). Willms et al. (2009) showed that boys were less intellectually engaged in schooling than were girls at every grade studied, and as a result they were more likely to “skip” school as they moved into high school. Baker, Clark, Maier, and Viger (2008) posited that student engagement could be enhanced through group work and active learning pedagogies, a claim that Glass (2013) validated with under-achieving boys in her study.Likewise, children with special learning needs are less likely to be engaged in their schooling (Dunleavy & Milton, 2009). These students are also more likely to drop out of school during stressful transition periods, specifically when they are attempting to transition from middle school to high school (Marder & D’Amico, 1992). Sinclair, Christenson, Evilo, and Hurley (1998) showed that an engagement-based intervention for children with disabilities implemented in the middle years and early years of high school could enhance engagement and ameliorate school leaving behaviors in these students.Finally, Aboriginal students in Canada have shown a marked disengagement with schooling (Dunleavy & Milton, 2009). Whether urban or rural citizens, Aboriginal youth have lower levels of school engagement, school success, and school completion than nonAboriginal Canadians (Mendelson, 2008; Richards & Scott, 2009). It is noteworthy that Friesen and Krauth (2007) found that the incidence of special learning needs is twice as high in Aboriginal Canadians than in other Canadians, suggesting that the categories associated with low engagement are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, while Mendelson showed that the school completion rate of on-reserve natives has not changed in over a decade, the school completion rate of urban Aboriginal students has improved slightly, suggesting that school engagement and completion rates can be addressed with appropriate action.Although many research studies have associated student engagement with student characteristics such as learning disabilities or Aboriginal status, these findings underplay the effects of the learning environment. The effects of the classroom environment and the teaching practices cannot, and should not, be dismissed. Willms et al. (2009) found that student engagement was more dependent on which teacher the students were assigned to than the school they attended, suggesting that the effects of classroom variables are at least as influential as learner and family characteristics. Therefore, identifying the classroom factors associated with higher student engagement is an essential component of improving student achievement through higher student engagement (Hafen et al., 2012).Several seminal authors have contributed to our understanding of the classroom factors that affect student engagement. Hafen and his colleagues (2012) built on the work of Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (2000) and suggested that factors such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness were essential to high levels of engagement in students. Autonomy is characterized by students’ perceptions that they have agency in choosing their learning activities. Competence is characterized by a student’s sense of adequacy at meeting the learning challenges given to the student. Relatedness refers to developing meaningful relationships with others who are significant to the child. Furthermore, Willms et al. (2009) suggested that, in order to be engaged, students need to see the assigned class work as worthwhile. Students should be able to see the relevance of doing the work for purposes other than simply getting high marks: They should be intellectually engaged in it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998; Dweck, 2006; Fried, 2001; Jardine, Clifford, & Friesen, 2008; Schlechty, 2002). Willms et al. (2009) further proposed five characteristics of learning tasks that foster engagement: (1) the students are required to use deep thinking; (2) the students use inquiry approaches to immerse themselves in the issues they study; (3) the students see relevance and connections with other ideas outside the the students are at an appropriate is a in the learning these that student characteristics associated with of school leaving can be addressed at the classroom by pedagogical at student to student engagement has been by the of a of engagement. with engagement have been for time & et al., with most that school engagement is a et al., that both and her seminal the of and in doing to whether the of engagement was five students who were active and both and in their schooling were with While these students in school they to enhance their than they their their the students for than and themselves in their while these students to to be engaged both and at school, they found in their Willms et al. (2009) ideas the of and engagement at school with a Willms et al. of engagement as (1) engagement is in the of (2) engagement is sense of and in school (3) engagement who are intellectually engaged in learning are more likely to a by to and and on a given Willms et (2009) of engagement moved simply and into engaged by a particular the for to studies that would a more understanding of of engagement to with engagement only one (2000) showed that most who learner engagement to that time they that students themselves were the only of their engagement. is as who than can on and to use and only on would not have been able to that the of engagement was would have most likely that students who were were intellectually are with as is an of (Hafen et al., Furthermore, engagement most and variables that can be by the who Hafen et al. and et al. that the result of these is engagement by its the behaviors of students such as class and (Willms et al., 2009). et al. that both and and are for engagement to It is to that a including both and observed engagement in in the and of students in Canada not through their school years and graduate on time (Willms, 2009). Willms et al. (2009) a Canadian at school and the of that study are both and These found that students’ levels of engagement were higher in grade than in the course of these years of from in grade to in grade, and that of the students’ engagement in grade, only a over one of students in were engaged the in study was not a drop over these years of the findings that engagement during the middle years of between and the of high school, and the drop in 10th that the middle years are a for in that understanding to the drop over time affect the students’ engagement levels in high school and in affect their Moreover, the authors (Willms et al., their with a that an was the to the engagement needs of Canadian one the factors that school and classroom environments both and be Social that students that they are of the in the classroom & that students are engaged in the of the classroom and are with learning that is both and of interest that is at students during the middle years of schooling and also addressed the characteristics of that engagement (Hafen et al., Willms et al., would is the by the model of universal design for model of universal design for learning is based on the principles of universal design for learning and & the of see is a in that it is to and success, for learners. on universal design in the is to design environments that are not only the design of and but also the of learning school and The model principles for of engagement, and and & These and the practices by as student the use of and on are into of the the model and and as in and of as a to improving the model the work of to the work of the for Social