The Engagement for Learning Framework: connecting with learning and evidencing progress for children with autism spectrum conditions

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate the use of the Engagement for Learning Framework developed through the Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (CLDD) Research Project (2009-2011). The resources support mainstream and special educators to extend the engagement of learners with CLDD. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 95 educational settings and 224 students took part across three phases of research (November 2009-March 2011) comprising a resource development phase and two trial phases in mainstream and special schools. The researchers used an exploratory, multiple case study approach and action research methodologies. A recent case study from Hamilton School, Birmingham, illustrates the Engagement for Learning Framework. Findings – The resulting Engagement Profile and Scale data showed increases in engagement for similar proportions of the student cohort. Across the three phases, 81-85 per cent (mean: 83 per cent) increased their levels of engagement for learning, 2-9 per cent (mean: 5.3 per cent) showed no change, while 5.5-16 per cent (mean: 11.6 per cent) showed decreased levels of engagement. Descriptive data corroborated these scores. Originality/value – This original research added value to existing work by developing resources for educators that enabled them to adapt activities to encourage students’ engagement in seven engagement areas (awareness, curiosity, investigation, discovery, anticipation, persistence and initiation). The resources enabled educators to score learner engagement over time to show progress and collected associated descriptive data.

The role of technology-mediated music-making in enhancing engagement and social communication in children with autism and intellectual disabilities

“…More research is therefore needed to operationalize engagement among individuals with autism. Engagement has been broadly explored among individuals with SID/PID (Carpenter et al, 2015) but less so when there is an additional diagnosis of autism (Carpenter et al, 2016). It has to be mentioned here that the authors ascribe to Carpenter et al’s (2015) definition of engagement which not only precedes social communication but is also a precondition for it to take place.…”

Can the Engagement Model act as a replacement for the P‐scale assessment system?

“…A crucial first step towards learning in relation to students with autism is the establishment of engagement (Aidonopoulou‐Read, 2019), while it has also been recognised that engaged students, inherently interested in learning are more likely to achieve their academic targets and reciprocate feedback (Aidonopoulou‐Read, 2019). The engagement model was constructed to shift students with autism towards this ready state for learning (Carpenter et al ., 2016) which can, in turn, develop into an inherent interest in lessons (Aidonopoulou‐Read, 2019). For this reason, and for the case of students with autism and SLD, positioning the Engagement Model as a preparatory stage for formal schooling with the aim to progress to formal curriculum learning would be of higher relevance and value based on its design and focus.…”

“…The Engagement Model is based on Carpenter et al . 's (2016) project which focused on the engagement of students with autism in formal educational contexts. The professionals' response to Carpenter's model suggested that 95% of the participants would use the material in ‘some way’ (p. 16), while 26% would fully adopt it.…”

“…Teacher interviews highlighted that within the P‐scale system non‐academic progress is overlooked: it remains unclear, however, how this type of progress can be monitored or embedded within the model. As engagement is a process (Carpenter et al ., 2016) and not an outcome, it would be difficult for the individual teacher to judge how well a student performs in relation to their individual targets or how success in all areas of learning can be noted. When asked how they monitor any progress unrelated to the lesson objectives one of the teachers responded: ‘It probably wouldn't (be noted) … It should, but probably wouldn't be.…”

Adapting Active Support Interactive Training to a special school context to upskill classroom staff and increase engagement in pupils

“…An array of existing research has already explored various evidence‐based interventions, frameworks and techniques aimed at improving engagement for pupils with special educational needs (Carpenter et al, 2016; Nagro et al, 2018), such as, but not limited to, the use of incorporating visual schedules and interactive materials into lessons (Carnahan et al, 2009; Lequia et al, 2012), the use of preference assessments combined with choice‐making opportunities shown to accelerate skill acquisition (Morgan, 2006; Toussaint et al, 2016), and the use of the ‘Engagement for Learning Framework’ aimed at supporting special educators to improve engagement in pupils (Carpenter et al, 2016). However, research into special school staff in‐situ coaching methods for increasing engagement continues to be limited, and further exploration of the effect of staff behaviour on the predictors and enablers of pupil engagement is still needed, particularly in special school settings as opposed to mainstream settings.…”