Open Education Studies 2024; 6: 20220224

Research Article

Kristina Scott*, Leigh Rohde

Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques

for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly
Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video
Observations
https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0224 behavioral, procedural, affective, academic, and cognitive
received January 02, 2023; accepted February 09, 2024 engagement. It can also be seen as a large construct that
Abstract: Student engagement is a complex measurement looks at each engagement area holistically. Often, indivi-
that can be viewed through behavioral, emotional, and duals “know it when they see it,” which is a more subjec-
cognitive constructs. Authentic intellectual engagement tive than an objective view of the term “engagement.” To
requires more than task compliance and requires teachers move away from this personal interpretation and towards
to make decisions and moves to promote engagement. Pre- a concrete construct, various forms of how one can be
service teachers need to have these teacher decisions decon- “engaged” must be defined, and how to quantifiably mea-
structed and explicitly reconstructed to “notice” and make sure engagement needs to be determined.
sense of it. This study conducted a qualitative document Engagement, in the research, is often looked at in
analysis of 31 pre-service teachers’ observational reflections terms of three constructs (behavioral, emotional, and cog-
on a pre-selected video-recorded lesson. A pre- and post- nitive; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Behavioral
assessment was used. When pre-service teachers were given engagement is defined by how involved the student is in
explicit instruction on “noticing” teacher moves to enhance academic and social activities. Behavioral engagement looks
student engagement through multiple constructs, their under- at the students’ involvement, participation, and conduct.
standing of student engagement within a lesson shifted from Participation may include the student’s concentration, atten-
literal and compliance-focused to a multi-dimensional con- tion, effort, formulated questions, and contribution to dis-
struct involving behavior, emotion, and cognition. The assess- cussions. At the same time, conduct may consider whether a
ments also shifted focus from what the teachers did to the student follows class rules (Fredricks et al., 2004). The
impact the teacher’s decisions had on student engagement dimensions of behavioral engagement can be viewed and
and learning. Future research should look at how noticing measured on continuums such as on-task and off-task;
skills in video observations can transfer to the pre-service paying attention or not paying attention; asking questions
teachers developing their teaching skills in the classroom. or not asking questions; and putting effort in or not putting
effort in (Fredricks, Ye, Wang, & Brauer, 2019). Teacher beha-
Keywords: teacher preparation, observation, feedback skills, viors can increase the likelihood that students will remain
explicit instruction, engagement behaviorally engaged. These teacher behaviors include a tea-
cher: setting clear expectations and learning goals, fairly and
consistently reinforcing classroom expectations, having well-
1 Introduction established routines and procedures in the classroom, pro-
viding structured response opportunities allowing for all stu-
Student engagement is a complex measurement because it dents to participate in the lesson, monitoring and interacting
can be categorized in various ways. It can include social, with all students in the classroom, and establishing a safe and
positive learning environment that capitalizes on giving spe-
 cific praise and guidance to students (Goss, Sonnemann, &
* Corresponding author: Kristina Scott, Department of Education,
Griffiths, 2017; Pedler, Hudson, & Yeigh, 2020).
Salem State University, 352 Lafayette St., Salem, 01960, MA, United States
of America, e-mail: kscott@salemstate.edu
The emotional construct of engagement focuses on stu-
Leigh Rohde: McKeown School of Education, Salem State University, dents’ attitudes, interests, and values they display through
Salem, 01960, MA, United States of America interactions with others. Emotional engagement focuses on

Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

the motivation or the desire to work (Fredricks et al., 2004). Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Schlechty (2002) found that
The emotional construct examines students’ affective reac- engaged students are persistent in their work and feel
tions (interest in learning, boredom, anxiety, and emotions). satisfaction when accomplishing tasks. They are attentive
It also examines an individual’s feelings about school or in class discussions, interested in learning, and motivated
faculty and their sense of belonging to this school environ- to learn (Fredricks et al., 2004). Students with higher levels of
ment (Fredricks et al., 2004). Emotional engagement can engagement have been shown to earn higher grades, attend
be measured on continuums such as interested or bored, school more regularly, and have higher graduation rates
enjoying or not enjoying learning, and caring and not caring (Blondal & Adalbjarnardottir, 2012; Klem & Connell, 2004;
about learning (Fredricks et al., 2019). There are a multitude of Willingham, Pollack, & Lewis, 2002).
teacher behaviors that support students’ emotional engage- Juxtaposed, disengaged students often become disrup-
ment. The most important is the individual one-on-one rela- tive, get lower grades, do not seek higher educational goals,
tionship the teacher develops with each student in their class. and are more likely to drop out of school (Kaplan, Peck, &
Other important teacher actions that promote a student’s emo- Kaplan, 1997). A lack of engagement in school has also been
tional engagement are respecting and encouraging students to linked to higher problematic behaviors, substance abuse,
share their viewpoints, fostering inclusion and a sense of and delinquency (Wang & Fredricks, 2014). It is also con-
belonging for all within the classroom, building student con- nected to not feeling noticed by peers, not finding social
fidence, and promoting student success using entry points into relationships meaningful, actively resisting and avoiding
the curriculum and scaffolds, as needed. (Collie et al., 2016; participating in class, and feeling stressed and overwhelmed
Pedler et al., 2020). with school (Fredricks et al., 2019).
The cognitive construct of engagement looks at a stu- Even when teachers understand engagement and its
dent’s willingness to put effort towards learning and their benefits, they often struggle to engage students in mean-
ability to self-regulate their learning and apply learning ingful and intellectually stimulating ways. One study by
strategies in the real world (Fredricks et al., 2004). The Schlecty in 2009 found that out of 1,500 classroom observa-
only continuum measure associated with the cognitive con- tions done on experienced teachers, only 15% of these tea-
struct is persisting with academic challenges versus giving chers achieved greater than half of their respective students’
up (Fredricks et al., 2019). Teachers enhance students’ cog- attention during their lessons. If student engagement is chal-
nitive engagement by activating students’ prior knowledge, lenging for experienced classroom teachers, it will likely be
using students’ interests to drive instruction, promoting active even more challenging for pre-service teachers (Beasley,
dialogue and encouraging students to expand on their responses, Gist, & Imbeau, 2014).
identifying students’ readiness to learn, delivering explicit
instruction, setting a purpose for learning and making real-
world connections, allowing for student choice, using uni-
versal designs for learning and high-leverage practices, and 1.1 Theoretical Framework: Danielson’s
encouraging participation and collaboration between class- Framework for Teaching
mates (Hospel & Garland, 2016; Pedler et al., 2020).
The behavioral, emotional, and cognitive constructs of The Danielson Framework for Teaching is a teacher evalua-
engagement all hinge on the teacher’s ability to create a tion model that uses student engagement as its cornerstone.
safe learning environment, encourage and support students The Danielson Framework holistically examines teachers’
taking academic risks, and deliver lessons that meet stu- responsibilities through 22 practical teaching components.
dents’ readiness and learning needs (Pedler et al., 2020). These 22 components fall into four domains (planning and
Student engagement is the cornerstone of effective instruc- preparation, the classroom environment; instruction; and
tion. In other words, effective learning only occurs when professional obligations). Teacher actions that promote stu-
students are engaged in their learning environment (Finn dent engagement are cross-cutting within domains one
& Rock, 1997; Osterman, 2000). Engagement promotes aca- through three of the framework. Domain one connects
demic, behavioral, and social–emotional success in school with the emotional construct of engagement, asking tea-
(Ladd & Dinella, 2009). Student engagement is vital to aca- chers to know their students and plan lessons coherently
demic achievement. It helps build student autonomy and based on the knowledge and relationships built with stu-
challenges students appropriately (Shernoff, Csikszentmi- dents. Domain two, which connects to the behavioral
halyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). construct of engagement, looks at establishing a safe envir-
Student engagement is a well-documented predictor onment with clear expectations and learning goals, whereas
of overall academic achievement (Fredricks et al., 2004; domain three, which focuses on instruction, explicitly has a
 Teaching Pre-service Teachers how to Notice Engagement Techniques  3

component titled “engaging students in learning” and focuses while watching a lesson. From the teacher, evaluators
directly on the cognitive engagement construct. Domain three can look for suitable pacing with time for closure, oppor-
specifically looks at four elements linked directly to student tunities given to students to respond in the lesson, the
engagement: activities and assignments, the grouping of stu- teacher’s interactions with students during the lesson,
dents, instructional material, and the structure and pacing of and the specific praise and guidance the teacher gives to
a lesson (Danielson Group, 2022). the students throughout the lesson. Observers can look to
Danielson explicitly defines student engagement as the students to see student enthusiasm, higher-level cogni-
being “intellectually active.” It expressly acknowledges tive learning tasks where students are actively “working,”
that engagement is not simply “being busy” or “on-task,” students’ motivation and persistence with a learning activity.
which is solely related to the behavioral construct of engage- Students’ enthusiasm can be seen in how their interests are
ment (Danielson, 2007). Danielson (2022) makes the distinction peaked and how they explain their thought processes. This
between “being busy and on-task” and “intellectually active,” plays right into higher-level cognitive tasks where evaluators
in that the former shows students simply behaving com- see how students actively explain their thinking and ask ques-
pliantly while in the latter, students are working on building tions to gain more information and persist with a task. In
understanding through discussions, debates, answering “what highly engaging learning, the students are not passive; they
if” questions, discovering patterns, and through other like are not merely watching the teacher perform and taking
activities. In other words, if you look at the tasks asked of notes. Instead, in the Danielson framework, students must
the “intellectually active,” they cover all engagement con- actively think to be intellectually engaged (Danielson, 2013).
structs (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive).
In engaging lessons, the observer can see higher cog-
nitive skills asked of students. The students, in other words,
are being asked to do the cognitive lift. Student engage- 1.2 Pre-service Teacher Training
ment reflects what the teacher does. It involves the activ-
ities and assignments students are asked to do and how Using a framework like the Danielson framework can help
they perform them. Engaging activities and tasks ask stu- pre-service teachers start to tease out the multitude of
dents to explain their thinking and call on the students to skills associated with teaching. The research indicates
stretch their thinking (Danielson, 2013). that this may be important because pre-service teachers
Student engagement is also seen in how students are often have difficulty thinking like a teacher rather than a
grouped within a classroom or for a particular task. The student (Beasley et al., 2014). They often rely on their own
importance of flexible grouping based on the lesson’s pur- experience or how they were taught and, therefore, see the
pose acknowledges that group formation needs to vary so teacher as the giver of information and the students as the
that all students learn from each other and are exposed to receivers. Having this perspective without a theoretical
multiple perspectives. Strategically grouping students is one of underpinning may be why the field still lacks an in-depth
the decisions that teachers make every day (Danielson, 2022). understanding of the instructional practices that make a
The material and resources teachers select also play a difference in pre-service learning – especially when it
role in student engagement. The resources teachers choose comes to strategies like engaging students in learning
to use in a lesson directly impact the students’ learning (Beasley et al., 2014).
experience(s). The material (texts, resources, learning activ- In pre-service teacher training, there needs to be dia-
ities, supplementary materials, and perspectives) teachers logue, deliberation, discussion, and a clear definition of
select for use in the classroom needs to be culturally sus- student engagement. When defining engagement, clear
taining and representative and needs to be based on inter- examples and non-examples of what this looks like in the
ests and ability levels. classroom should be presented. In other words, teacher
Another component that contributes to student engage- actions that lead to student engagement need to be obser-
ment is the pacing of a lesson. A teacher needs to control vable and measurable so that all pre-service teachers con-
how much information they give to students at once, how ceptualize this term similarly. One way to arrive at a clear
quickly they move in a lesson, and how much time they give definition for student engagement is by having pre-service
students to complete specific tasks within a lesson. This must teachers watch lessons of more experienced teachers and
be considered based on a student’s needs and the learning reflect on the teacher’s moves that foster the classes’
they have demonstrated or are struggling with. engagement with the lesson. This video analysis of master
According to the Danielson framework, evaluators can teachers can be turned into a self-reflective activity as they
look for specific indicators from teachers and students watch and analyze their lessons (Beasley et al., 2014).
4  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

