23 SINAY E. Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Deeper-Learning

FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES
AND DEEPER LEARNING WITH

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
SERIES
TEACHER ENGAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION, AND LEADERSHIP IN STEM PEDAGOGY
Research & Information Services

Toronto District School Board
March 2018
Report No. 17/18-15
About this Project:
This report is the result of a collaborative project supported by the Council of Ontario Directors of
Education (CODE), Technology and Learning Fund, TDSB Teaching and Learning Department-STEM
K-12 and TDSB Research and Information Services led by Research Coordinator Erhan Sinay.
TITLE: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research
Series: Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy
AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay and Thomas G. Ryan
Copyright © Toronto District School Board (March 2018)
Cite as: Sinay, E., Ryan, T. G. (2018). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with
digital technologies research series: Teacher engagement, technology integration, and leadership
in STEM pedagogy. (Research Report No. 17/18-15). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District
School Board.
Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is
encouraged.
For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from:
Research & Information Services

Toronto District School Board
1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level
Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3
Fax: 416-394-4946
Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to
make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings.
R02(STEM\2016-17\Deep Learning and GC Reports\Research Series 3\GC Research Series – TDSB STEM Teacher
Engagement)es.1485
2 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank and acknowledge the support of TDSB Leadership Team:
Antonio Santos, Central Coordinating Principal, Toronto District School Board
Roula Anastasakos, Executive Superintendent, Research, Organizational Design and Information

Service, Educational Partnerships
Beth Butcher, Executive Superintendent, LC 1 Leadership-School Effectiveness
Manon Gardner, Executive Superintendent, Teaching and Learning, Alternative, International

Education
We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following TDSB
research team members in this study:
Margaret Douglin, Researcher
Ashley Nahornick, Researcher
David Sauriol, Researcher
Sarah Walter, Researcher
Kamini Jaipal-Jamani, Associate Professor, Science Education, Department of Teacher Education

Brock University, Faculty of Education
Vanessa Bonsu, Researcher
Tammy Tse, Researcher
We would like to thank and acknowledge the following academics granting us permissions to use
all or part of their survey tool in teacher engagement:
Robert M. Klassen, Department of Education University of York, York UK
Sündüs Yerdelen, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey and Kafkas University, Kars,
Turkey
Tracy L. Durksen, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 3

We would like to thank and acknowledge the following academics granting us permissions to use
all or part of their survey tool in technology integration:
Peggy A. Ertmer, Professor of Learning Design and Technology Purdue University
Mable Kinzie, Professor, Instructional Technology, Center for Advanced Study of Teaching &
Learning (CASTL) Curry School of Education, University of Virginia
Timothy Newby, Professor, Learning Design and Technology, Department of Curriculum &
Instruction Purdue University
Punya Mishra, Associate Dean of Scholarship & Innovation, Professor, Leadership & Innovation
Mary Lou Fulton Teacher's College, Arizona State University

Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................ 7
Background .......................................................................................................... 12
Cognitive and Emotional Engagement ................................................................. 14

Cognitive Engagement.................................................................................................................................. 15
Emotional Engagement ................................................................................................................................ 16
Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership .................................. 17

Social Engagement: Colleagues .................................................................................................................... 18
Gender and Teacher Engagement ................................................................................................................ 19
Social Engagement: Students ....................................................................................................................... 20
Social Engagement: Students Results ........................................................................................................... 24
Engagement: School Leadership .................................................................................................................. 26
Engagement with Leadership Results........................................................................................................... 29
Engagement: STEM and Digital Tools ................................................................... 32

Teaching with Technology Results ............................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 41
References ........................................................................................................... 44

Executive Summary
The goal of the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) STEM strategy is to build capacity among
TDSB K-12 educators to enhance their STEM pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy, and promote
STEM implementation in classrooms. A critical factor in enhancing STEM across the Board is
teacher engagement. Teacher engagement is paramount for student success, as studies have
shown that teacher attitudes, behaviours and motivations are often passed onto students (Roth,
Assor, Kanat-Maymon & Kaplan, 2007). Researchers (Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Reschly &
Christenson, 2012) found student engagement can impact perceptions of school as well as school
behaviours, particularly for at-risk youth.
During the 2014-15 school year, a study on teacher engagement was conducted with 227
educators, 167 STEM educators and 60 non-STEM educators, in the TDSB as part of the STEM
strategy. This study examined: (1) teacher cognitive and emotional engagement, (2) social
engagement with colleagues, students, and leadership, and (3) teacher engagement with STEM
and digital tools.
Figure 1: Teacher Engagement Study Overview
Overall, the results suggest that there are many aspects of engagement (cognitive, emotional,
social, technology, and digital learning) that are important for teacher and student engagement.

Figure 2: Elements of Engagement
Source: Victoria State Government Department of Education and Training, 2015, para 1.
The findings provided insights into different groups of teachers based on STEM/non-STEM, gender,
or years of experience. Each group had different responses to questions about engagement and
these differences are important to note, as there are many influences on engagement.
Furthermore, findings suggest STEM teachers show statistically significant increased engagement
over non-STEM teachers in many areas of emotional engagement, social engagement with
students, social engagement with colleagues, digital tools, and student use of technology and
school leadership. Part I of the study illuminates teacher cognitive and emotional engagement, as
follows:
PART 1: Teacher Cognitive and Emotional Engagement
FINDING EVIDENCE
1. Majority of educators were always The majority of STEM (60%) and non-STEM
cognitively engaged educators (54%) felt they were always cognitively
engaged in their teaching.
IMPORTANT
2. Majority of educators were always Approximately half of STEM (54%) and non-STEM
emotionally engaged educators (45%) felt they were always emotionally
engaged in their teaching.
3. Majority of educators enjoyed their work The majority of STEM and non-STEM educators
state they enjoy their work (mean of 5.38/6 for
STEM educators and 5.15/6 for non-STEM
educators).

PART 1: Teacher Cognitive and Emotional Engagement
FINDING EVIDENCE
4. STEM educators find teaching exciting and STEM educators had statistically significantly
fun higher emotional engagement compared to non-
STEM educators for “excitement for teaching” and
“find teaching fun.”
5. Less experienced educators report higher Educators with two or less years of experience
cognitive and emotional engagement rated their cognitive and emotional engagement
questions more highly than educators with more
than two years of experience.
Part 2 of the study examined teacher social engagement with colleagues, students and leadership,
and the results are as follows:
PART 2: Social Engagement with Colleagues, Students and Leadership
Finding Evidence
Social Engagement with Colleagues

1. STEM educators’ engagement with STEM educators’ ratings for all areas of social
colleagues was statistically higher than engagement with colleagues (connecting, helping,
non-STEM educators valuing relationships, caring about problems of
colleagues) were significantly higher than non-
STEM educators.
2. Female educators’ ratings of engagement Female educators’ ratings of engagement were

were significantly higher than males significantly higher than males for cognitive,
emotional, and social engagement with students
and colleagues.
3. Around half of educators value their Roughly half of non-STEM (47%) and 60% of STEM
relationships with colleagues educators stated they valued their relationships
with colleagues.
Social Engagement with Students

1. More than half of educators were always In terms of student engagement, well over half of
sympathetic and socially engaged with STEM and non-STEM educators indicated they
students were always empathetic (67% STEM educators,
65% non-STEM) and always socially engaged with
students (61% STEM, 56% non-STEM).

PART 2: Social Engagement with Colleagues, Students and Leadership
Finding Evidence
2. STEM educators’ awareness of students’ STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of
feelings was significantly higher than non- students’ feeling were significantly higher than
STEM educators non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM
educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM
educators).
Social Engagement with Leadership

1. The results show a disconnect between Nearly three-quarters of STEM educators
educators’ expectations of leadership and suggested leadership meant building, recognizing,
their actual experience demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing
and creating in a school. However, only 38% of
STEM educators strongly agreed leaders were
skilled and able to help students succeed.
2. STEM educators’ perceptions of school STEM educators’ rating for all areas of school
leadership were significantly higher than leadership (building relationships, recognizing
non-STEM educators accomplishments, believing in skills and abilities,
decision making, leadership opportunities and a
shared vision) were significantly higher than non-
STEM educators.
3. Early career educators were more The survey also revealed that educators early in
engaged in leadership than experienced their careers (with two years of experience or less)
educators were more engaged in terms of leadership than
more experienced educators (mean of 6.05/7 for
<1 year, 6.29/7 for 1-2 years, compared to mean of
<5.27 for all other years).
Part 3 of the study examined educator engagement with STEM and digital tools, and the results
are as follows:
Part 3: Teacher Engagement with STEM and Digital Tools
FINDING EVIDENCE
1. Educators support technology in the While educators from all levels of experience
classroom, but some may feel seemed to equally favour the use of technology in
uncomfortable using it classrooms, only about 30% STEM and non-STEM
educators strongly agreed they felt comfortable
using it.

