EVALUATING TIME OF DAY INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT, AN ...
106
EVALUATING TIME OF DAY INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT, ENGAGEMENT, AND BEHAVIOR FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: AN INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Education Department Carson-Newman University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education By Rachel V. Brouillette June 2020
Transcript of EVALUATING TIME OF DAY INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT, AN ...
EVALUATING TIME OF DAY INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT,
ENGAGEMENT, AND BEHAVIOR FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS:
AN INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Education Department
Carson-Newman University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Rachel V. Brouillette
June 2020
Copyright © 2020 Rachel Victoria Brouillette
All Rights Reserved.
iii
Dissertation Approval
Student Name: Rachel Victoria Brouillette
Dissertation Title:
EVALUATING TIME OF DAY INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT,
ENGAGEMENT, AND BEHAVIOR FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS:
AN INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education Department,
Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of
Education.
Dissertation Committee:
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Steve A. Davidson
Methodologist Member: Dr. P. Mark Taylor
Content Member: Dr. Tony L. Dalton
Approved by the Dissertation Committee: June 30, 2020
iv
Abstract
This qualitative research study investigated the phenomenon of differences in student
engagement, achievement, and behavior at different times of the day. The purpose of the study
was to identify best instructional practices used by highly qualified educators that were most
effective in promoting positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between
morning and afternoon classes. The participants were three ninth grade, college-preparatory
level teachers who taught either Biology 1, Algebra 1, or English 1. The researcher conducted
two lesson observations on the same day for each participant, one morning class and one
afternoon class for the same lesson. After concluding lesson observations, the researcher
interviewed each participant, and then led a focus group with all three participants. The overall
findings of the study suggested there are four ways educators can promote positive student
engagement, achievement, and behavior despite time of the day differences in these areas.
Educators should incorporate close monitoring and frequent circulation throughout their lessons,
give clear and concise directions for each lesson activity, implement multiple formative
assessment strategies with incentives when possible, and adjust lesson pacing between morning
and afternoon to compensate for differences in student attention.
Keywords: chronotype, instructional strategies, increasing academic performance, student
engagement
v
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members for helping me through this
long and arduous journey. Dr. Davidson was the perfect dissertation chair for me because he
always calmed my overwhelming anxiety throughout this process with encouragement and made
me feel at ease. I cannot thank him enough for his disposition, encouragement, and assistance
throughout this process. Dr. Taylor was also a huge help in developing the direction of my
research, and helping me through the unchartered waters of qualitative data coding. I would have
never made it to the end without his help. Dr. Dalton was also very encouraging and helpful
throughout this process. He always provided helpful and timely feedback and always offered
encouragement and praise.
I would also like to thank my husband. He has walked through life with me for 13 years
now, and we have grown and changed together so much since we met. He has always been
supportive of any endeavor I take on, and provides support whenever I need him. I would not
have made it through these last three years without his support and encouragement. He is my
rock and the love of my life.
Lastly, I want to thank my parents. From a young age, they have always pushed me to
reach my highest potential. While they may not have initially approved of my decision to
become a teacher, they were always supportive and have seen over the years that it was the best
decision for me because teaching provides more than an income. Teaching gives me fulfillment
and passion, which is something not many people have in their careers. My parents have been
supportive throughout my entire doctoral program, and they have pushed and encouraged me
during the dissertation process. It is because of them that I had the drive and passion for
achieving this doctoral degree.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 2
Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 2
Theoretical Foundation ............................................................................................................... 3
Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Researcher Positionality Statement ............................................................................................ 4
Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................... 5
Academic achievement. .......................................................................................................... 5
At-risk students ....................................................................................................................... 5
Chronotype .............................................................................................................................. 5
Circadian rhythm .................................................................................................................... 5
College preparatory (CP) ........................................................................................................ 5
Highly qualified teacher status ............................................................................................... 6
High-stakes testing .................................................................................................................. 6
Morningness-eveningness ....................................................................................................... 6
Student engagement ................................................................................................................ 6
vii
Student tracking ...................................................................................................................... 6
Synchrony effect ..................................................................................................................... 6
TN Ready ................................................................................................................................ 7
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature .............................................................................. 9
Biological Clocks ...................................................................................................................... 10
Chronotype and Morningness-Eveningness ............................................................................. 13
Chronotype and Age ................................................................................................................. 16
Chronotype and Gender ............................................................................................................ 18
Chronotype and Student Performance ...................................................................................... 19
Memory and Time of Day ........................................................................................................ 22
Student Motivation and Engagement ........................................................................................ 26
Classroom Activity and Student Behavior ................................................................................ 29
ADHD ................................................................................................................................... 30
ODD ...................................................................................................................................... 31