Pre-service teachers need explicit criteria to provide advantageous for explicitly teaching noticing skills because
focal points for the next steps in gaining the skills to a video can display the complex richness of classroom
become effective teachers. In this regard, Danielson’s fra- learning and allow for multiple viewings where a teacher
mework has clearly defined elements that help establish a educator can explicitly call out teacher moves and student
commonly shared vocabulary for teacher-educators to use engagement resulting from specific teacher moves (Brophy,
as they coach pre-service teachers regarding teacher moves 2004). Explicit instruction on noticing while watching a
that promote student engagement (Danielson, 2007). video allows the pre-service teacher to be guided as they
shift attention from the teacher toward student learning and
cognition (Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler, 2007; Sherin & van
Es, 2005; Star & Strickland, 2008).
1.3 Skills of Noticing Classroom videos allow pre-service teachers to observe
classroom scenarios as if they were physically present in the
The Danielson framework needs to be deconstructed and, classroom (Brophy, 2004; Santagata et al., 2021). The use of
over time, reconstructed to help pre-service teachers under- video captures the specificity of the classroom experience
stand teacher moves that promote student engagement. One and allows pre-service teachers to see the classroom setting
way to do this is explicitly teaching pre-service teachers how and lesson from multiple angles, as it can be watched
to “notice” how master teachers encourage student engage- repeatedly (Kang & van Es, 2019). Videos can, therefore,
ment. “Noticing” identifies what a teacher does and what a mimic real-time teaching and the moment-by-moment pro-
pre-service teacher sees as they observe a lesson. This skill cesses of teaching (Seago, 2004). Videos can be used to ask
requires pre-service teachers to interpret their observations pre-service teachers to identify and make sense of crucial
(Mason, 2008). Teacher noticing requires pre-service tea- teaching moves, interactions, and student responses in a
chers to attend to and make sense of events happening in classroom. Videos can also be revisited multiple times for
the classroom (Lam & Chan, 2020). The act of noticing is an deeper and more fine-grained analysis, which can help pre-
essential skill for teachers (Mason, 2002). Teaching this skill, service teachers see, understand, and unpack how specific
however, can be challenging (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; moves a teacher makes influence student learning and
van Es & Sherin, 2002). engagement (van Es, Cashen, Barnhart, & Auger, 2017). In
“Noticing” is difficult to teach because classroom envir- other words, by guiding pre-service teachers on how to
onments are complex and multi-dimensional. Teachers must think and act like a teacher, the complexity of the classroom
contend with many data and variables during a lesson in the can be explicitly laid out (Llinares & Chapman, 2020).
classroom. Teachers must recognize each student and their Pre-service teachers need this guidance and explicit
prior knowledge about a topic, their “feelings” or emotions instruction as they “observe” classroom teachers and begin
coming into a class, their ability to attend a lesson, and their to identify specific teaching elements (Van Es & Sherin,
interest in the topic. Teachers also must understand the sub- 2021). Guidance and explicit instruction help pre-service
ject matter deeply, know how to provide entry points to the teachers understand what occurs within a lesson and
curriculum, and ask for more advanced skills in order for make sense of how simultaneously occurring classroom
some students to make continual progress. Teachers see sev- events affect teaching (Van Es & Sherin, 2021). Pre-service
eral observable actions and behaviors in a classroom envir- teachers also need explicit instruction regarding what they
onment, and then, they must make sense of what they are should look for within the lesson and how to dissect the
seeing (Sherin, Jacobs, & Philipp, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2002). teaching environment they observe (van Es, Tunney, Gold-
Teacher noticing, therefore, includes a set of skills “including smith, & Seago, 2014). When teacher educators provide this
attending to what is noteworthy in classroom data, analyzing guidance in observation tasks described here, they begin to
and interpreting that data concerning defined goals, and help pre-service teachers see teaching and learning systemati-
deciding how to respond” (Barnhart & van Es, 2015, p. 85). cally (Chung & van Es, 2014). One way to guide the develop-
ment of this observational learning is by having pre-service
teachers focus on specific skills during their pre-practicum
observations (Richards & Farrell, 2011).
1.4 Explicit Instruction on Noticing Observations with a pre-determined focus have been
shown to serve better as effective learning experiences
There has been growing interest in using classroom videos (Richards & Farrell, 2011; Tyminski et al., 2021). In fact,
to support the development of skills associated with noti- without this specified guidance, effective teachers and
cing (Van Es, Tekkumru-Kisa, & Seago, 2019). Video is teaching practices will not be produced (Windschitl,
 Teaching Pre-service Teachers how to Notice Engagement Techniques  5