2. STEM educators had statistically higher STEM educators showed significantly higher
reported usage of digital tools student use of technology (in substituting,
augmenting and redefining learning) than non-
IMPORTANT
STEM educators.
STEM educators indicated statistically higher usage

of computer technology and interactive
whiteboards than non-STEM educators.
3. Use of some digital tools were minimal STEM educators and non-STEM educators alike
never or rarely used social media and video-
conferencing when teaching. (69% of STEM and
76% of non-STEM educators never or rarely use
social media, and 86% of STEM and 84% of non-
STEM educators never or rarely use video-
conferencing).
=Key Finding
Overall, this report and the data from the TDSB’s 2014-15 Teacher Engagement survey have shown
that engagement involves much more than just learning and teaching and therefore many
dimensions must be considered when examining the complexities of student and teacher
engagement. Further research recommended to use and validate the “Engaged Teachers Scale”
(Klassen, Yerdelen, & Durksen, 2013), in a broader system-wide interventions involving larger
populations.
Summary: In the 2014-15 school year, a TDSB study on teacher engagement was conducted
with 227 educators, 167 STEM educators and 60 non-STEM educators, as part of the TDSB’s
STEM strategy. A critical factor in enhancing STEM across the Board is teacher engagement.
Teacher engagement is paramount for student success, as studies have shown that teacher
attitudes, behaviours, and motivations are often passed onto students (Roth, Assor, Kanat-
Maymon & Kaplan, 2007). This study examined: (1) teacher cognitive and emotional
engagement, (2) social engagement with colleagues, students and leadership, and (3) teacher
engagement with STEM and digital tools. Overall, results have shown that engagement
involves much more than just learning and teaching and includes many dimensions. A major
finding from the study was that overall STEM teachers showed statistically significant
increased engagement over non-STEM teachers in many areas of emotional engagement,
social engagement with students, social engagement with colleagues, digital tools, student
use of technology, and school leadership.

Background
Engagement is a complex and multidimensional construct incorporating beliefs, attitudes, social
interactions, emotions, skills, and behaviour (Harris, 2008). While engagement involves both
physical and cognitive elements, many studies have investigated only distinct dimensions of this
construct (Harris, 2008). Consider the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement that suggested
engagement is a “students’ involvement with activities and conditions likely to generate high
quality learning” (ACER, 2011, p. 3), or the (North American) National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE), which measures the extent to which students are actively engaged in learning,
and provides insight into engagement. Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) suggest that all
elements of engagement, including behaviour, cognition, and emotion are equally important and
represent different aspects of experience. They therefore suggest more multidimensional
examinations of engagement.
Figure 3: Elements of Engagement
Research indicates teacher engagement is an important part of ensuring that students are engaged
at school and in their learning (Klassen, Yerdelen, & Durksen, 2013).

Students respond positively to teachers who are motivated and engaged in their work, and will
pick on teachers’ attitudes towards learning (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007).
Student engagement is critical for ensuring successful learning outcomes and a positive attitude
towards learning. Due to the interrelationship between student and teacher engagement,
understanding different dimensions of teacher engagement is also important.
Incorporating both the ideas that all the elements of engagement are equally important and that
teacher engagement is important for student engagement, the current report aims to investigate
teacher engagement at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) across several domains using data
from a recent 2014-15 survey (n=227) of the TDSB’s STEM teachers (n=167) and non-STEM
teachers (n=60). In this study we have used “Engaged Teachers Scale” developed by Klassen,
Yerdelen, and Durksen, (2013) to measure the teacher cognitive, emotional, and social
engagement (with students and colleagues). This study is implemented within the 20 elementary
STEM pilot schools in the 2014-15 school year and results are limited within this context. However,
findings of this study are discussed and triangulated in relation to the most current and
comprehensive research literature on teacher engagement.
This report positions findings within the context of the literature on engagement. The first section
will illuminate TDSB teachers’ cognitive and emotional engagement. The second section will detail
how educators are engaging with colleagues, students, and leadership in schools and the final
section will address teacher engagement with technology and digital tools.

Figure 4: Teacher Engagement Report Sections
Cognitive and Emotional Engagement
While there are many different elements that make up the concept of engagement, some
researchers, such as Jones (2008), have developed approaches based on three main domains:
behaviour, emotion, and cognition. Jones (2008) created an Engagement-Based Learning and
Teaching Approach (EBLT) wherein he defines the Cognitive Domain as the combination of beliefs
and values, the Emotional Domain consists of motivation and feelings, and the Behavioural
Domain involves habits and skills.
Figure 5: Domains of Student Engagement

Jones (2008) suggests that parents and teachers must work with students within and across all
three domains to develop an integrated approach to learning and student engagement.
Trowler (2010) also provides a useful framework for understanding how these elements of
engagement appear within positive engagement, non-engagement, and negative engagement (see
Figure 6).
Figure 6: States of Engagement
Source: Trowler, 2010, p. 6.
Students, teachers, and stakeholders of all ages need to participate in education across all of these
domains by being physically and intellectually involved, but this can only happen when they are
included, cared for, and respected (Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009). The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey
therefore aimed to look at teacher engagement in terms of cognition and emotion.
Cognitive Engagement
The TDSB’s 2014-15 teacher survey looked at cognitive engagement levels via survey items that
contained verbs such as trying hard, throwing oneself into their work, paying attention, and
working with intensity. The vast majority of both non-STEM and STEM teachers indicated they
always try their hardest to perform well while teaching. Of the 60 non-STEM teachers surveyed,
72% stated they always try their hardest and 76% of STEM teachers said so. STEM (n=126) and
non-STEM (n=60) educators also indicated they were always cognitively engaged at 60% and 54%
respectively. In fact, 100% of STEM and non-STEM teachers reported to be
often/frequently/always cognitively engaged at work. These results are quite positive and indicate
the majority of teachers remain consistently cognitively engaged in their work (see Figure 7 for the
means and Table A1 in Appendix A for the frequencies).

Figure 7: Cognitive Engagement
Mean
COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT NON-STEM STEM response
I try my hardest to perform well while 5.63

teaching. 5.73
While teaching, I really "throw" myself into my 5.22

work. 5.39
While teaching I pay a lot of attention to my 5.47

work. 5.58
5.28
While teaching, I work with intensity.
5.30
5.40
Overall
5.50
Significant difference b etween groups (p < 0.05)
Emotional Engagement
The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey tapped into emotional engagement implicitly through survey item
verbs such as excited, happy, paying, love, and fun. Over half (58%) of non-STEM teachers said that
they always “love teaching,” compared to 67% of the STEM teachers surveyed. STEM and non-
STEM educators also indicated they were always emotionally engaged while teaching, at 54% and
45% respectively. Additionally, STEM educators had statistically significant results compared to
non-STEM educators for “excitement for teaching” and “find teaching fun” (mean of 5.41
compared to 5.15, respectively, for excitement about teaching and a mean of 5.28 compared to
5.00 for find teaching fun). These results are also very positive and suggest that most teachers are
emotionally engaged and enjoy their work (see Figure 8 for means and Table A2 in Appendix A for
the frequencies).