and Learning see and the of model of universal design for learning & is an pedagogical model that the characteristics of effective learning tasks by and by Willms et al. (2009) in that (1) the students are required to use deep thinking; (2) the students use inquiry approaches to immerse themselves in the issues they study; (3) the students see relevance and connections with other ideas outside the the students are at an appropriate is a in the learning doing the the and engagement needs of model is and with (1) (2) and (3) that these that and a classroom foster for and are in and the is a meeting of children from the the students with their to ideas and that are to or to students a sense of and begin to their needs for engagement. the class that are of students the to their in classroom and and work with other classroom to the of classroom they to and engagement needs can be addressed in and both the that are in student engagement, to Willms et al. The The is a of and relationship between the students & Students in a of that foster for their and and turn their to developing their for the and of the other students in the students’ engagement needs, while the to in that students’ and including principles from by & & and 2001). five of Willms et (2009) characteristics of effective learning deep is through the of the over the course of the school with that the base of for students’ in the The of a of learning that students that on their The learning are based on inquiry and the proposed by Willms et al. the of the in the Willms et is in that students see relevance and connections with other ideas and outside the Students are on a that for to the by the required lower of many and into higher levels of is at students are at an appropriate Willms et as as and to move into higher as they through the is a in the of the learning in that students work with others and in both teaching and learning based on their and as they move through the and five of et (2009) characteristics of effective teaching for engagement, it to their of engagement. engagement is through both and teaching that students to Social engagement is the and group that students as they move through the as as through the one engagement is through the inquiry learning and for that are in the to meeting the of engagement proposed by Willms et al. one and of the the of engagement needs by Hafen et al. Students are during the to their learning through and are with in both learning and their needs are through the teacher and is to these learning further of relatedness to as as by diverse at their levels of in is the with such as and that the other is essential to with the to the as it time for to diverse than and in universal design as to schooling as an While is not as essential from the learner from the it is essential to the of students and in the research on the has that the is an effective of the model in lower teacher and higher satisfaction, as as for terms of student research has shown that enhanced and engagement, and from the of the & It should be that findings to of engagement reported in these studies were by than of in the research on engagement, would enhance our understanding of that the of variables associated with student engagement in the research we students who school in a Canadian The students students, students, students, students, students, and students. The students who were that they were of or The also children with special learning It should be that in the in which the study only the students with the most low incidence learning needs are Students with high incidence learning needs are not and are as of school in the study were it can be that these students would be they were not through were in the and in the these that the was diverse and and from the school the students were assigned to a group or a group based on the whether or not their teacher in the school and to its practices the were with the children in classroom in the on between and student in of the five student from students to students in the The of and classroom was a of who were in in the intervention to in a and study as group while these not pedagogical as of the they were required to student and students on that have not been of their design of the study was a and and is with studies in the & The of school were to the as a pedagogical in their school they for classroom and to the of The for of of or on or of and or by the of the order to the of were observed twice during the to both the and to other as of the learning as for and during of a study of over to students and to the and of the in the were that to of classroom in both and These of during student on classroom engagement, and other of teacher variables such as and with children from and with in including the of the in the group in the and implemented the in their over of at least in one the were at both and the characteristics of children were a especially for were Aboriginal status, and special learning The et al., is a to of engagement. The to students’ engagement was in Students were required to to a from to in the at in at and in as of the are including the on a students with higher on are more engaged while students with lower are less of was for the engagement the was students’ engagement was based on the Willms et al. (2009) of engagement. Students were required to to a from to in the work at school that of by the learning in school that to and work at school is for These were they the of (Csikszentmihalyi, that Willms and his colleagues in their seminal Canadian Students with higher on are more intellectually engaged while students with lower are less intellectually The was for these and was found to be at engagement was the and students are required to to on a with from to are a sense of engagement than lower are to out of their to for was to be the is The in the current study was an that has been in studies 2013). the of Hafen et al. we to be to factors to engagement as as the behaviors associated with children from and class were by the to be These students were observed during in and to the with were by were given a of in to of the the and of children in a The their and the group and in the an of for of was by the teacher as of the the study children not that they were the children they were that the teacher was in the during the students were observed for an on the intervention and during the of the in the and at the time in the over the the students’ behaviors on in for student to and during the student’s was based on their of engaged or was or not and with or was as a to a as by the student to or to or with other students or in their et a or group was as an to a teacher was not be a was as a to as in which students were not attempting to or to or other students or in their to a teacher were as sought to whether were significant between the group and the group students in their engagement, engagement, or engagement the that the group was from the group on variables to the The and engagement of students in the group were higher than of students in the Given the in the group of of were for engagement, engagement, and engagement were that the findings were not by the group sought to whether were significant between the group and the group students on their or engagement the Given that the were a was with engagement, engagement, and engagement as and engagement, engagement, and engagement as dependent and group as the The that the group was from the group the intervention in engagement, in engagement, and in engagement, of the that the group lower levels of engagement than the group the the group also higher