Thompson, & Braaten, 2011). This is because, without this 2 Methodology

guidance, pre-service teachers lack the observation skills
and pedagogical content knowledge to effectively analyze
2.1 Research Design
teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond & Bransford,
2005; Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007; Star & Strick-
This research utilized qualitative document analysis as a
land, 2008; Yang, König, & Kaiser, 2021). When no observa-
group of 31 pre-service teachers conducted observational
tional guidance is provided, it was found that pre-service
reflections on classroom instruction. We collected data
teachers often focus on the behaviors of the teacher and
through written notes and reflections of video-taped obser-
that the pre-service teachers had very subjective interpre-
vations of master teachers before, during, and after explicit
tations of these behaviors (Levin, Hammer, & Coffey, 2009;
instruction on instructional moves to promote engagement
Sandoval, Deneroff, & Franke, 2002; Yang et al., 2021).
were taught. We then coded data to understand what
Calandra, Gurvitch, and Lund (2008) found that without
pre-service teachers focus on when asked “to look for
guidance, pre-service teachers often wrote low-level, play-
engagement” within a lesson, and then, we constructed a
by-play descriptions of what was taking place in the class-
descriptive write-up of the observed videotaped lesson. The
room; they did not identify specific instructional techniques
pre-service teachers participated in this observation and
used by the teacher and, therefore, could not extend their
reflection at the start of the fall semester, and this served
thinking to match a teacher’s instructional moves with stu-
as their pre-assessment. All pre-service teachers watched
dent responses and actions.
the same video, a first-grade teacher conducting a math
lesson with about 20 students. After the pre-service teachers
completed the pre-assessment, they began their fieldwork
1.5 Current Study seminar class. In this class, the pre-service teachers received
explicit instruction on what to look for and how to observe a
Pre-service teachers can be supported as they observe lesson. Explicit instruction on “noticing” was given in dif-
videos of master teachers in their classrooms. The com- ferent areas, which included teacher moves to promote
plexities of delivering a lesson and applying specific peda- classroom management, a well-structured lesson, and stu-
gogical approaches while classroom life is happening can dent engagement. Each seminar class had a specific focal
be explicitly laid out (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). area that was guided by the Danielson framework and was
This current study takes a learner-centered theoretical per- set up using a routine format which began by having the
spective as we examine how using videos with explicit pre-service teacher give an update on their field placement,
instruction can impact what pre-service teachers notice followed by direct, explicit instruction on one specific “noti-
about how a teacher’s decisions and actions promote stu- cing” skill, and concluded with direct application of the skills
dent engagement. Throughout this pre-service fieldwork in role-playing and video-observation examples. After each
class, the instructors provided direct instruction through seminar class, each pre-service teacher was asked to watch
Danielson’s framework on various engagement strategies additional video clips of classroom instruction and reflect on
and then asked pre-service teachers to watch video-recorded what they saw happening.
lessons demonstrating these strategies. As these lessons were For this specific research question, the seminar on
observed, explicit instruction was provided. Pre-service tea- engagement began by defining vocabulary associated with
chers were engaged in challenging, practice-based activities behavioral, emotional, and cognitive constructs of engage-
(video observations) with a theoretical underpinning focused ment and the objective data pre-service teachers can look
on their teaching knowledge base. Kolb (1984) and Santagata for or “notice” about teacher moves that lead to student
et al. (2021) acknowledge that this transformation experience, engagement. Pre-service teachers were taught to look for
using new knowledge to interpret video-taped classroom teacher moves that built one-on-one relationships with stu-
experiences, relies on reconstructing prior knowledge to dents, set up a safe and inclusive classroom environment,
understand the information practically. tailored the lessons to students’ needs, and encouraged stu-
Research Question: dent response opportunities through guidance and praise.
1. How and in what ways does using videos with explicit Pre-service teachers were asked to notice how these teacher
instruction impact what pre-service teachers “notice” moves impacted student enthusiasm (seen through peaked
about classroom engagement? interests and explaining one’s thought processes), higher-
6  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

• What types of activities are used to engage students?

Describe how explicit instruction and guided practice are
level cognitive learning tasks where students are actively

• What types of materials are students engaged with?

• How does the teacher create groupings (e.g., whole
groups, small groups, always together, groups that
“working” through explaining their thinking and asking

used in the video assigned for homework and your

questions to gain further understanding, students’ motiva-
tion and persistence with a task, and suitable pacing with
time for closure and student self-reflection.
Direct instruction in this seminar class also focused on

current field placement. Consider:

specific teaching techniques, such as activating background

Writing prompt for the week

knowledge, allowing for frequent response opportunities,
providing feedback, modeling, and utilizing peer-learning

are formed now)?

strategies to connect learning and students’ interests. A com-
plete layout of the seminar’s focus, including associated
vocabulary, explicit instruction topics that were called out,
modeled, and practiced, and the writing prompt students
were given post-seminar to reflect on, can be seen in Table 1.