Figure 8: Emotional Engagement
EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT
Mean
EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT NON-STEM STEM response
5.15
I am excited about teaching. 5.41
5.13
I feel happy while teaching.
5.28
5.32
I love teaching.
5.53
5.00
I find teaching fun.
5.28
5.15
Overall
5.38
Summary: Teachers were asked about their cognitive and emotional engagement with
teaching. Overall, the majority of teachers reported being always cognitively and emotionally
engaged. The majority of educators enjoy teaching. Nonetheless, STEM educators had
statistically higher emotional engagement compared to non-STEM educators for “excitement
for teaching” and “find teaching fun.” Less experienced educators report higher cognitive and
emotional engagement with teaching.
Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership

The notion that humans learn best by being social and connecting with others has been shown
theoretically and scientifically. Past social theorists, such as Vygotsky (1978) and Bandura, Ross,
and Ross (1963), determined that each of us learn best via social interaction. We can choose to
work alone but people may perform better, in theory, if we work collaboratively. Working with
others has long been understood as an aspect of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
(Hrastinski, 2009) and really emerges when we compare communal learning to the extent of
learning one can achieve individually. However, when it comes to engagement, the social elements
can be problematic in that “consistency and agreement among scholars and educational institutes
about what constitutes social engagement is still non-existent” (Parsons & Taylor, 2011, p. 27).

Still, social interactions are an important part of engagement, and the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey
therefore examined teacher engagement in terms of colleagues, students, and school leadership.
Figure 9: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
Source: Dcoetzee, 2012, p. 1
Social Engagement: Colleagues

The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM and non-STEM educators examined social engagement with
colleagues via survey items that contained verbs such as connecting, helping, relationships, and
caring. Twenty-eight (28) non-STEM teachers (47% of those surveyed), indicated that they always
value “relationships built with colleagues.” By contrast, 100 of the STEM teachers surveyed (60%)
suggested they always value “relationships built with colleagues.” Figure 10 shows a comparison of
the means of scores related to social engagement for STEM and non-STEM educators.

Figure 10: Social Engagement (Colleagues)
Mean
SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: COLLEAGUES NON-STEM STEM
response
4.49
At school, I connect well with my colleagues. 5.07
At school, I am committed to helping my 5.10

colleagues. 5.46
At school, I value the relationships I build with 5.20

my colleagues. 5.46
At school, I care about the problems of my 4.51

colleagues. 5.10
4.83
Overall
5.27
Gender and Teacher Engagement

Teachers were asked to indicate their gender on the survey: male, female, trans, androgynous,
gender-queer, or other. When elements of engagement were analyzed through gender, there was
a significant difference between female and male teachers in cognitive, emotional and social
engagement with both students and colleagues (see Figure 11). This indicates that female
teachers’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than male teachers’ ratings for many of
the dimensions of engagement measured by the survey.
Figure 11: Gender and Engagement
FEMALE MALE Mean

response
5.54
Cognitive 5.25
5.40
Emotional 5.04
5.60
Social (Students) 5.16
5.22
Social (Colleagues)
4.95
Significant difference between groups (p<0.05)

Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with colleagues, via survey
items that contained verbs such as connecting, helping, relationships, and caring. STEM
educators’ engagement with colleagues was statistically higher than non-STEM educators for
all areas of social engagement (connection with colleagues, helping colleagues, valuing
relationships, caring about problems of colleagues). Approximately, half of educators (47% of
non-STEM and 60% of STEM educators) reported they value their relationship with colleagues.
Furthermore, female teachers’ ratings of engagement were significantly higher than male
teachers’ ratings for many of the dimensions of engagement measured by the survey.
Social Engagement: Students

Teachers must find ways to engage with students and to help students engage with their learning.
The term student engagement has, over the years, been described in numerous ways (Azvedo,
2015; Dixson, 2015). Reeve (2012) suggests student engagement is an observable display or
manifestation of motivation and enthusiasm. While student engagement can be observed by
looking through and within instances of motivation, this is only a fragment of student engagement
(Dixson, 2015). Motivation can lead us to engage, but we must also engage in a manner that
supports our learning (Mello, 2016).
Figure 12: Description of Student Engagement
Student or learner engagement is important because it directly impacts achievement, behaviour

and perception (of belonging) and can be linked to dropout rates of at-risk students (Parsons &
Taylor, 2011; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). However, there are several understandings of learner
engagement, therefore “. . . defining the concept is problematic as there is disagreement about
what counts as student engagement” (Harris, 2008, p. 58).

Student engagement signifies actions and states (Barkley, 2009) and examining engagement
chronologically involves interest (Dewey, 1913), effort (Meece & Blumenfeld, 1988), and
measuring time on task (Berliner, 1990).
In 1993, Skinner and Belmont also included motivation as an important part of engagement, and
recently Davis (2006) suggested students may work harder for teachers they like. Hattie (2009),
commenting on a meta-analysis, suggested engagement involves “. . . more respect of self and
others, fewer resistant behaviours, greater student-initiated activities, and higher learning
outcomes” (p. 119). Several findings support the idea that teacher-student relationships are a
critical part of student engagement. For example, Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, and Oort (2011) revealed
robust teacher-student relationships related to engagement and achievement. This builds upon
the findings of Chen, Gonyea, and Kuh (2008), who demonstrated that learner satisfaction and
achievement were well within a working definition of engagement. Willms (2011) also claimed
engagement involved, “a long-term disposition towards learning — viewing learning as fun, seeing
it as important, seeing the value of working with and functioning as part of a team, being part of a
social institution” (p. 6).
Figure 13: Effect of Teacher-Student Relationships on Engagement

The opposite of engagement would be viewing learning as boring, seeing it as unimportant and
working alone while remaining separate from the institution. This disconnection was identified by
Klem and Connell in 2004, who found students of low socio-economic background often struggled
academically, realized limited success in elementary school, and by secondary school 40% to 60%
were disengaged. From the 1980s to 2010, Parsons and Taylor (2011) identified three shifts in how
educators sought to reduce disengagement among students. In the 1980s when disengagement
and disadvantaged students were identified, both participation and achievement were key, hence,
a focus was to reduce dropout statistics. In the 1990s, classroom management grew in importance
and the aim was to decrease disciplinary issues via engagement strategies. In the first decade of
the millennium, the goal was to engage students as lifelong learners.
Figure 14: Shifts in Reducing Student Disengagement
Equity is also inherently tied to disengagement because “[it] is disproportionately experienced by

students living in poverty, students with disabilities, and students from ethnic minority and
Aboriginal communities” (Willms, Friesen & Milton, 2009, p. 7). All students should have an
opportunity to experience engagement and this may be possible if Leithwood and Patrician (2015)
are correct in suggesting that “parent involvement in their children’s learning is widely

acknowledged as having a positive effect on student academic success . . . [since] parent
engagement can mitigate differences in socioeconomic status (SES) and family background” (p.
664).
Figure 15: Parent and Student Engagement
Source: Leithwood & Patrician, 2015, p. 669
Engagement opposes disengagement as it requires energy, effort, and actions to complete a task
(motivation) (Reschly & Christenson, 2012), which in turn connects to safe and supportive
relationships within a respect for diversity (see Figure 16).
Figure 16: Engagement in Schools
Source: American Institutes for Research, 2016, p.1
Student engagement can be understood via the thoughts of Gunuc and Kuzu (2014) who suggest
engagement is really “ . . . the quality and quantity of students’ psychological, cognitive, emotional
and behavioral reactions to the learning process as well as to in-class/out-of-class academic and
social activities to achieve successful learning outcomes ” (p. 589). Student engagement is situated
within sociology and understood conceptually as a psychological notion (Kahu, 2013). Järvelä et al.
(2016) believe “engagement as a concept is a fusion of the socioemotional and cognitive aspects of
learning” (p. 40), wherein the cognitive aspects of student engagement include the “need to feel
like they are valued and belong and be in a good emotional and psychological state to learn”
(Cobb, 2014, p.14). Gunuc and Kuzu (2014) claim that an “increase in class engagement not only
increases students’ level of academic achievement but also leads to positive outcomes” (p. 210).
Figure 17: Student Engagement
Source: Gunuc and Kuzu, 2014, p. 588
Järvelä et al., (2016) suggest behavioural engagement “includes actions such as attendance
and participation, emotional engagement includes a sense of belonging and of valuing learning,
and cognitive engagement is described as willingness to engage in effortful tasks and strategy use”
(p. 40). Ideally, all students will demonstrate positive behavioural engagement where students are
“asking questions, taking an active part in classes, paying attention to classes and making efforts”
(Gunuc & Kuzu, 2014, p. 590). If there is behavioural engagement, then student learning can
unfold in a natural manner.
Social Engagement: Students Results

