This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spanjers, D. M. Articles by Wagner, A. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Systematic Direct Observation of Time on Task as a Measure of Student Engagement

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, span0084{at}umn.edu

Matthew K. Burns

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Angela R. Wagner

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

This study examines the relationship between systematic direct observation (SDO) of time on task (TOT) and student engagement as measured by a self-report task-specific measure. The research questions guiding the study are (a) what is the relationship between SDO of TOT and a self-report measure of student effort, and (b) what is the relationship between TOT and reading comprehension? An exploratory analysis compares the engagement among three levels of passage difficulty. Small partial correlations are found between TOT and self-reported engagement among 125 third and fourth graders (r = –.15 and r = .30, respectively). Nonsignificant partial correlations between TOT and reading comprehension are also found. Exploratory multivariate analyses of the three variables show significant results for both third and fourth grade, but subsequent univariate analyses find a significant effect only for comprehension. Thus, these data suggest the need for additional research regarding the assessment of TOT with SDO.

Key Words: observation • time on task • engagement

References

• Albers, C.A., Elliott, S.N., Kettler, R.J., & Roach, A.T. (2005). Evaluating intervention outcomes. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Problem-solving based assessment for educational intervention (pp. 329–351). New York: Guilford.
• Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A.L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.[CrossRef]
• Ardoin, S.P., Suldo, S.M., Witt, J., Aldrich, S., & McDonald, E. (2005). Accuracy of readability estimates' predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 1–22.[CrossRef]
• Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Burns, M.K., & Dean, V.J. (2005). Effect of drill ratios on recall and on-task behavior for children with learning and attention difficulties. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 118–126.
• Cone, J.D. (1978). The behavioral assessment grid (BAG): A conceptual framework and a taxonomy. Behavior Therapy, 9, 882–888.[CrossRef]
• Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346.[CrossRef]
• DePaepe, P.A., Shores, R.E., Jack, S.L., & Denny, R.K. (1996). Effects of task difficulty on the disruptive and on-task behavior of students with severe behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 216–225.
• Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychological Press.
• Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
• Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J.K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology, IV (pp. 773–787). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
• Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K.C. (1999). Excellence in teaching: Review of instructional and environmental variables. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 933–958). New York: John Wiley.
• Gickling, E.E., & Armstrong, D.L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559–566.
• Greenwood, C.R., Horton, B.T., & Utley, C.A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 328–349.
• Harris, A.J., & Jacobson, M.D. (1982). Basic reading vocabularies. New York: Macmillan.
• Hintze, J.M., & Matthews, W.J. (2004). The generalizability of systematic direct observations across time and setting: A preliminary investigation of the psychometrics of behavioral observations. School Psychology Review, 33, 258–270.
• Hintze, J.M., Volpe, R.J., & Shapiro, E.S. (2002). Best practices in the systematic direct observation of student behavior. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 993–1006). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
• Kamphaus, R.W., & Frick, P.J. (2005). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
• Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2001). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Lagrou, R.J., Burns, M.K., Mizerek, E.A., & Mosack, J. (2006). Effects of text presentation on reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 100–109.
• McComas, J.M., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D. (2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks: A preliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 479–493.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J.D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Newmann, F., Wehlage, G.G., & Lamborn, S.D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.
• Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.[CrossRef]
• Pintrich, P.R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
• Pressley, M., Ghatala, E.S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232–249.[CrossRef]
• Read Naturally. (2003). Read Naturally master's edition teacher's manual. St. Paul, MN: Author.
• Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.[CrossRef]
• Reschly, D.J. (2003, December). What if LD identification changed to reflect research findings?: Consequences of LD identification changes. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
• Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–280.[CrossRef]
• Shapiro, E.S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
• Skinner, C.H., Rhymer, K.N., & McDaniel, E.C. (2000). Naturalistic observation in educational settings. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior (pp. 21–54). New York: Guilford.
• Treptow, M.A., Burns, M.K., & McComas, J.J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: Effects on student time on task and comprehension. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.
• Walczyk, J.J., Kelly, K.E., Meche, S.D., & Braud, H. (1999). Time limitations enhance reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 156–165.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wilson, M.S., & Reschly, D.J. (1996). Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology Review, 25, 9–23.
• Winne, P.H., & Perry, N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spanjers, D. M. Articles by Wagner, A. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?