• Initially watched video with instructors using think-a-

groups during class, asking them to “notice” teacher

• The pre-service teachers had one video clip to watch

• Pre-service teachers watched two additional videos in
instructor asking guided questions about teacher
2.2 Participants and Setting

• Pre-service teachers watched a video with the

individually for homework and were asked to

loud, calling out teacher moves to promote

moves that led to student engagement

Number and timing of videos watched
Two classes, junior year fall seminar classes, one for ele-
mentary pre-service teachers and the other for early child-

moves and student engagement

hood education pre-service teachers at a small public

complete the writing prompt

university in New England, were used to collect data for
this study. A total of 31 pre-service teachers enrolled in a
BA/MA teacher preparation program participated in the
study. The seminar classes for these students were held engagement
every other week for two-and-a-half hours, for a total of
seven sessions. In support of this class, all these pre-service
teachers spend 3hours a week in a public-school classroom.
The elementary students are placed in classrooms for stu-
dents in grades one through six. The early childhood educa-
Table 1: Seminar class focus: How teacher moves engage students in learning

tion pre-service teachers are placed in a preschool through

Explicit instructional moves

Peer-mediated strategies

grade two classroom.

direct instruction was

Explicit Instruction

Ongoing feedback
Guided practice
Active Learning
provided on

Modeling

2.3 Data Collection

At the start of the fall semester, these 31 pre-service tea-

•
•
•
•
•
•

chers were shown a video of a first-grade teacher con-

Associated vocabulary

ducting a math lesson with a group of about 20 students.

After viewing this video, they were asked to write a short
• Activating prior

reflection describing the lesson and instances of how the

knowledge
• Desisting

• Enlisting
• Winning
• Alerting

teacher’s moves and decisions led to student engagement

seen within the lesson. This pre-assessment was conducted
before explicit instruction on “noticing” in observations
occurred. After seven seminar classes were laid out as
Highly Engaged
Seminar focus

described above, students were asked to re-watch the

same lesson and again write a short reflection describing
Students

the lesson and instances of “effective teaching” and “engage-

ment” in the lesson.
 Teaching Pre-service Teachers how to Notice Engagement Techniques  7

2.4 Data Analysis 3 Findings

The pre-assessment and post-assessments were both looked When looking at students’ pre-assessment observational
at and coded using the multi-constructs of engagement (beha- write-ups, pre-service teachers only looked at what tea-
vioral, academic, and emotional) as a framework. Within this chers did to promote engagement from a behavioral con-
construct, initial coding occurred, where we inductively gen- struct. The data show that pre-service teachers either noted
erated as many codes as possible from both assessments. In when students were or were not compliant with the teacher’s
doing this, essential words or groups of words were identified request. After receiving instruction on what to “notice” while
and labeled (Charmaz, 2006). Core categories emerged, and observing classrooms, evaluated through the post-assessment
concepts were clearly defined (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Emer- observational write-up, students began to view engagement
gent codes that surfaced around engagements were then codi- from behavioral, emotional, and cognitive constructs.
fied and defined. These codes and definitions can be found in
Table 2. Both researchers checked and defined these codes
and 20% of all documents to ensure inter-rater reliability.
3.1 Pre-Assessment Findings

In the pre-assessment observations, the only engagement

2.5 Validity and Trustworthiness code that emerged was compliance, where students were
doing what was asked of them by the teacher. The teacher
Qualitative research should address trustworthiness and maintains control of the classroom through student com-
validity. Trustworthiness includes credibility, transferability, pliance. The pre-service teachers noticed that the teacher
dependability, and confirmation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In engaged students by reminding them how they should be
data analysis, intact, thick descriptions that participants used seated and to comply with the teacher’s requests (like how
during the study were preserved so their voices could be to answer by “raising their hands” and to “look up here”).
heard, and authenticity remained (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Pre-service teachers also shared that this teacher engages
the students for complying with her requests through
“encouragement and praise.” Pre-service teachers wrote,
“This teacher gave lots of praise in different moments
2.6 Validity when students were listening to her.” “She gave high-fives
when a child got an answer right,” and she had also said,
Maxwell (1992) classifies descriptive validity as how valid “Someone is doing an excellent job (at sitting),” and “You
that which is reported is accurate and factual. This study are brilliant for knowing the answer.” Several pre-service
addressed descriptive validity by objectively reporting what teachers echoed the thoughts captured by one here, “I
participants wrote in their assessments. Interpretive validity thought this was an effective way of teaching because
refers to the “goodness of fit” as findings are developed receiving a compliment after doing a problem makes the
(Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This was done by allowing the students feel good about themselves and want to keep
themes to emerge and coding all student assessments (Max- doing what they did.”
well, 1992). Direct quotes from participants were preserved Pre-service teachers noted that this teacher “was in
as another means to address interpretive validity. control the entire time and had a calm classroom where

