Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2

Assignment 2

Part A: Literature Review

Universal Design for Learning and Student Cognitive Engagement

Student disengagement is becoming increasingly problematic in Australian

schools, particularly as schools become progressively diverse microcosms with

an assorted myriad student learning needs (Goss & Sonnemann, 2017). Thus, it is

logical suppose that engaging students is at the forefront of many teachers

strategic planning and pedagogy. Student engagement may be categorised in

terms of the behavioural, emotional and cognitive (Fredericks, Blumenfeld &

Paris, 2004). While behavioural engagement is necessary for participation and

staying on-task, emotional for positive feelings towards school, cognitive

engagement is necessary for meaningful learning (Solis, 2008). Fredericks et al.

(2004) conceptualise cognitive engagement in terms of students intellectual

drive for, and investment in, learning. This may include: trying various strategies

in problem solving, the desire for challenge, and academic persistence and

resilience (Connell & Wellborn, 1991); striving to master difficult concepts, skills,

and knowledge (Brophy, 1987); the use of self-regulating and metacognitive

strategies to plan, monitor and evaluate their cognition in learning (Fredericks

et al., 2004, p. 64). This literature review will examine the factors that are

conducive to students cognitive engagement, how Universal Design for Learning

1
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

(UDL) may provide these factors, and one particular approach to UDL, the Three

Block Model.

Theme 1 Factors conducive to cognitive engagement

Numerous factors of classroom practice are attributed with increasing students

cognitive engagement. Among these is the quality of classroom discourse and

scaffolding of difficult or abstract content. The questions that teachers pose can

enable critical thinking and cognitive engagement in students, particularly if

scaffolded from low to high order (Lennon, 2017). Smart and Marshall (2013)

found in their study, conducted in a middle school science classroom, that the

quality of classroom discourse, by way of teacher questioning, had great impact

upon students level of cognitive engagement. Further, they found that low order

questions, which require students to merely recall facts or procedures, failed to

exercise students mental activities or problem solving faculties, which are

necessary for complex questions. The use of higher order questioning, however,

allowed students to explain, justify, analyse, evaluate, and so on, which enabled

the development of complex mental processes and thus cognitive engagement

(Smart & Marshall, 2013). Scaffolding thus becomes of the utmost importance.

For students to reap the benefits of higher order questions, they must be lead to

higher order thinking in steps, via a cognitive ladder, so as to build students up

to more complex cognitive processes, particularly in regard to complex and

abstract conceptual knowledge (Chin, 2006).

2
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Student choice and agency is another factor conducive to students cognitive

engagement. Reeve and Tseng (2011) suggest that student agency ought to be

considered as a fourth dimension of engagement, alongside the behavioural,

emotional and cognitive, despite Fredericks et al.s (2004) assertion that agency

falls within the category of cognitive engagement. Regardless, the essence of this

study supported the notion that when student agency is cultivated and exercised

within the classroom, students motivation and engagement increases, and is

directly linked to better achievement (Reeve and Tseng, 2011). Evans and

Boucher (2015) further argue that student choice has a crucial impact on their

intrinsic motivation and cognitive engagement, but that the choices afforded

them must be strategic and prudently provided. That is, the choices that students

are given must empower feelings of autonomy, for a task then takes on personal

value, and hence becomes engaging. Thus, choices should be contextualised, that

is, relevant and meaningful (Evans & Boucher, 2015, p. 88), and give students

the opportunity to make decisions about their learning that are manifested

through their personal goals, values, ambitions, interests, and needs. It should be

noted that this is by no means an exhaustive list of all possible factors that

increase students cognitive engagement, merely that these were chosen for their

significance within the scope of this literature review.

Theme 2 How can Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provide these

factors?

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a pedagogical approach to designing

curriculum for equity and inclusion, so as to eliminate any barriers to student

3
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

learning (Gordon, Meyer & Rose, 2010). This is achieved through providing

students with multiple means of representation (the what of learning, how

students receive content), multiple means of action and expression (the how of

learning, how students demonstrate knowledge and skills), and multiple means

of engagement (the why of learning, self-regulation and tapping into student

interests) (CAST, 2017). As such, the multiple means of representation may

include scaffolding of instructional materials to meet the individual learning

needs of each student, as universally designed lessons provide supports to help

students develop skills and gain content mastery (Rao & Torres, 2017, p. 462).

For example, Marino et al. (2014) found that UDL-designed materials, which

included video games, helped students to understand and master conceptual

knowledge, particularly in the transfer between virtual and classroom learning

(p. 97). Additionally, Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al. (2013) found in their study that

the UDL framework allowed learning activities to be planned with contextual

supports in such a way as to create desirable difficulty (p. 1221), that is, the

UDL-designed tasks were able to provide each individual student with their

optimal challenge. Thus, in a UDL classroom, scaffolding can enable students, at

any stage of academic achievement, to move up the cognitive ladder,

particularly from lower to higher order thinking.