To tap in to this important area of engagement, the recent TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM (n=126)
and non-STEM (n=60) educators measured social engagement with students via survey items that
contained verbs such as showing warmth, feelings, awareness, caring, and empathy towards
students. Of the 60 non-STEM teachers surveyed, 39 (65%) indicated that they are “empathetic

towards students” and 110 (67%) of STEM teachers also indicated that they are “empathetic
towards students”. Over half of STEM (61%) and non-STEM (56%) teachers indicated they were
always socially engaged with students. Furthermore, STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of
students’ feeling were significantly higher than non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM
educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM educators) (see Table A3 in Appendix A for
frequencies and Figure 18 for means).
Figure 18: Social Engagement (Students)
Mean
SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: STUDENTS NON- STEM STEM response
5.43
In class, I show warmth to my students. 5.54
5.15
In class, I am aware of my students' feelings.
5.37
In class, I care about the problems of my 5.45

students. 5.60
In class, I am empathetic towards my 5.55

students. 5.57
5.40
Overall 5.52
The survey also indicated that, in general, teachers with two years of experience or less were more
engaged across measures of cognitive and emotional engagement, whereas rates of engagement
with students and colleagues were similar across all groups of teachers (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Years Teaching and Teacher Engagement
Less than 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more Mean Responses

one year years years years years 0 (Never) to 6 (Always)
5.83
5.75 5.75
5.55 5.49 5.58 5.59
5.44 5.50 5.50 5.45
5.38 5.40 5.42
5.33
5.26
5.13 5.18
5.06
4.92
Cognitive Emotional Social - Students Social - Colleagues
Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with students, via survey
items that contained verbs such as showing warmth, feelings, awareness, caring, and empathy
towards students. Social engagement with students is important; it is a key factor in helping
students engage with their learning. In terms of student engagement, well over half of STEM
and non-STEM educators indicated they were always empathetic (67% STEM educators,
65% non-STEM) and always socially engaged with students (61% STEM, 56% non-STEM).
STEM educators’ ratings for awareness of students’ feelings were significantly higher than
non-STEM educators (mean of 5.37/6 for STEM educators compared to 5.15/6 for non-STEM
educators).
Engagement: School Leadership

Traditionally, school leadership discussion has centred upon the Principal who is “. . . the key
player when fostering trust among staff. Effective Principals display caring attitudes toward staff
members, students and parents” (Ryan & Soehner, 2011b, p. 286). Indeed, a Principal’s
interactions with staff, students, and parents illustrate leadership priorities. Järvelä et al. (2016)
claim, “engagement is responsive to context and social interactions in collaboration” (p. 41).
Within schools, “one of the fundamentally important dimensions of school climate is relational and
involves how ‘connected’ people feel to one another in school” (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &
Pickeral, 2009a, p.185).

Figure 20: Analytic Framework: The Influence of Principals on Teachers’ Perceptions in the School Milieu
Source: Price, 2015, p. 12
It is this very connectedness (engagement) that has surfaced as a growing area of research in
leadership (Legros & Ryan, 2016). A leader who is aware of engagement and focused on decreasing
disengagement will act in a different manner than a leader who is unaware of these elements.
Leadership is “second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning…To date

we have not found a single case of a school improving its students’ achievement record in the
absence of talented leadership” (Seashore-Louse et al., 2010, p.9)
Educators understand and embrace the notion that what they do in the school and classroom
impacts student learning (Ryan & Gallo, 2011a). Leadership definitely impacts teaching quality, and
therefore a leader who increases engagement whether it be via a coherent instructional program
(with useful feedback) or using data to improve the instructional program, can have a positive
impact on classroom instruction (Robinson, 2011). Robinson (2011) states, “the most powerful way
that school leaders can make a difference to the learning of their students is by promoting and
participating in the professional learning and development of their teachers” (p.104). In doing so,
engagement is enhanced and fortified.

Figure 21: Engagement within Leadership
Source: Parkland School Division, 2016, p.1
For example, Project Tomorrow (2014) has assembled the three Es of Education which suggest:
• Enabling students to reach their potential through increased access to educational

resources and experts that extend learning beyond the capacities or limitations of their
school or community.
• Engaging students in rich, compelling learning experiences that develop deeper knowledge
and skill development, especially the problem solving, creativity and critical thinking skills
so highly desired for our world today.
• Empowering students to take responsibility for their own educational destinies and to
explore knowledge with an unfettered curiosity, thus creating a new generation of lifelong
learners. (p. 12)
Figure 22: Three Es of Education

An informed educator conscious of these three Es will act differently than a leader who is less
informed. Recently, Hughes and Pickeral (2013) laid out five practical engagement strategies for
Principals embracing distributed leadership:
1. Leadership can be seen as a partnership amongst all stakeholders

2. Participants have a shared vision
3. With shared responsibility comes shared accountability
4. All ideas (not personalities) are recognized
5. Inner strength of all participants is valued. (p. 76)
To enact these strategies requires an investment in social relationships with teachers, students,
and stakeholders; this engaged leadership affects student learning.
Figure 23: Five Practical Engagement Strategies for Principals
Engagement with Leadership Results

The recent TDSB’s 2014-15 survey partially focused on school leadership. School leadership was
sampled via survey item verbs such as builds, recognizes, demonstrates, believes, involves, provides
and creates states of being for teachers through school leadership actions. STEM educators’ rating
for all areas of school leadership (building relationships with teachers, recognize accomplishments

of individual teachers, respect for teachers, believing in skills and abilities of teachers, involving
teachers in decision making, providing teachers with leadership opportunities and a shared vision)
were significantly higher than non-STEM educators. Overall, within the area of school leadership,
55% of non-STEM educators versus 80% STEM teachers rated high that school leadership involves
building, recognizing, demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing and creating in a school.
This could mean that STEM teachers expect more than non-STEM teachers when it comes to
leadership in schools (see Figure 24).
Figure 24: School Leadership
NON-STEM STEM
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Low Middle High Response Low Middle High Response
Count Count
Our school leadership builds trusting relationships with
25% 19% 56% 59 11% 10% 80% 167
teachers.
Our school leadership recognizes the
accomplishments of individual teachers. 32% 14% 54% 59 11% 16% 73% 167
Our school leadership demonstrates respect for

27% 14% 59% 59 9% 10% 81% 166
teachers by listening to their ideas.
Our school leadership believes in the skills and

16% 21% 64% 58 7%7% 87% 167
abilities of teachers to contribute to student success.
Our school leadership involves teachers in decision-

29% 22% 49% 59 11% 12% 77% 167
making that affects their instructional work.
Our school leadership provides teachers with 27% 17% 56% 4% 9% 87%
59 166
leadership opportunities.
Our school leadership creates a shared vision for our 37% 17% 46% 59 14% 12% 74% 167
school to which teachers are committed.
Overall 28% 18% 55% 412 10% 11% 80% 1167
Significant difference between groups (p < 0.05)
Echoing the findings regarding cognitive and emotional engagement, Figure 25 also illustrates that
early career teachers are more highly engaged than teachers who have over three years of
experience in relation to school leadership (Mean of 6.05/7 for <1 year, 6.29/7 for 1-2 years,
compared to means of less than 5.27 for all other years of experience).

Figure 25: Years Teaching and Teacher Engagement (School Leadership)
Less than 1- 2 3-5 6-10 11 or more

one year years years years years
Mean
response
6.05
School Leadership
6.29
5.24
5.10
5.26
1 = Low 7 = High
These results are supported by other recent research, such as that of Price (2015), which claims
that focusing “on how principals' social interactions with teachers influence teachers' perceptions
of students' engagement provides a theoretical link as to how principals indirectly influence
student achievement” (p.1). Indeed, “shared leadership and instructional leadership are important
variables, but they are indirectly related to student achievement” (Seashore-Louis et al., 2010, p.
51). However, it seems the sharing “relationships that principals build with teachers have real
implications, [centering upon] the beliefs of trust and support among teachers in a school and
[has] a ripple effect on teachers' perceptions of student engagement” (Price, 2015, p.1). With
engagement being a vital element in schools and education, “frequently moving principals among
schools is not an ideal policy” (Price, 2015, p.1). As noted earlier within the work of Trowler (2010),
it is behaviour, emotion, and cognition that underpin engagement, non-engagement and negative
engagement, and this can be changed simply with the movement of a Principal from one school to
another school.