Table 2: Emergent Codes that related to students’ engagement in learning

Code Definition

Compliance Students were doing what was asked of them

Purpose for Learning The teacher established why students were learning and the focal point of the lesson
Provisioning The teacher prepared material before a lesson
Pacing The structure and flow of the lesson
Interacting Students were asked and encouraged by the teacher to participate and interact in the lesson
Build on Prior Knowledge Students were asked to connect past and present knowledge
Variety Students were asked to participate in varied and different activities
8  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

students could easily pay attention and could learn.” Many 3.2.2 Setting a Purpose for Learning
pre-service teachers shared that this was seen “when the
students began to get noisy on the rug, the teacher stood at This code emerged as pre-service teachers began to pin-
the front of the rug and waited silently until each student point the focal point of the lesson and why students needed
realized they needed to be quiet.” to learn this skill. Pre-service teachers called attention to
Another pre-service teacher commented, “The teacher how the teacher explicitly “identified the purpose of the
uses praise to encourage students to listen.” Similar thoughts lesson” and made “explicit direct connections this skill [the
were shared about this teacher’s effectiveness with engage- learning] has to real life.” Pre-service teachers expanded
ment when another pre-service teacher pointed out, “The on why this was important to student engagement as they
teacher pointed out the students who are following direc- “now know the importance of learning.”
tions, and this may teach other students to want to act like
those who were following directions.” The effectiveness of
student engagement relied on students being compliant and 3.2.3 Pacing
doing as the teacher asked. These observation write-ups
focused on the students’ actions rather than the teacher’s Closely related to planning and setting a purpose for the
instructional moves and decisions. lesson, the code “pacing” emerged when pre-service tea-
chers noted the structure and flow of a lesson. Within this
code, pre-service teachers shared that they “now knew that
pacing” was “strategically planned for” throughout a lesson
3.2 Post-Assessment Findings and involved starting a lesson with ready materials. Pre-
service teachers also noted that the “pace of a lesson is
In the post-assessment observations, several codes around significant as it cannot be too slow, but it can also not be
engagement emerged. These codes included provisioning, too fast.” The pace “has to allow for everybody to be
pacing, teacher–student interactions, building on prior knowl- involved.” The pacing the teacher uses throughout the
edge, setting a purpose for learning, and using varied planned lesson “needs to be adjusted as she [the teacher] assesses
activities. These observational write-ups focused on what the students learning and modifies her instruction.”
teachers did, and the impact teacher moves and decisions had Pre-service teachers, in their write-ups, also shared
on keeping students engaged in the lesson. Pre-service tea- some strategies for adjusting this pacing. One pre-service
chers’ post-assessment write-ups focus on engagement focused teacher shared, “The teacher also used overlapping strate-
on “active learning” rather than compliance or “busy” activ- gies as she monitors what the whole class is doing as she
ities. Therefore, these observational write-ups aligned more works one-on-one with a struggling student.” Other stu-
closely with how the Danielson framework defines engage- dents shared that the teacher “was able to monitor the
ment and how a teacher’s specific moves contribute to beha- room and check in with all students during the lesson.”
vioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement constructs. Another strategy that the pre-service teachers were
keyed into was sub-dividing the class “to transition stu-
dents to different locations successfully” and “to success-
3.2.1 Provisioning fully transition students to different activities without
losing time on learning.” This “sub-dividing of the class”
This code focused on pre-service teachers acknowledging was done by “calling a small group of students at a time.”
the teacher’s work in preparing the material and activities These teaching strategies allowed the lesson’s pacing
before the lesson begins. Pre-service teachers were now to be appropriate for all students. Many commented on
focused on how the teacher had “all the materials ready, why pacing in this lesson was planned for and appropriate
objectives written on the board, and the environment orga- for the students. Some pre-service teachers noted that the
nized specifically for the activity.” They also shared how “pacing of the lesson was good because she [the teacher]
this teacher’s “provisioning and planning” actively ensured took the necessary steps to make sure students were ready
student learning. Pre-service teachers wrote provisioning to engage in the learning on their own.” Others, however,
began as “the class started off the lesson with a review of simply stated that the pacing of the lesson was good but did
previous learning,” “reviewing the ones and tens columns” not give an explanation as to why. Many pre-service tea-
and then continued as the teacher pre-planned how to use chers commented on pacing at a level between these two
the students as helpers “by randomly calling on students to statements saying, “Students spent a good amount of the
answer questions or come to the board.” class learning” and were “engaged with the activities and
 Teaching Pre-service Teachers how to Notice Engagement Techniques  9