UDL can also provide students with multiple opportunities for exerting agency

and consequent feelings of autonomy. The very nature of UDL principles,

multiple means of representation, expression and engagement, affords students

choice with regard to their learning that they would likely miss out on in a non-

UDL aligned classroom (Gordon et al., 2010). In providing the necessary

4
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

supports to reduce or even eliminate barriers to learning, students may feel

empowered with the knowledge that they may use the offered resources or not,

the choice being theirs. Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al. (2013) found that this

helped students to better access the curriculum and made difficult tasks more

doable (p. 1221). It is this element of personalisation that informs students

autonomy in the UDL classroom. Indeed, high school students report finding that

their learning was more personalised in a classroom aligned to UDL principles

than in one which is not (Abell, Jung & Taylor, 2011). Thus, UDL designed

curriculum can empower students to make choices in the classroom that makes

their learning more meaningful and relevant to them.

Theme 3 One approach The Three Block Model of Universal Design for

Learning (UDL)

The Three Block Model (TBM) is a specific approach to UDL that has had much

success in improving student engagement in the inclusive classroom (Katz, 2013;

Katz, 2015; Sokal & Katz, 2015; Katz & Sokal, 2016). TBM UDL aims to engage

students authentically and holistically in all areas of engagement (Sokal & Katz,

2016). The three blocks of this model include: (1) Social and emotional learning

respect and value for diversity, self concept, student voice and empowerment,

etc.; (2) Inclusive pedagogy collaborative learning, differentiation, UDL, student

choice, etc.; and (3) Supporting systems and structures inclusive policy, quality

leadership, professional development, funding resources, etc. In one study that

compared a test group against a control group for the implementation of TBM

5
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

UDL, Katz (2013) found that not only were students in the test group

significantly more engaged, they were actively engaged, while students in the

control group were either passively engaged or not at all. Furthermore, Katz and

Sokal (2015) have shown in another study that TBM UDL has a positive impact

specifically on intellectual engagement, active learning, and peer interaction, and

could actually halt the decrease in engagement that prior research has found to

occur around Grades 7 and 8 (Willms, Friesen & Milton, 2009). Finally, and

consequently, teachers self-efficacy, stress levels and job satisfaction were

markedly improved, as they perceived that the TBM UDL improved their

students self-concept[s], risk-taking and resiliency, social and academic

engagement and reduced challenging behaviours (Katz, 2015).

6
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and

Student Engagement for the class, Researching Teaching and Learning 2, at
Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to
help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

In collaboration with a group of my peers, we are researching the impact of UDL

on student engagement. UDL is a method of designing curriculum so as to
remove any barriers that may prevent students from learning. It involves giving
students choices in how they receive information, how they demonstrate the
knowledge and skills they have learned, and even the content that interests them
and what strategies they use to study.

My own component of this project looks specifically at how scaffolding learning

activities, quality teacher questioning, and giving students choices in their
learning, may increase students cognitive engagement in their education.

As such, I invite you to complete this survey, which will ask you to respond to a
series of statements and questions regarding your role in your learning, the
choices you make, and so on. The survey will require you to respond to the
statements on a scale from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree. The
survey will take about 10-15 minutes to complete.

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity
to discuss the information and my involvement in the project with the
researcher/s.
The procedures required for the project, and the time involved, have been
explained to me, and any questions I have about the project have been
answered to my satisfaction.
I consent to responding to the statements within this survey.
I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information
gained during this data collection experience will only be reported within
the confines of the Researching Teaching and Learning 2 unit, and that
all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without
affecting my relationship with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 16 years of age or older.

Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________

7
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Part B Data Collection Protocol Survey

For each statement, please circle the number that corresponds to your position.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree
4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Statements Disagree
Disagree Agree or Agree
Agree
Disagree

I am given the opportunity to

make choices about my 1 2 3 4 5
learning.

When I make choices about my

learning, my learning is more 1 2 3 4 5
important to me.

When I make choices about my

learning, my learning is more 1 2 3 4 5
interesting to me.

During class, I express my

1 2 3 4 5
preferences and opinions.

During class, I ask questions. 1 2 3 4 5

I tell the teacher what I like and

1 2 3 4 5
what I dont like.

I let my teacher know what I am

1 2 3 4 5
interested in.

I have learned different

1 2 3 4 5
strategies for studying.

I use different strategies for

learning and studying difficult 1 2 3 4 5
concepts.

When what I am studying is

difficult to understand, I try
1 2 3 4 5
using a different strategy for
learning.

Challenging work motivates me

to work harder to understand 1 2 3 4 5
the content.

8
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Statements Disagree
Disagree Agree or Agree
Agree
Disagree

When my teacher breaks down

difficult tasks into manageable
1 2 3 4 5
steps, I try harder to complete
them.

When my teacher breaks down

difficult tasks into manageable
1 2 3 4 5
steps, I am more interested in
completing them.

When my teacher gives us

different options for learning
1 2 3 4 5
skills or information, I try
harder to learn it.

When my teacher gives us

different options for learning
1 2 3 4 5
skills or information, I am more
interested in it.

When my teacher gives us

different options for
demonstrating what we have 1 2 3 4 5
learned, I try harder to
complete tasks.

When my teacher gives us

different options for
demonstrating what we have 1 2 3 4 5
learned, I am more interested in
completing tasks.