Summary: Teachers were asked about their social engagement with leadership, via survey
items that contained verbs such as builds, recognizes, demonstrates, believes, involves,
provides, and creates states of being for teachers through school leadership actions. One of
the fundamental aspects of school climate is social engagement with leadership. The results
show a disconnect between educators’ expectations of leadership and their actual experience.
Nearly three-quarters of STEM educators suggested leadership meant building, recognizing,
demonstrating, believing in, involving, providing, and creating in a school. However, only 38%
of STEM educators strongly agreed that leaders were skilled and able to help students
succeed. STEM educators’ rating for all areas of school leadership were significantly higher
than non-STEM educators. The survey also revealed that educators early in their careers
(with two years of experience or less) were more engaged in terms of leadership than more
experienced educators.
Engagement: STEM and Digital Tools

This report has so far explored the elements of cognitive, emotional, and social engagement using
data from STEM and non-STEM teachers within the TDSB. Another important area for student and
teacher engagement is digital literacy and learning. This section will address engagement through
the STEM initiative and teacher engagement with technology and digital tools. From the onset, it is
important to understand that “students’ knowledge of career requirements can significantly
impact their career choices” (Franz-Odendaal, Blotnicky, French, & Joy, 2016, p. 167). Therefore,
exposure to STEM disciplines seems even more critical at an early age.
STEM has been described as “the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics into a new transdisciplinary subject in schools” (International Technology and
Engineering Education Association, 2009, p. 1) within the TDSB there has been a steady movement
towards STEM (see Figure 26).

When did you beginFigure
your involvement
26: TDSB STEMinInvolvement
the TDSB K-12 STEM strategy?
9% Prior to September 2014

20%
September 2014 - December 2014
33%
January 2015- June 2105
29%
September 2015 - December 2015
9%
January 2016 - present
Recently, Bybee
Q7. b) (2013) suggested
How often STEM could
have you worked beSTEM
with the understood by embracing
coach assigned to the following
elements:
 Knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life situations, explain
the natural and designed world, and draw evidence based conclusions about STEM-related
issues;
 Understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of human
knowledge, inquiry, and design;
 Awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural
environments; and
 Willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen. (p. xi)
The TDSB STEM strategy encompasses these ideas (see Figure 27).
Figure 27: TDSB STEM Strategy
Source: Toronto District School Board, 2016

Franz-Odendaal et al. (2016) found that STEM activities in many schools were limited to “ . . . (a)
visiting an exhibit at a science center or museum or aquarium; (b) having a special group visit the
class for STEM-based activities; and (c) attending a special STEM-based program or competition
(such as Math Olympics, science camps, science fairs)” (p.167).
Figure 28: STEM Activities
However, the TDSB has sought to expand educators’ understanding and use of STEM through
consistent coaching (see Figure 29). Seventy-three percent (73%) of educators reported working
with a STEM coach regularly or sometimes.
How often have you worked with the STEM coach assigned to
Figure 29: TDSB STEM Coaching
your school?
8% Never
29%
19% Rarely
Sometimes
Regularly
44%
Recently within the Primary division, one educator developed a “STEM project to engage
kindergarten and first-grade students in science and engineering using role-play as a pedagogical

strategy” (Dolenc, Wood, Soldan, & Tai, 2016, p. 30). The introduction to this STEM activity
prepares students for an “active role in the classroom. [R]ole-play has been shown to increase
interaction and engagement” (Dolenc et al., 2016, p. 30). There is little debate about the
importance of STEM in schools since it can, and does, support disciplinary literacy learning (Wilson,
Smith, & Householder, 2014). Early exposure to any of the STEM disciplines may launch a career or
lead to new levels of literacy. For instance, engineering can happen at the elementary school level,
requiring the application of science and math (Berland, Steingut, & Ko, 2014).
Many believe that the “effective integration of technology in class is important for increasing
students’ class engagement” (Gunuc & Kuzu, 2014, p. 218). STEM can foster engagement because
of its particular linguistic interdisciplinary challenges and science instruction that can inspire
marginalized youth to succeed (Henrichs & Leseman, 2014). Additionally, “engagement in more
intensive STEM activities and teacher influence were statistically significant predictors of the
likelihood to choose a STEM career” (Franz-Odendaal, et al., 2016, p.167). This complements the
research of Nadelson and Seifert (2016) who found “knowledge seeking, embracing change,
exploring opportunities, and acting on a sense of responsibility were . . . indicators of teacher . . .
engagement in educational innovations” (p. 63).
Figure 30: Importance of STEM

Teaching with Technology Results
Unlike the findings from previous areas of engagement, the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey revealed that
the use of technology may not necessarily be the only the domain of younger teachers. As noted in
Figure 31, teachers with less than a year of teaching experience and those with 11 or more years of
teaching experience seemed to be at similar levels of technology use. Teachers with 1 to 2 years of
teaching experience have the highest average of using technology in teaching and learning.
Figure 31: Years Teaching and Students’ Use of Technology
Less than 1- 2 3-5 6-10 11 or more

one year years years years years
Mean
response
2.11
SAMR model
3.50
3.00
3.07
2.83
1 = Never 5 = Very Frequently
The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey also examined teaching with technology via survey items that
contained verbs such as feeling at ease, comfortable, confident, and able to incorporate technology
in teaching. Within the area of teaching with technology, 80% of non-STEM teachers and 86% of
STEM teachers indicated that they strongly felt at ease “earning about technologies for teaching
and learning.” Interestingly overall, 78% of STEM and 69% of non-STEM educators agreed with the
suggestion that they felt at ease, comfortable, confident, and able to teach with technology (see
Figure 32).

Figure 32: Teaching with Technology
NON-STEM STEM
TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY Strongly Disagree / Disagree Strongly Disagree / Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree Response Neither agree nor disagree Response
Strongly Agree / Agree Count Strongly Agree / Agree Count
I feel at ease learning about technologies for teaching
and learning. 8% 12% 80% 60
5% 10% 86% 167
I feel comfortable about my ability to work with
technologies for teaching and learning. 13% 18% 68% 60 7% 16% 78% 167
I feel comfortable about my ability to teach students to
work with technologies. 10% 25% 65% 60 7% 16% 77% 167
I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to use

technologies for instruction. 10% 25% 64% 59 8% 19% 73% 166
I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant

subject content with appropriate use of technology. 10% 19% 71% 59 8% 13% 79% 164
I feel confident that I can regularly incorporate
technology into my lessons, when appropriate, to 10% 22% 68% 59 8% 16% 75% 166
support student learning.
Overall 10% 20% 69% 357 7% 15% 78% 997
Within the survey of STEM (n=165) and non-STEM (n=60) educators, student use of technology
was illuminated via survey prompts that contained verbs such as use, augment, enhance, and
extend assigned tasks via digital technology. STEM educators showed significantly higher student
use of technology, in substituting, augmenting and redefining learning, than non-STEM educators.
Figure 33: Levels of Technology Integration
Source: Puentedura, 2014, p.1. Reproduced and adapted by

permission of the author Dr. Ruben R. Puentedura, 2014

Of the 165 STEM teachers surveyed, 51% indicated that students very frequently/frequently
substituted tools, including technologies, to complete tasks, compared to 28% of non-STEM
teachers. Additionally, 40% of STEM teachers enabled students to enhance and augment their
learning very frequently/frequently, whereas of the 15% of non-STEM teachers surveyed
suggested students’ use of technology enabled them to augment their learning very
frequently/frequently. Fifty four (54%) of STEM educators indicated that very
frequently/frequently/sometimes students’ use of technology caused them to modify the task
compared to 45% of non-STEM educators (see Figure 34).
Figure 34: Students’ Use of Technology
NON-STEM STEM
STUDENTS' USE OF TECHNOLOGY Never / Rarely Never / Rarely
Sometimes Sometimes
Very Frequently / Frequently Response Very Frequently / Frequently Response
Count Count
Students substitute tools, including technologies, to
complete tasks (e.g., students submit an assignment in a 35% 37% 28% 60 23% 26% 51% 165
Word document rather than handing it in on paper).
Students use technologies to augment their learning and
improve how they are doing tasks (e.g., students use the
text-to-speech function on a w ord processor to help the
39% 46% 15% 59 28% 32% 40% 165
w riting process).
Students modify their learning and task completion using
technology (e.g., students place their essay on an online 54% 26% 19% 57 45% 27% 27% 165
discussion board to seek feedback from classmates).
Students use technolgy to completely redefine their
learning and task completion (e.g., students submit a 59% 21% 21% 58 37% 35% 28% 165
short documentary using Window s Movie Maker instead
of an essay).
Overall 47% 33% 21% 234 34% 30% 37% 660

