HLP 18

High-Leverage Practice 18, Use Strategies to Promote Active Student Engagement, is another example of a practice that is clearly essential for every educator to have in their repertoire, but its unique effectiveness is difficult to detangle from other practices and curriculum teachers are using.  In other words, as educators use strategies to engage students during academic instruction or to help ensure appropriate behavior, the corresponding measures of academic or behavioral change reflect both the engagement strategy/technique and the pedagogy and curriculum being used.  As noted earlier, it would be possible to do lab-style studies to carefully control the use of specific engagement-provoking tools or strategies, but this would still be limited to narrow intersectional considerations and content areas.  In many ways, the effectiveness of HLP 18 is tied to the evidence bases of HLPs 13, 15, and 17, in that engagement rises when students are provided with instructional settings, materials, and supports that help them succeed.  

In addition, a key to the research base for HLP 18 is HLP 16, Use Explicit Instruction.  Explicit instruction, as described by Archer and Hughes (2011), and others (e.g., Hughes et al., 2017; Doabler et al., 2019), within explicit instruction’s key principles is the use of opportunities to respond (OTRs) to a range of prompts.  OTRs can be oral, gestural, in writing, teacher-led, peer-led, and numerous other configurations.  Numerous researchers have used different types of OTRs as engagement techniques to support student outcomes in academic and behavioral domains.  An example is Duchaine and colleagues (2018) who had students in mathematics and science courses respond using response cards.  The engaged responding led to important learning gains.  Doabler and colleagues (2019) also utilized principles of explicit instruction to support measurable increases in student mathematics performance.  Clarke and colleagues (2016) used response cards with students with intellectual disabilities as a way to keep them engaged and promote increased academic growth.  Scholars and educators have long understood the intertwined nature of explicit instruction and its positive impact on student engagement. 

Researchers and educators also use OTRs, including response cards, to promote improved behavior.  Lambert and colleagues (2016) used response cards during academic and behavior-facing lessons to promote prosocial student behaviors.  Randolph and colleagues (2017) completed a meta-analysis in this domain and found overall positive effects for use of response cards on student achievement and behavior.  In sum, student engagement using a range of techniques and tools has solid empirical evidence to support behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities.  

Another strand of engaging students is use of technology.  Prado and colleagues (2021) used computer-driven prompts to keep students engaged during academic learning time and observed measurable gains in performance.  McDonald and colleagues (2023) used a multimedia-driven vocabulary instructional approach to improve learning of rural students with and without disabilities.  Blending elements of explicit instruction (including OTRs) with key instructional practices for vocabulary and other domains is a time-tested method for improving outcomes for students with disabilities.  

There is good evidence for HLP 18, when paired with other HLPs and pedagogies/curriculum.  It is logical to expect student academic and behavioral performance will improve when they are engaged versus not, and educators have a range of simple and complex options at their disposal to generate that engagement.  From simple oral prompts to technology-driven options, educators should utilize this HLP with all students regardless of grade level or content area.

Cultural considerations are elemental to equitable student engagement.  When educators incorporate cultural inclusive pedagogies and practices (CIPP) with evidence-based practices, diverse student voices and backgrounds are valued in learning communities.  As a result, educators should incorporate CIPP and consider student intersectionality within their planning, instructional delivery, and communication with students to optimize student engagement. 
Educators should initially incorporate CIPP within planning.  The first step is critically reflecting on one’s own cultural competence.  While uncomfortable, educators can reflect on their own biases and lived and intersectional experiences that may influence how they perceive successful student engagement.  For example, “Based on my previous learning experiences, how do I perceive ‘successful’ student engagement?” or “How can I value and incorporate a diverse representation of student engagement within my classroom?”  Addressing one’s own biases contributes to reducing stereotypes and prejudice.  Educators who actively reflect, model critical thinking and open-mindedness for their students.  Additionally, educators can plan for an inclusive and safe classroom environment.  This consists of deliberately selecting learning materials (e.g., textbooks, literature, and media) that represent a variety of cultures and perspectives.  Students see themselves reflected in the content which fosters a sense of inclusion, and thus may lead to more active student engagement. 
Culturally inclusive instructional delivery also influences active student engagement.  When instructing, educators can incorporate diverse intersectional perspectives, histories, and examples into the curriculum.  This not only values a student’s intersectional identity, but also makes the content more engaging as it builds upon their background knowledge and experience.  For example, when an educator introduces a new topic, they can give students various opportunities to respond by making connections to their own life.  Students are given explicit instructions to reflect on their lives, develop a connection to the content, and then discuss their connection with a partner.  This culturally inclusive instructional delivery values student diversity and provides a foundation to further apply their knowledge. 

Furthermore, culturally inclusive communication can positively influence student engagement.  First, educators can be cognizant and respectful of various cultural communication styles and norms.  Some students may be hesitant to orally express themselves but might excel in written or other non-verbal forms of communication.  Another example is that some students may be more accustomed to collaborative learning, while others may excel in individual-focused tasks.  In short, student engagement may look different for students of various intersectional backgrounds.  Therefore, educators can be flexible in adapting evidence-based strategies to accommodate diverse student needs.

Second, educators should accommodate the various language acquisition goals for multilingual students.  Educators can scaffold their instruction to differentiate the linguistic needs for students.  For example, educators can incorporate content and language objectives within each lesson.  Multilingual students are more likely to actively engage in a lesson when they are given explicit opportunities to practice their English.  Thirdly, educators should communicate with students’ families and communities to better understand their cultural contexts.  This includes going above the required annual IEP meeting or parent-teacher conference to communicate with families. 

For example, educators can send out a beginning of the year survey to elicit family information.  Survey questions may consist of (a) self-reported strengths and challenges of their child, (b) their preferred contact outlet (e.g., email, phone, or text), and (c) their preferred language of communication.  Involving families in the educational process fosters a collaborative relationship between home and school.  In an increasingly diverse society, educators can foster equitable student engagement when incorporating appropriate intersectional considerations.