Classroom Strategies to Enhance Academic Engaged Time

A strong predictor of student achievement is the amount of time students are actively engaged in learning, or academic engaged time (AET). Sustained engagement, in turn, is influenced by the extent to which students are motivated to invest time in learning. Despite the importance of AET, studies reveal that engagement (determined by motivation) may be as low as 45–50% in some classrooms. Beginning with a model developed by Carroll in 1963, several theoretical conceptualizations of school learning have emphasized the critical role of engaged time in determining student achievement. Subsequently, empirical studies focusing on the relationship between time and learning have documented the role of the instructional context in explaining both student motivation (willingness to invest time in learning) and student engagement (actual involvement or participation in learning). In addition to discussing theory and research that implicate time in the teaching-learning process, this chapter describes three groupings of evidence-based practices that contribute to student engagement and motivation, including classroom management, instructional design, and student-mediated strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 181.89 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 232.09 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Instruction and Student Engagement: Implications for Academic Engaged Time

Interventions to Enhance Academic Engagement

Terms of Engagement: Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in Today’s College Classroom

References

• Adelman, N. E., Haslam, M. B., & Pringle, B. A. (1996). The uses of time for teaching and learning (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W. (Ed.). (1984). Time and school learning: Theory, research and practice. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W. (Ed.). (1985). Perspectives on school learning: Selected writings of John B. Carroll. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Aronson, J., Zimmerman, J., & Carlos, L. (1999). Improving student achievement by extending school: Is it just a matter of time? San Francisco: WestEd. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A., Martinez-Pons, M., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–674. Google Scholar
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238. Google Scholar
• Ben-Peretz, M., & Bromme, R. (Eds.). (1990). The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Berliner, D. (1990a). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Berliner, D. (1990b). The place of process-product research in developing the agenda for research on teaching thinking. Educational Psychologist, 24, 325–344. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Black, S. (2002). Time for learning. American School Board Journal, 189, 58–62. Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2007). The effect of class size on the teaching of pupils aged 7–11 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(2), 147–172. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Google Scholar
• Block, J. H. (1983). Learning rates and mastery learning. Outcomes, 2(3), 18–23. Google Scholar
• Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom instruction. New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682–688. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Borkowski, J. G., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: “Working models” and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477–501). San Diego, CA: Academic. Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Google Scholar
• Caldwell, J. H., Huitt, W. G., & Graeber, A. O. (1982). Time spent in learning: Implications from research. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 471–480. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Carr, S. C., & Punzo, R. P. (1993). The effects of self-monitoring of academic accuracy and productivity on the performance of students with behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 18, 241–250. Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733. Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1984). The model of school learning: Progress of an idea. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), Time and school learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 15–46). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 26–31. Google Scholar
• Chuska, K. (1995). Improving classroom questions: A teacher’s guide to increasing student motivation, participation, and higher level thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Google Scholar
• Cole, C. L., & Bambara, L. M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Theory and practice. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, research, and clinical foundations (2nd ed., pp. 202–232). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Cole, C. L., Marder, T., & McCann, L. (2000). Self-monitoring. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior (pp. 121–149). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Cooley, W. W., & Leinhardt, G. (1976). The application of a model for investigating classroom processes. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research & Development Center. Google Scholar
• Cooley, W. W., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). The instructional dimensions study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 7–26. Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–62. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Daly, P. M., & Ranalli, P. (2003). Using Countoons to teach self-monitoring skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 30–35. Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. (2007). Best practices in managing homework. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1073–1084). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Google Scholar
• Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Denham, C., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (1980). Time to learn. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (2003). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman. Google Scholar
• Fisher, D. (2009). The use of instructional time in the typical high school classroom. The Educational Forum, 73, 168–173. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fowler, W. (1995). School size and student outcomes. Advances in Educational Productivity, 5, 3–26. Google Scholar
• Fredrick, W. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Learning as a function of time. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 183–194. Google Scholar
• Frieberg, H. J., & Driscoll, A. (2000). Universal teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
• Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership, 42, 40–47. Google Scholar
• Gettinger, M. (1984). Individual differences in time needed for learning: A review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 19, 15–29. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gettinger, M. (1985). Time allocated and time spent relative to time needed for learning as determinants of achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 3–11. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gettinger, M. (1989). Effects of maximizing time spent and minimizing time needed on pupil achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 73–91. Google Scholar
• Gettinger, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Best practices in increasing academic engaged time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1043–1075). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Google Scholar