The TDSB’s 2014-15 survey of STEM and non-STEM educators also revealed the extent of use of
digital tools (technology) via survey items that itemized hardware such as computers/laptops,
whiteboards, mobile tech, as well as, software, social media, video conferencing and collaboration
tools.
Figure 35: Digital Tools
The majority of non-STEM teachers (84%) indicated that they never used video conferencing and
76% said they never used social media. A large proportion of STEM teachers also suggested they
did not use video conferencing (86%) or social media (69%). Many STEM teachers stated they very
frequently/frequently used computers/laptops (74%), which was statistically higher than non-
STEM teachers (62%). Similarly, another statistically significant result was that, 54% of STEM
educators suggested they used interactive whiteboards very frequently/frequently, compared to
34% of non-STEM teachers. Overall, more digital tools were never used by non-STEM educators
compared to STEM educators (see Figure 36). These results suggest that digital tools are used, but
the frequency and selection of tools can be challenging for some educators in classrooms.

Figure 36: Digital Tools STEM vs Non STEM
NON-STEM STEM
DIGITAL TOOLS Never / Rarely Never / Rarely
Sometimes Sometimes Response
Response
Very Frequently / Frequently Very Frequently / Frequently Count
Count
Collaboration tools (e.g., Google Apps for

38% 16% 46% 56 26% 26% 48% 161
Education)
Computer technology (e.g., computers/laptops) 16% 22% 62% 58 4% 21% 74% 164
Interactive whiteboards (e.g., Smartboard,

52% 14% 34% 50 32% 14% 54% 153
Promethean)
Mobile devices (e.g., iPad, Android, tablet,

21% 23% 55% 56 16% 28% 56% 165
Smartphone)
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 76% 13% 11% 54 69% 12% 18% 154
Video conferencing (e.g., Skype, Google 84% 15% 2% 86% 10% 4% 152
55
Hangouts)
Other digital tools (please specify) 50% 6% 44% 16 44% 13% 43% 61
Overall 48% 16% 36% 345 40% 18% 42% 1010
Digital learning allows students to reside in one place yet study in another; for instance, a student
can be living in Egypt and taking Canadian courses online (Ryan and Young, 2014). An online
course has a global platform/classroom and we must therefore consider global insights into online
learning (Khe Foon, 2016).
In summary, these results suggest that technology and digital learning is important for student and
teacher engagement, but that additional traits including self-confidence, enthusiasm, and
experience (prior knowledge) are also important influences (Andersen & Ponti, 2014). Cognitive,
emotional, and behavioural engagement are all important. For example, online discussion forums
can increase student engagement because they allow students to exchange words, terms and
phrases, thereby creating a sense of online community (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). This bonding
and building of community online is a digital phenomenon that can be applicable to a wide variety
of courses (Mello, 2016). Research supports this idea, as Goldberg et al. (2015) found a very
positive correlation amid student engagement evidence and course achievement.

Summary: Teachers were asked about their teaching with technology and students’ use of
technology and digital tools.
While educators from all levels of experience seemed to equally favor the use of technology in
classrooms, only about half of STEM and non-STEM educators said they felt comfortable using
it. STEM educators showed significantly higher student use of technology (in substituting,
augmenting, and redefining learning) than non-STEM educators’.
STEM educators indicated statistically higher usage of computer technology and interactive
whiteboards than non-STEM educators. However, there were some digital tools that were
rarely used. STEM educators and non-STEM educators alike never or rarely used social
media and video-conferencing when teaching.
Conclusion
STEM has a strong positive effect on multiple elements of teacher engagement. Through teachers’
cognitive/emotional engagement, engagement with colleagues, teachers and leadership and
engagement with technology and digital tools, teachers show stronger levels of engagement in all
three domains after taking part in STEM.
STEM helps to connect a teacher more with their teaching increasing the levels of emotional and
cognitive engagement. Although the levels of enjoyment in being a teacher were already high,
teaching STEM increased them higher. Further, teachers reported having “fun” more often when
they included STEM in their classroom. Deeper, and more positive, connection with other teachers
makes teachers more willing to lesson plan, take risks in their classroom and seek out colleagues to
expand their knowledge of STEM and even export the enthusiasm to other teachers.
As the personal satisfaction a teacher has in their own teaching grows they become more willing to
expand their professional connections. This leads to teachers helping, connecting with, and
building relationships with their fellow teachers more often. Additionally, teachers are shown to
be more socially engaged and aware of their students’ feelings. Teachers involved with STEM more
clearly see the contributions of their school leadership than non-STEM teachers, specifically, in the

areas of their administrator, and or, STEM leadership building, generating buy in, believing in, and
creating a positive school atmosphere.
STEM teachers showed higher rates of technology use than their colleagues. These teachers used
technology in their class more often and when they did their students used the technology in more
advanced ways. The connection between STEM and the use of technology helps in terms of
acclimating classrooms more so to STEM and making technology usage a more routine element of
student life.
In their totality, growth across all three areas that were studied shows the beneficial effect that
STEM has on the engagement of STEM teachers. As noted, earlier in this report, there is a
correlation between teacher engagement and student engagement. This means that having STEM
within schools is a positive for overall engagement within the school and can act as a positive force
across other school-related domains. Findings from this research show that incorporation of the
STEM pedagogy has positive results in terms of creating more engaged classrooms, students, and
schools.
Findings from this report help to booster findings from additional reports in the STEM, global
competencies, and deep learning report series. Whereas those reports discussed positive effects
STEM has on student achievement, global competencies and technology usage in the classroom,
this report shows some information as to why those effects occur. The answer begins with STEM
pedagogy increasing teacher engagement which in of itself leads to a plethora of positive effects.
STEM in the classroom connects teachers more so to their jobs.
In summary, these results suggest that technology and digital learning is important for student and
teacher engagement, but that additional traits including self-confidence, enthusiasm, and
experience (prior knowledge) are also important influences (Andersen & Ponti, 2014). Cognitive,
emotional, and behavioural engagement are all important. For example, online discussion forums
can increase student engagement because they allow students to exchange words, terms and
phrases, thereby creating a sense of online community (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). This bonding
and building of community online is a digital phenomenon that can be applicable to a wide variety
of courses (Mello, 2016). Research supports this idea, as Goldberg et al. (2015) found a very
positive correlation amid student engagement evidence and course achievement (student
performance).
This report and the data from the TDSB’s 2014-15 survey have shown that the engagement setting
involves much more than just learning and teaching and therefore, many dimensions must be
considered when examining the complexities of student and teacher engagement. Further
research is recommended to use and validate the “Engaged Teachers Scale” (Klassen, Yerdelen, &
Durksen, 2013) in a broader system-wide intervention involving larger populations.
Figure 37: An Embedded Multi-Dimensional Student Engagement Framework
Source: Pickford, 2016, p. 1

