Teachers’ Classroom Engagement Structures: A Comparative Study of a Novice US and an Experienced UK Mathematics Teacher

Abstract

This chapter describes the 'in-the-moment' affect of one novice and one experienced teacher by building on the contributions of Goldin, Epstein, Schorr, and Warner's (2011) 'engagement structure' archetypes. The two case studies depict the powerful mathematical affect exhibited whilst teaching by describing a constellation of interacting strands within each structure. Findings reveal that engagement structures, first theorised for students, may be inferred from observations across different demographic and professional teaching contexts. We believe the value of engagement structures is in helping teachers notice how their 'in-the-moment' behaviour as mathematics teachers may mirror the 'in-the-moment' behaviour of their mathematics learners. We suggest engagement structures offer a lens for examining teachers' affective states, and the role the affective domain can play in teacher education and professional development.

Equity-Centered Design Thinking in STEM Instructional Leadership

“…Adequate timelines for testing rapidly developed initiatives are critical to not only assess whether prototyped solutions lead to desired outcomes but also evaluate new facets around the defined problem of practice. Leaders may consider how to facilitate conversations so all feedback is transparently shared in a timely way, particularly as unaddressed in-the-moment affect can lead to unproductive dispositions and disassociations (for more on affective states and traits, see Khalil et al, 2019). For example, through the process of strategy mapping (Han & Zhong, 2015), stakeholders can assess whether the theoretical intention and practical impact align or require a pivot (Kier et al, in press).…”

Enhancing STEM Teaching and Learning at HBCUs: A Focus on Student Learning Outcomes

“…Such a revised focus necessarily leads to the pursuit of capturing and operationalizing indices of student engagement that transpires at the intersection of teaching and learning (Boykin & Noguera, ). Certainly, a complicating factor in this regard is that the relevant literature yields that engagement is a multidimensional construct with affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains (Khalil, Lake, & Johnson, ). Given this complexity, and the subsequent need for numerous observational hours to operationalize engagement, much of the work on student engagement structures draw on research from the K‐12 settings (Goldin, Epstein, Schorr, & Warner, ).…”