levels of and engagement than the group the sought to whether the of between the and over the course of the The of was by the from their in of the engagement Therefore, a result would that the students’ engagement over the course of the while a result would that their engagement was with the or as the and the of for engagement as the dependent The showed that were significant in the of over between the and The were and for and engagement on engagement, to on engagement, and on engagement. the were The group on their on of engagement over the course of the while the group a in engagement and in engagement, and a in engagement. Of is the which was in the of an one on a of five on engagement in the group to an of an one on the for engagement in the these in the we sought to whether the strong in engagement for our who were of who traditionally in Aboriginal students, students with special needs, we also to see the of were between students and students in the middle engagement has been shown to drop a we our to only students in the group of that were in of on of the of engagement between Aboriginal and students between and between students in to and middle years students in and Given the in the group in of these of of were The for to in engagement, engagement, and engagement were that the findings were not by the group The number of students in the group who special learning needs of in the other see sought to whether were significant between the and as by the by on a of that children in and classroom were observed both and an that in observed child. were and in of with a when observed was for active learning when observed was with the with the other dependent and given the an was to whether the were to the The significant between the children and the children to the Given that the were not at a was the for and active engagement. These that the and in the for but not on observed of active for group were by the number of out of a that the students in group were engaged with active and of the that the group and observed engagement of the intervention and for during the the group and observed active engagement of the intervention and for during the The for the group that they observed engagement of the intervention and for during the the active engagement were the intervention and during the that the of both and active learning in the while they in the the the group was engaged in more than half of the time they were These findings not only the use of as a of student engagement, they also the of the in that appropriate of the by would be to both active learning and sought to whether were significant between student of engagement as by and through The for and engagement were as as the for observed and active of and that of observed was with both of observed active learning and engagement findings of the current study are in their as as they to the the of engagement. The findings that the model of universal design for learning has a on students’ engagement in their learning as as on their observed active learning and to students in that the was shown to be in the and of engagement with that with (Csikszentmihalyi, are through of the as specifically by in engagement by students with the the the by who have suggested that should students to more than simply but to and engaged in their learning 2006; Fried, 2001; et al., 2008; Pope, 2001; Schlechty, of the understanding of the significant findings by the The and out from one and they also also from one suggesting that of the showed that is The group the intervention more engaged in than the the of the the group more engaged than the the group were more engaged and intellectually than the group These were the result of the group in their in of engagement over the course of the Given that the and engagement over the course of the they higher than of the group at the of the Furthermore, the in engagement by the group with the in in the group a for the group by the of the findings are and they are further validated by that the effects were to students who are traditionally including Aboriginal students, and students. Furthermore, the findings that the engagement effects of the were by children in the early middle years and middle years of the was able to the in engagement shown in research on students in and (Willms et al., suggesting that to ameliorate the common and engagement over these school findings of the current study into the of the of engagement. The current findings a significant relationship between of engagement in the students and the of observed learning the could not be for the other engagement of and engagement with and engagement were not with the observed engagement behaviors to active learning and These relationship findings demonstrate the of as as the of engagement as a They that the of and active learning are in levels of engagement than other of that and active learning levels are not to engagement, as by students out the of the is not of the to engagement on They (1) in (2) in as (3) the of the in at Students who on of engagement simply have been as by engagement more of the and factors to (Csikszentmihalyi, while the children less engagement as the intervention the levels of engagement in the It is that the active and group children to to these as of as while the group children and less on these the that observed was not associated with engagement is that to in both the and can be in one of the students in the in both the and not have these as of as the were and by the in both Therefore, incidence of would not have in higher engagement. These findings that observed between children be as their of engagement. While the of the of is a of the engagement of students is a of These are it is that the enhanced engagement reported by the students in the was a result of than the in would the students in the group not a in their engagement as the group students, while at the time the of relationship between the of observed and students’ engagement. Moreover, further to the of and observed in studies of student engagement: students are observed not that they are enhanced with are that be the of which is The from the children have been by were the we would that these would be in the and group students. The achievement reported that was not in the current research & is The students and who to in the have been more to schooling than who The a in teaching as as a significant time from the It is that the who were to and research were more and to begin given that the group the intervention with lower engagement levels, it is that their were more and than the of the group to the to the that is in the study Given that children with high incidence disabilities are not it is to their in the current While we the of with disabilities a understanding of the incidence of and of special learning needs in the would have in more determining the effects of the on to the in the not in in order to in the but their While these not in the it is that they have been studies would from more the to which are in use that the in engagement between the and can be these Canadian children are a of engagement with their and relationship as they move through the order to and need to to the classroom factors that engagement and The model has that it has the to students during their transition through by a that their needs for autonomy, competence, and The model has that is has the to in students’ and engagement during the transition through middle et al. the the of Canadian students in and for to the students are its the a to a school as by Willms et al.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.