References
ACER. (2011). Dropout DNA, and the genetics of Cohen, J., McCabe, E.M., Michelli, N.M., & Pickeral, T.
effective support. Research briefing, Australasian (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice and
survey of student engagement, 11, 1-18. Retrieved teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1),
from www.acer.edu.au 180-213.
American Institutes for Research. (2016). Safe and Davis, H.A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of
supportive schools model. National Center on Safe relationship quality between middle school students
Supportive Learning Environments. Retrieved from and teachers. The Elementary School Journal 106(3),
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/school-climate pp. 193–223.
Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education.
pedagogy in an open educational course: Challenges Boston, MA: Riverside Press.
and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2), 234-249.
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement
Azvedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring in the online course: The online student engagement
engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 143-157.
theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues.
Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84-94. Dcoetzee, A. (2012). Zone of proximal development.
Wikipedia. Retrieved from
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1963). Vicarious https://wiki2.org/en/File:Zone_of_proximal_developm
reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of ent_svg#file
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 601-607.
Dolenc, N., Wood, A., Soldan, K., & Tai, R. H. (2016).
Barkley, E. F. (2009). Engagement techniques: A MARS COLONY. Science & Children, 53(6), 30-35.
handbook for college faculty.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ebelt, K. R. (2012). The effects of a robotics program
on students skills in STEM, problem solving and
Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school teamwork. Montana State University. Retrieved from:
student perceptions of the utility of the engineering http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ha
design process: Creating opportunities to engage in ndle/1/1216/EbeltK0812.pdf?
engineering practices and apply math and science
content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Franz-Odendaal, T. A., Blotnicky, K., French, F., & Joy,
23(6), 705-720. P. (2016). Experiences and perceptions of STEM
subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM activities
Berliner, D.C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about among middle school students in the Maritime
instructional time. The Nature of Time in Schools: Provinces. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics
Theoretical Concepts, Practitioner Perceptions, 3-35. & Technology Education, 16(2), 153-168.
doi:10.1080/14926156.2016.1166291
Bybee, R.W. (2013). The case for STEM education:
Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004).
Science Teachers Association. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-
Chen, P.D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a 109.
distance: Engaged or not? Innovate: Journal of Online
Education, 4(3), 3. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Student engagement
scale: Development, reliability and validity.
Cobb, N. (2014). Climate, culture and collaboration: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4),
The key to creating safe and supportive schools. 587-610. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.938019.
Techniques, 89(7), 14-19.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links Jones, R. D. (2008). Strengthening student
between educational psychology and the study of engagement. International Center for Leadership
social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177- Education. Retrieved from:
196. http://sam.spnetwork.org/spn/media/files/articles/res
earch/Strengthen%20Student%20Engagement.pdf
Goldberg, L. R., Bell, E., King, C., O'Mara, C.,
McInerney, F., Robinson, A., et al. (2015). Relationship Kahu, E.R. (2013). Framing student engagement in
between participants' level of education and higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5),
engagement in their completion of the understanding 758-773.
Dementia Massive Open Online Course. BMC Medical
Education, 15(1), 60. Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. (1991). Computer
technologies in teacher education: The measurement
Harris, L.R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of attitudes and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the
of teacher conceptions of student engagement in Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57- Association (Chicago, IL, April 3-7. 1991).
79.
Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. A. B., & Powers, S. M.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of (1994). Computer technologies: Attitudes and self-
800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon, VA: Efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in
Routledge. Higher Education, 35(6): 745-768.
Henrichs, L. F., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2014). Early Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T.L. (2013).
science instruction and academic language Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the
development can go hand in hand. The promising Engaged Teacher Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning
effects of a low-intensity teacher-focused intervention. Research, 2, 33-52.
International Journal of Science Education, 36(17),
2978-2995. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the
Hollands, F., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs e benefits and the challenges of integrating educational
expectations and reality. Retrieved from: robots into primary/elementary curricula. European
http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/f Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320-330.
iles/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as Khe Foon, H. (2016). Promoting engagement in online
online participation. Computers and Education, 52(1), courses: What strategies can we learn from three
78-82. highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 47(2), 320- 341. Doi:
Hughes, W.H., & Pickeral, T. (2013). School climate 10.1111/bjet.12235
and shared leadership. In Dary, T. & Pickeral, T. (Ed.).
(2013). School climate practices for implementation Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships
and sustainability. A School Climate Practice Brief, matter: Linking teacher support to student
Number 1, New York, NY: National School Climate engagement and achievement. Journal of School
Center. International Technology and Engineering Health, 74, 262-273
Education Association (ITEEA). (2009). The overlooked Legros, I., & Ryan, T.G. (2016). Principal traits and
STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. school climate: Is the invitational education leadership
Reston VA, USA: Williams. model the right choice? Journal of Educational
Leadership Policy & Practice, 31 (1), 11-25.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J.,
& Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership
and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for framework 2012 with a discussion of the research
collaborative engagement? Learning & Instruction, foundations. OISE/University of Toronto. Retrieved
4339-51. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005 from
https://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Res
earch_Report_-_EN.pdf
Leithwood, K., & Patrician, P. (2015). Changing the Puentedura, R. (2014). Building transformations.
educational culture of the home to increase Frameworks and practices. Retrieved from
student success at school. Societies, 5, 664-685; http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/0
doi:10.3390/soc50306642000. 2/03/BuildingTransformationFra meworksPractices.pdf
Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students’ goal Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory
orientations and cognitive engagement in perspective on student engagement. In S. L.
classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds), Handbook
514-523. of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172).
New York, NY: Springer.
Mello, L. V. (2016). Fostering postgraduate student
engagement: Online resources supporting self- Reschly, A.L., & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle,
directed learning in a diverse cohort. Research in and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future
Learning Technology, 241-16. DOI: directions of the engagement construct. In:
10.3402/rlt.v24.29366 Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, (Eds.), Handbook
of research on student engagement. New York, NY:
Mishra, M. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Springer, pp. 3–20.
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), Robinson, T. P. (2014). The development of an
1017‐1054. instrument to measure the self-efficacy of students
participating in VEX robotics competitions. All
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2016). Putting the Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3077.
pieces together: A model K-12 teachers' educational
innovation implementation behaviors. Journal of Robinson, V. (2011). Student centered leadership. San
Research in Innovative Teaching, 9(1), 47-67. Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Parkland School Division. (2016). Student success and Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L., & Oort, F.J.
wellbeing. [Online image] Retrieved June 10, 2017 (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student
from http://www.psd70.ab.ca/Goals.php relationships on students’ school engagement and
achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: Educational Research 81(4), pp. 493–529.
What do we know and what should we do? Alberta,
Canada: University Partners. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., and Kaplan, H.
(2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How
Pickford, R. (2016). Student engagement: Body, mind self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined
and heart – A proposal for an embedded multi- learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761-
dimensional student engagement framework. Journal 774.
of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4.
Retrieved from Ryan, T.G., & Gallo, M. (2011a). A descriptive
http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP/article/vie examination and synthesis of leadership succession.
w/198 International Journal of Educational Reform, 20(2),
132-152.
Price, H.E. (2015). ‘Principals’ social interactions with
teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), Ryan, T.G., & Soehner, D. (2011b). School leadership
pp. 116–139. doi: 10.1108/jea-02-2014-0023. and student achievement. The Scholar-Practitioner
Quarterly, 4(2), 24-48.
Project Tomorrow. (2014). The new digital learning
playbook: Advancing college and career ready skill Ryan, T. G., & Young, D. C. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching
development in K-12 schools. Retrieved from online: Stories from within. Champaign, IL: Common
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12Educat Ground Publishing.
orsandParentspdf

Ryerson University. (2014). National survey of student Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature
engagement: Highlights results. Ryerson University review. United Kingdom, York: Higher Education
Planning Office. Toronto, ON: Ryerson University. Academy. Retrieved from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/studentengagement/R
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., esearch_and_evidence_base_for_student_engagemen
Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological t
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The
Development and validation of an assessment Victoria State Government Department of Education
instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of and Training. (2015). Identifying students at risk.
Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123–149. Retrieved from:
doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/stu
dentmanagement/Pages/disengagedrisk.aspx
Seashore-Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L.,
Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and
Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
improved student learning. Center for Applied Press.
Research and Educational Improvement. University of
Minnesota, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004).
and University of Toronto, 42, 50. Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for
technology integration. Journal of Research on
Sinay, E., Jaipal-Jamani, K., Nahornick, A., & Douglin, Technology in Education, 36(3): 231-250, DOI:
M. (2016). STEM teaching and learning in the 10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414.
Toronto District School Board: Towards a strong
theoretical foundation and scaling up from initial Willms, D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did
implementation of the K-12 STEM strategy. Research you do in school today? Transforming classrooms
Series I. (Research Report No. 15/16-16 through social, academic and intellectual engagement.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association.
Board
Willms, J.D. (2011). Student engagement: A leadership
Skinner, E.A. & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in priority. In Conversation, 3(2), 1-12.
the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior
and student engagement across the school year. Wilson, A.A., Smith, E., & Householder, D.L. (2014).
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571. Using disciplinary literacies to
enhance adolescents’ engineering design activity.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(8), 676-686.
Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in

higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy.
Teaching in Higher Education 19(6): 697–708.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.901956.