material.” Another example was a pre-service teacher who the teacher praising students when they followed through
wrote, “A majority of the classroom time was spent on on compliant activities. When pre-service teachers view
learning because there were no filler activities, and she engagement from this lens, they only consider the beha-
[the teacher] did not have to wait a while for the whole vioral construct of engagement related to conduct. Pre-ser-
class to come together and settle down.” vice teachers, without explicit instruction on what to notice,
based on what a teacher is doing, simply look to see if
students are or are not compliantly following the rules
3.2.4 Teacher–Student Interactions
and expectations (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Viewing classrooms through this singular focus on
This teacher–student interaction code was defined as the
compliance may be because pre-service teachers, due to
teacher asking and encouraging students to participate in
their relative lack of experience, are in cognitive overload
the lesson. Pre-service teachers shared that these engage-
when asked to consider highly complex classroom sce-
ment strategies could be “as simple as asking for student
narios (Kim & Klassen, 2018). Therefore, they only view
volunteers” or “multiple strategies to gain attention and
classrooms from direct actions and judge the teacher based
engage the students.” Some of the strategies to gain attention
on student task compliance (van Es & Sherin, 2002). Without
that the pre-service teachers noted were “the teacher cueing
observational guidance, pre-service teachers subjectively
students into the lesson through hand clapping,” “encoura-
judge the literal step-by-step actions of the teacher – not
ging unison choral responses,” “[the teacher] using a variety
linking the impact of these actions on student learning
of voice inflections,” “enlisting student by using them as
(Levin et al., 2009; Sandoval et al., 2002).
helpers,” “randomly calling on a student to answer ques-
Analysis beyond this literal task compliance needs
tions and come to the board,” and “[the teacher] using posi-
direct teaching. Interactions in the classroom need to be
tive praise to encourage students attempts.”
explicitly unpacked for pre-service teachers. They need the
classroom observation deconstructed so that they can, with
3.2.5 Build on Prior Knowledge explicit guidance from an instructor, reconstruct it with
meaning. This explicit instruction must first start with noti-
Building on prior knowledge was defined as connecting cing the actions of veteran teachers, which must be linked to
past and present content and developing expertise in this reasoning and meaning-making (Schack, Fischer, & Wilhelm,
lesson. One pre-service teacher stated that this teacher 2017; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014).
“connected the current lesson to prior knowledge through In teacher preparation, instructors should step outside
a review of previous learning.” Many others shared this their teaching to draw attention to specific actions and
same thought in different words – noting that “reviewing explain their reasoning for making specific instructional
previous concepts is important” for continuity in learning. moves. This helps pre-service teachers move from the lit-
eral play by play of classroom instruction to the beginning
to analytically chunk important teaching segments that
3.2.6 Variety of Activities
occur (van Es & Sherin, 2002; Yang et al., 2021). Throughout
the seminar course in this study, instructors explicitly
The last theme that emerged was the teacher using a variety
called out what they did and what was happening while
of activities which was defined as acknowledging that stu-
watching videos of classroom instruction. This helped pre-
dents were asked to participate in varied and different activ-
service teachers deconstruct the lesson into analytical
ities. Pre-service teachers shared that continued engagement
chunks as they began to take in how the planning and
in learning happens because the teacher uses a “variety of
delivery of instruction were taking place.
activities,” “learning opportunities,” and “flexible group-
Moving from instructors’ explicit instruction, where
ings.” Like all the others noted in this post-assessment,
instructors were calling out what was happening, into
this theme grounded engagement in “active learning”
guided practice, where pre-service teachers noticed spe-
and shows how a teacher’s decisions and moves directly
cific teacher actions and decisions with support, was the
impact student engagement.
next step in learning how to “notice.” In this step, instruc-
tors help pre-service teachers develop a discriminating eye
4 Discussion for significant classroom interactions (van Es & Sherin,
2002). Support is given to pre-service teachers as they
In the pre-assessment data, pre-service teachers looked at attend to and make sense of events happening in the class-
engagement as “behavioral compliance” and highlighted room (Lam & Chan, 2020).
10  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

By guiding pre-service teachers to look for specific how this further dissection may impact a pre-service tea-
actions and decisions the teacher makes but doing so in cher’s depth of knowledge and application. Future research
a piecemeal fashion, pre-service teachers can take in what could also determine if teaching noticing skills directly
is happening in the classroom differently (Yang et al., 2021). impacts how pre-service teachers plan and implement their
With explicit guidance and instruction, pre-service tea- lessons. It should also look to see if specific actions are easier
chers are spared from cognitive overload and can move or harder to implement once noticing and reasoning are
beyond compliance or “busy” activities to dissect what developed. The development of these skills should be looked
occurs in a classroom. They can, therefore, begin to see at in lesson planning, one-on-one instruction, small group,
engagement as a multi-dimensional construct that acknowl- and whole group teaching formats. This research could also
edges behavior, emotion, and cognition aspects. be extended to examine how students perform in their
To solidify how pre-service teachers use noticing beyond teaching and internship year, asking if noticing skills estab-
the university walls, in actual practice, pre-service teachers lished during pre-service coursework regarding behavioral,
need to practice this skill independently. In this study, pre- emotional, and cognitive engagement translate into lesson
service teachers did this through assigned videos and general- planning and enactment during the practicum experience.
izing this skill in their classroom observations. This pattern of
scaffolding instruction is what teachers should be doing with Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
students, so it only makes sense that pre-service teachers are
taught “noticing” skills in this manner.
In this study’s post-assessment, students could inde-
pendently call out engagement as a multi-dimensional con- References
struct. They called out instructional moves and made sense
of instructional decisions that impacted student engage- Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining
ment in behavior, emotion, and cognition constructs. The the relationship Between pre-service science teachers’ ability to
attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and
post-assessments produced by pre-service teachers acknowl-
Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.
edged the behavioral construct through the safe learning
Beasley, J. G., Gist, C. D., & Imbeau, M. B. (2014). (De)constructing student
environment provided that allows for students’ participa- engagement for preservice teachers. Issues in Teacher Education,
tion in the lesson and contributions to discussion and 22(2), 175–188.
learning. The emotional construct was noted as pre-service Blondal, K. S., & Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2012). Student disengagement in
teachers shared how the teacher builds students’ motivation relation to expected and unexpected educational pathways.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56, 85–100.
within the lesson by knowing individual student’s needs.
Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education. Emerald Group
The cognitive construct of engagement was captured by Publishing Limited. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
presenting varied learning opportunities/activities and con- Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital
nections to a real-life situation. Through this tiered instruc- video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology
tional approach, students could reconstruct the classroom and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137–153.
environment into analytical chunks that made meaning of Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publishing.
instructional decisions and actions that supported student
Chung, H. Q., & van Es, E. A. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ use of tools to
engagement. systematically analyze teaching and learning. Teachers and Teaching,
This current study examined pre-service teachers’ ability 20(2), 113–135.
to analyze someone else’s teaching and how it impacts stu- Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., & Ginns, P. (2016). Students'
dent engagement. There were several limitations to this study interpersonal relationships, personal best (PB) goals, and academic
engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 65–76.
as it was solely conducted at one teacher preparation insti-
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for
tute, and only specific terminology and teacher moves related teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
to the constructs of engagement were looked at due to timing. Curriculum Development.
The fact that the same video was used in the pre- and post- Danielson Group. (2013). Framework for teaching. Retrieved from: http://
assessment could also be seen as a limitation. In the future, www.danielsongroup.org/theframeteach.html/.
Danielson Group. (2022). The framework for teaching. Retrieved from:
these limitations could be researched as researchers look at
https://danielsongroup.org/the-framework-for-teaching/.
different points to introduce “noticing” or further develop
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a
“noticing” skills through video in teacher preparation pro- changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San
grams. Another study could look at teaching each construct Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
of engagement separately and unpacking the teacher moves Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk
for each construct in greater depth and examine how seeing for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
 Teaching Pre-service Teachers how to Notice Engagement Techniques  11