9
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Part C Data Collection Protocol Explanation

The purpose for the data collection protocol was to examine student cognitive

engagement in relation to the principles and factors of Universal Design for

Learning (UDL), though not necessarily in an UDL-aligned classroom. It must be

acknowledged that this protocol was designed with a series of known classes in

mind which are not openly aligned with UDL, per se, but ones in which some of

the principles of UDL are inadvertently present. The protocol has been designed

in this way so as prevent self-limiting effects, for at this present time the author

has no access to classes openly aligned with UDL.

In order to measure students cognitive engagement, the protocol has been

designed as a self-reporting survey. Due to the conceptualisation of cognitive

engagement as a psychological investment in learning (Fredericks et al., 2004,

p. 67), methods for collecting this data are much limited, due to the subjective

and highly personalised nature of the desired information. These types of

surveys typically ask students to report on their use of strategies in the

classroom, level of effort and investment in their learning, and so on (Fredericks

et al. 2004). Thus, the survey designed for this project incorporates similar items

with responses ranked on the Likert Scale, so that the data may be quantifiable.

Due to the issue of the relative ambiguity of language in self-reporting data

collection protocols, the survey items have been carefully worded so as ensure

clarity of meaning (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 1993). Indeed, multiple items are

similarly worded so that there meaning becomes clearer through the repetition

of certain terms.

10
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Designing these survey items was directly influenced by the findings of the

literature review. In the literature review several insights and findings came to

light regarding student cognitive engagement in general, the factors that increase

cognitive engagement, how UDL may provide or increase these factors, and thus,

cognitive engagement. Given the previously stated purpose of the data collection

protocol, the survey items focus on students intellectual drive for learning,

whether they express agency within the classroom, how making choices and

being given choices about their learning impacts their drive for learning. Some of

these items have been borrowed from Reeve and Tsengs (2011) study, namely

those about students agency in the classroom and use of different strategies,

such as during class, I express my preferences and opinions and when what I

am studying is difficult to understand, I try using a different strategy for

learning (p. 262). The wordings of these items have been modified where

necessary with its target audience in mind so as to decrease ambiguity.

Measuring the impact of making choices on students cognitive engagement was

reflected in survey items such as when I make choices about my learning, my

learning is more important to me and when I make choices about my learning,

my learning is more interesting to me. The impact of UDL principles have been

directly addressed through items such as when my teacher breaks down

difficult tasks into manageable steps, I try harder to complete them and when

my teacher gives us different options for learning skills or information, I am

more interested in it.

11
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

References

Abell, M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students' perceptions of classroom

instructional environments in the context of 'Universal Design for

Learning'. Learning Environments Research, 14(2), 171-185.

doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

CAST, (2017). About universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-

work/about-udl.html#.WaEeoYpLeu5

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (1993). Research methods in education.

Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A

motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota

Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, M., & Boucher, A. R. (2015). Optimizing the Power of Choice: Supporting

Student Autonomy to Foster Motivation and Engagement in Learning. Mind,

Brain & Education, 9(2), 87-91. doi:10.1111/mbe.12073

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of

the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),

59-109.

Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2010). Universal design for learning: theory and

practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Goss, P. & Sonnemann, J. (2017). Engaging students: Creating classrooms that

improve learning. Grattan Institute. Retrieved from

12
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-

creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning.pdf

Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL):

Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education,

36(1), 153-194.

Katz, J. (2015). Implementing the three block model of universal design for

learning: effects of teachers self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in

inclusive classrooms K-12. International Journal of Inclusive Education,

19(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2014.881569

Katz, J. & Sokal, L. (2016). Universal design for learning as a bridge to inclusion: A

qualitative report of student voices. International Journal of Whole

Schooling, 12(2), 36-63.

Lennon, S. (2017). Questioning for controversial and critical thinking dialogues

in the social studies classroom. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(1), 3-16.

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1891384313?accountid=36155

Marino, M., Gotch, C., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., Basham, J., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in

the Middle School Science Classroom: Can Video Games and Alternative

Text Heighten Engagement and Learning for Students With Learning

Disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87-99.

Rao, K., & Torres, C. (2017). Supporting Academic and Affective Learning

Processes for English Language Learners with Universal Design for

Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 460-472.

Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K. H., &

Johnson, M. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and elementary school

13
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

science: Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science

notebook. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210-1225.

doi:10.1037/a0033217

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students engagement

during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4),

257-267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

Smart, J., & Marshall, B. (2013). Interactions Between Classroom Discourse,

Teacher Questioning, and Student Cognitive Engagement in Middle School

Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 249-267.

Sokal, L. & Katz, J. (2015). Effects of the three-block model of universal design for

learning on early and late middle school students engagement. Middle

Grades Research Journal, 10(2), 65-82.

Solis, A. (2008). Teaching for cognitive engagement: Materialising the promise of

sheltered instruction. Intercultural Development Research Resource Center.

Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/resource-center/teaching-for-

cognitive-engagement

Willms, J.D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2008). What did you do in school today?

Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual

engagement (First National Report), Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian

Education Association.

14