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES
Table A1: Cognitive Engagement
NON-STEM (60) STEM (167)
On Sig ( 2-
Never Rarely Somet imes Of t en Frequent ly Always M EA N Never Rarely On Occasion Somet imes Of t en Frequent ly Always M EA N
Occasion t a i l e d)
I try my hardest to perform w ell w hile teaching. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 8%(5) 20%(12) 72%(43) 5.63 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(4) 22%(36) 76%(126) 5.73 p =.209
While teaching, I really "throw " myself into my w ork. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3%(2) 13%(8) 42%(25) 42%(25) 5.22 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 14%(23) 32%(53) 54%(90) 5.39 p =.149
While teaching I pay a lot of attention to my w ork. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 9%(5) 36%(21) 56%(33) 5.47 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 4%(7) 34%(56) 62%(103) 5.58 p =.252
While teaching, I w ork w ith intensity. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3%(2) 10%(6) 42%(25) 45%(27) 5.28 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(4) 13%(22) 36%(60) 48%(80) 5.30 p =.880
54% 3 1% 60%
COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 2% ( 4) 10 % ( 2 4 ) 35% ( 83)
( 12 8 )
5.40 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 1% ( 5 ) 8% ( 56)
( 205) ( 399)
5.50
Significant
Significant difference
difference between
between groups(p<0.05)
groups (p<0.05)
Table A2: Emotional Engagement
NON-STEM STEM
On Sig ( 2-
I am excited about teaching. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 10%(6) 12%(7) 32%(19) 47%(28) 5.15 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 3%(5) 8%(14) 31%(51) 58%(96) 5.41 p =.044
I feel happy w hile teaching. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 8%(5) 8%(5) 45%(27) 38%(23) 5.13 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(4) 13%(22) 39%(65) 46%(76) 5.28 p =.277
I love teaching. 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(1) 7%(4) 8%(5) 25%(15) 58%(35) 5.32 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 2%(4) 4%(7) 29%(48) 64%(107) 5.53 p =.080
I find teaching fun. 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(1) 8%(5) 15%(9) 38%(23) 37%(22) 5.00 0%(0) 1%(1) 0%(0) 4%(7) 8%(13) 41%(68) 47%(78) 5.28 p =.039
45% 35% 54%

EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 1% ( 2 ) 8% ( 20) 11% ( 2 6 ) 35% ( 84)
( 10 8 )
5 . 15 0% ( 0) 0 % ( 1) 1% ( 2 ) 3% ( 20) 8% ( 56)
( 232) ( 357)
5.38
Significant between
difference groups
between groups (p<0.05)
(p<0.05)
Table A3: Social Engagement: Students
NON-STEM STEM
On Sig ( 2-
In class, I show w armth to my students. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2% (1) 13%(8) 25%(15) 60%(36) 5.43 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(2) 7%(11) 29%(48) 63%(105) 5.54 p =.308
In class, I am aw are of my students' feelings. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 5%(3) 15%(9) 40%(24) 40%(24) 5.15 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(3) 8%(14) 41%(68) 49%(82) 5.37 p =.053
In class, I care about the problems of my students. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 5%(3) 3%(2) 33%(20) 58%(35) 5.45 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 7%(11) 27%(45) 66%(110) 5.60 p =.145
In class, I am empathetic tow ards my students. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(1) 7%(4) 27%(16) 65%(39) 5.55 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 9%(14) 24%(40) 67%(110) 5.57 p =.851
56% 30% 6 1%
SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: STUDENTS 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 4% ( 8) 10 % ( 2 3 ) 3 1% ( 7 5 )
( 13 4 )
5.40 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 0% ( 0) 1% ( 6 ) 8% ( 50)
( 2 0 1) ( 407)
5.52
Significant
difference between
between groupsgroups (p<0.05)
(p<0.05)
Table A4: Social Engagement: Colleagues
NON-STEM STEM
On Sig ( 2-
At school, I connect w ell w ith my colleagues. 0%(0) 0%(0) 3%(2) 17%(10) 20%(12) 46%(27) 14%(8) 4.49 1%(2) 0%(0) 2%(4) 3%(5) 15%(25) 44%(74) 35%(59) 5.07 p <.001
At school, I am committed to helping my colleagues. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 3%(2) 22%(13) 36%(21) 39%(23) 5.10 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 9%(15) 34%(57) 56%(94) 5.46 p =.001
At school, I value the relationships I build w ith my colleagues. 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 5%(3) 17%(10) 32%(19) 47%(28) 5.20 0%(0) 0%(0) 0%(0) 2%(3) 11%(18) 28%(46) 60%(100) 5.46 p =.035
At school, I care about the problems of my colleagues. 0%(0) 2%(1) 3%(2) 15%(9) 24%(14) 34%(20) 22%(13) 4.51 0%(0) 0%(0) 1%(1) 4%(7) 17%(29) 40%(67) 38%(63) 5.10 p =.001
37% 47%
SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: COLLEAGUES 0% ( 0) 1% ( 1) 2% ( 4) 10 % ( 2 4 ) 2 1% ( 4 9 ) 37% ( 87) 3 1% ( 7 2 ) 4.83 0% ( 2) 0% ( 0) 1% ( 5 ) 3 % ( 16 ) 13 % ( 8 7 )
( 244) ( 3 16 )
5.27


23 SINAY E. Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Deeper-Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

23 SINAY E. Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Fostering-Global-Competencies-And-Deeper-Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES

AND DEEPER LEARNING WITH

TEACHER ENGAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY

Research & Information Services

AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay and Thomas G. Ryan

Copyright © Toronto District School Board (March 2018)

Research & Information Services

2 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

Antonio Santos, Central Coordinating Principal, Toronto District School Board

Roula Anastasakos, Executive Superintendent, Research, Organizational Design and Information

Beth Butcher, Executive Superintendent, LC 1 Leadership-School Effectiveness

Manon Gardner, Executive Superintendent, Teaching and Learning, Alternative, International

Margaret Douglin, Researcher

Ashley Nahornick, Researcher

David Sauriol, Researcher

Sarah Walter, Researcher

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani, Associate Professor, Science Education, Department of Teacher Education

Vanessa Bonsu, Researcher

Tammy Tse, Researcher

Robert M. Klassen, Department of Education University of York, York UK

Tracy L. Durksen, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 3

Peggy A. Ertmer, Professor of Learning Design and Technology Purdue University

4 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

Cognitive and Emotional Engagement ................................................................. 14

Emotional Engagement ................................................................................................................................ 16

Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership .................................. 17

Gender and Teacher Engagement ................................................................................................................ 19

Social Engagement: Students ....................................................................................................................... 20

Social Engagement: Students Results ........................................................................................................... 24

Engagement: School Leadership .................................................................................................................. 26

Engagement with Leadership Results........................................................................................................... 29

Engagement: STEM and Digital Tools ................................................................... 32

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 5

Figure 1: Teacher Engagement Study Overview

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 7

PART 1: Teacher Cognitive and Emotional Engagement

8 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

PART 2: Social Engagement with Colleagues, Students and Leadership

Social Engagement with Colleagues

2. Female educators’ ratings of engagement Female educators’ ratings of engagement were

Social Engagement with Students

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 9

Social Engagement with Leadership

Part 3: Teacher Engagement with STEM and Digital Tools

10 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

STEM educators indicated statistically higher usage

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 11

Figure 3: Elements of Engagement

12 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 13

Cognitive and Emotional Engagement

Figure 5: Domains of Student Engagement

14 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

Source: Trowler, 2010, p. 6.

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 15

I try my hardest to perform well while 5.63

While teaching, I really "throw" myself into my 5.22

While teaching I pay a lot of attention to my 5.47

16 Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy

Social Engagement: Colleagues, Students, and Leadership

Teacher Engagement, Technology Integration, and Leadership in STEM Pedagogy 17

Figure 9: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development