Fredricks, J. A., Ye F., Wang, M. T., & Brauer, S. (2019) Profiles of school Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research.
disengagement: Not all disengaged students are alike. In J. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.
Fredericks, A. Reschly, & S. Christensen (Eds.) Handbook of student Osterman, K. E. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school
engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.
(pp. 34–42). London: Academic Press. Pedler, M., Hudson, S., & Yeigh, T. (2020). The teachers’ role in student
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engage- engagement: A review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
ment: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of 45(3), 48–62.
Educational Research, 74, 59–109. Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach.
Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: Creating Spain: Cambridge University Press.
classrooms that improve learning. Carlton, VIC: Grattan Institute. Sandoval, W. A., Deneroff, V., & Franke, M. L. (2002). Teaching, as learning, as
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, inquiry: Moving beyond activity in the analysis of teaching practice.
CA: Sage. Presented at American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in Santagata, R., König, J., Scheiner, T., Nguyen, H., Adleff, A.-K., Yang, X., &
reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading Kaiser, G. (2021). Mathematics teacher learning to notice: A sys-
research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbautm. tematic review of studies of video-based programs. ZDM -
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the Mathematics Education, 53, 119–134.
teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson
one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15. analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing of teacher learning from a virtual video based field experience.
teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–140.
58(1), 47–61. Schack, E. O., Fischer, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (2017). Teacher noticing:
Hospel, V., & Garland, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy and Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks. New
structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel York, NY: Springer.
analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1–10. Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers,
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of principals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Schlechty, P. C. (2009). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into
Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202. learning organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kang, H., & van Es, E. A. (2019). Articulating design principles for pro- Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics
ductive use of video in preservice education. Journal of Teacher teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher
Education, 70(3), 237–250. education: Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 10, pp. 259–286).
Kaplan, D. S., Peck, B. M., & Kaplan, H. (1997). Decomposing the academic Oxford: Elsevier.
failure-dropout relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of
Educational Research, 90(9), 331–343. professional vision in preservice teachers. Americal Educational
Kim, L. E., & Klassen, R. M. (2018). Teachers’ cognitive processing of Research Journal, 51, 739–771.
complex school-based scenarios: Differences across experience Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. (2011). Mathematics teacher
levels. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 215–226. noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Routledge
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’
support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and
Health, 74, 262–273. Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003).
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176.
engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to
from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, improve pre-service mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal
190–206. of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.
Lam, D. S. H., & Chan, K. K. H. (2020). Characterizing preservice secondary Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques (pp.
science teachers’ noticing of different forms of evidence of 1–312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), Tyminski, A. M., Simpson, A. J., Land, T. J., Drake, C., & Dede, E. (2021).
576–597. Prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ noticing of chil-
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention drens’ mathematics: A focus on extending moves. Journal of
to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154. Mathematics Teacher Education, 24, 533–561.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publishing. van Es, E. A., Cashen, M., Barnhart, T., & Auger, A. (2017). Learning to
Llinares, S., & Chapman, O. (2020). The handbook of mathematics teacher notice mathematics instruction: Using video to develop preservice
education: Volume 2: Tools and processes in mathematics teacher teachers’ vision of ambitious pedagogy. Cognition and Instruction,
education. BRILL. 35(3), 165–187.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new
Routledge. teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of
Mason, J. (2008). From concept images to pedagogic structure for a Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–595.
mathematical topic. Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Extending on prior conceptualizations
Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 73, 255. of teacher noticing. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53, 17–27.
12  Kristina Scott and Leigh Rohde

Van Es, E. A., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Seago, N. (2019). Leveraging the Willingham, W. W., Pollack, J. M., & Lewis, C. (2002). Grades and test
power of video for teacher learning: A design framework for scores: Accounting for observed differences. Journal of Educational
mathematics teacher educators. In S. Llinares & O. Chapman (Eds.), Measurement, 39, 1–37.
International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy
23–54). Brill Sense. by novice teachers: Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative
van Es E.A., Tunney J., Goldsmith L.T., & Seago N. (2014). A framework for inquiry into practice and why?. Teachers College Record, 113(7),
the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher 1311–1360.
Education, 65(4), 340–356. Yang, X., König, J., & Kaiser, G. (2021). Growth of professional noticing of
Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school mathematics teachers: A comparative study of Chinese teachers
engagement and youth problem behavior during adolescence. noticing with different teaching experiences. ZDM–Mathematics
Child Development, 85, 722–737. Education, 53(1), 29–42.