• Gettinger, M., & Kohler, K. (2006). Process-outcome approaches to classroom management and effective teaching. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 73–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2009). Effective teaching and effective schools. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 769–790). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Google Scholar
• Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1995). Effects of quantity of instruction on time spent on learning and achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 183–201. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
• Goodman, L. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R. (2001). Mastery learning. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 9372–9377). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. F., & Weinstein, T. (1983). Psychological models of educational performance: A theoretical synthesis of constructs. Review of Educational Research, 53, 75–91. Google Scholar
• Harmin, M., & Toth, M. (2006). Inspiring active learning: A complete handbook for today’s teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar
• Harnishfeger, A., & Wiley, D. (1976). The teaching-learning process in elementary schools: A synoptic view. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 5–43. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Harnishfeger, A., & Wiley, D. (1985). Origins of active learning time. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 133–156). New York: Longman. Google Scholar
• Hollywood, T. M., Salisbury, C. I., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242–254. Google Scholar
• Huitt, W. (1995). A systems model of the teaching/learning process. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: College of Education, Valdosta State University. Retrieved March, 2010, from http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/tchlrnmd.html
• Karweit, N. (1989). Time and learning: A review. In R. E. Slavin (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 69–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 151–171. Google Scholar
• Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (2003). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
• Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523–534. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kubitschek, W. N., Hallinan, M. T., Arnett, S. M., & Galipeau, K. S. (2005). High school schedule changes and the effect of lost instructional time on achievement. High School Journal, 89, 63–71. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Leinhardt, G. (1978). Applying a classroom process model to instructional evaluation. Curriculum Inquiry, 8, 155–176. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Levendoski, L. S., & Cartledge, G. (2000). Self-monitoring for elementary school children with emotional ­disturbances: Classroom application for increased academic responding. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 211–224. Google Scholar
• Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153–184. Google Scholar
• Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar
• Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 5–20. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Moxley, R. A. (1998). Treatment-only designs and student self-recording as strategies for public school teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 37–61. Google Scholar
• Mulholland, R., & Cepello, M. (2006). What teacher candidates need to know about academic learning time. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 63–73. Google Scholar
• National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL). (1994). Prisoners of time: Report of the National Commission on Time and Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (reprinted in 2005). Google Scholar
• Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance…and finding the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Google Scholar
• Ostrosky, M. M., Jung, E. Y., Hemmeter, M. L., & Thomas, D. (2003). Helping children make transitions between activities. Washington, DC: Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning. Google Scholar
• Prater, M. A. (1992). Increasing time-on-task in the classroom: Suggestions for improving the amount of time learners spend in on-task behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 22–27. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rangel, E. S. (2007). Time to learn. Research Points, 5(2), 104. Google Scholar
• Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 317–331. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 3–17. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262–268. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shapiro, E. S., & Cole, C. L. (1994). Behavior change in the classroom: Self-management interventions. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Shimabukuro, S. M., Prater, M. A., Jenkins, A., & Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effects of self-monitoring of academic performance on students with learning disabilities and ADD/ADHD. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 397–414. Google Scholar
• Smith, B. A. (2000). Quantity matters: Annual instruction time in an urban school system. Educational Admini­stration Quarterly, 36, 652–682. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. (1983). Effective classrooms and schools: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar
• Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1981). CISSAR: Code for instructional structure and student academic response. Observer’s manual. Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project. Google Scholar
• Stichter, J. P., Stormont, M., & Lewis, T. J. (2008). Instructional practices and behavior during reading: A descriptive summary and comparison of practices in Title I and non-Title I elementary schools. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 172–183. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Differentiating instruction for academic diversity. In M. Cooper (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills (7th ed., pp. 134–165). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
• Trammel, D. L., Schloss, P. T., & Alper, S. (1994). Using self-recording, evaluation, and graphing to increase completion of homework assignments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 75–81. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• van den Hurk, M., Wolfhagen, H., Dolmans, D., & van der Vleuten, C. (1998). The relation between time spent on individual study and academic achievement in a problem-based curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3, 43–49. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294. Google Scholar
• Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. B. (2007). Promoting self-determination in students with developmental disabilities. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Wiley, D. E., & Harnishfeger, A. (1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling and exposure to instruction: Major educational vehicles. Educational Researcher, 3, 7–11. Google Scholar
• Woelfel, K. (2005). Learning takes time for at-risk students. Education Digest, 71(4), 28–30. Google Scholar
• Wyne, M., & Stuck, G. (1982). Time and learning: Implications for the classroom teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 67–75. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Zimmerman, B., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. (1994). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategy approach. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 181–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Maribeth Gettinger & Martha J. Walter

1. Maribeth Gettinger