ASD ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Medications ........................................................................................................................... 33
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35
viii
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology ........................................................................................... 37
Research Question .................................................................................................................... 37
Population and Sample ............................................................................................................. 37
Description of Instruments ........................................................................................................ 38
Research Procedures and Time Period of Study ....................................................................... 40
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................................... 40
Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................................... 41
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions........................................................................... 42
Limitations.. .......................................................................................................................... 42
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 42
Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation of the Findings .................................................................... 44
Research Methodology Applied to Data Analysis .................................................................... 45
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants ............................................................................... 45
Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group Data Presentation ............................. 46
Study Findings .......................................................................................................................... 53
Academic feedback ............................................................................................................... 53
Student accountability ........................................................................................................... 54
Classroom Management ....................................................................................................... 56
Use of multiple instructional strategies ................................................................................ 57
ix
Short lesson segments ........................................................................................................... 58
Clear and concise directions ................................................................................................. 58
Lesson pacing ....................................................................................................................... 59
Student attention ................................................................................................................... 60
Student behavior ................................................................................................................... 61
Increase in achievement ........................................................................................................ 62
Incentives or rewards ............................................................................................................ 64
Student participation ............................................................................................................. 65
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 66
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations ................................. 68
Statement of Problem ................................................................................................................ 68
Theoretical Approach ............................................................................................................... 69
Conclusions and Summary of Findings .................................................................................... 71
Frequent circulation during lessons ...................................................................................... 71
Chunking lesson into segments with clear, concise directions ............................................. 72
Adjust lesson pacing ............................................................................................................. 73
Use of multiple formative assessment strategies .................................................................. 74
Implications .............................................................................................................................. 75
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 76
x
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................. 76
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................................... 77
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 78
References .................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix A: ................................................................................................................................. 88
Appendix B: ................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix C: ................................................................................................................................. 94
xi
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Coding of Raw Data from Classroom Observations, Interviews, and
Focus Group……………………………………………………………………..48
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
Biological processes that cycle in 24-hour periods are daily rhythms. A circadian rhythm
is a daily rhythm influenced by internal and environmental cues. According to Refinetti (2012),
“Many behavioral processes of individual organisms exhibit daily and/or circadian rhythmicity,
including locomotor activity, feeding, excretion, sensory processing, and learning capability”
(para. 2). Researchers James Horne and Olov Ostberg were among the first to examine the
potential differences among human circadian rhythms. They developed the Morningness-
Eveningness Questionnaire to help determine an individual’s peak performance time of day.
Ultimately, they determined that individuals are either “Morning types,” “Evening types,” or
“Afternoon types” (Horne & Ostberg, 1977).
According to Besoluk (2011), “Morningness–eveningness preference is not a fixed
feature but can change during the span of an individual’s life. Evening types are more prevalent
in adolescents and young adults, whereas morning types are more common in children and older
adults” (p. 248). Furthermore, Besoluk (2011) claimed, “Preference for morning or evening
activities is an individual difference in circadian rhythms with potential applications in everyday
life such as optimizing work schedules, sports performance, and academic achievement” (p.
248). Due to the shift in circadian preference (chronotype) to eveningness during adolescence,
students have shown negative consequences because of living in a society that forces them to
perform early in the morning. According to Diaz-Morales and Escribano (2013):
Due to early school starting times, evening-type adolescents experience a greater
misalignment between biological and social rhythms: they sleep less on school days, their
quality of life related to health is worse, they report more school-related problems, and
they achieve lower grades. (p.1232)
2
This study investigated which instructional strategies were most effective in promoting
student engagement and performance to overcome the misalignment of evening-type adolescents
with the traditional early start times for high school.
Statement of the Problem
Existing research on the topic of how time of day affects performance focused on
whether a difference existed in human performance at different times of day (Carrier & Monk,
2000; Fabbri, Natale, & Adan, 2008; Onder, Horzum, & Besoluk, 2012; Preckel et al., 2013;
Randler, 2011; Randler, Bechtold, & Vogel, 2016; Randler, Rahafer, Arbabi, and Bretschneider,
2014; Roenneberg et al., 2007; Vollmer, Potsch, and Randler, 2013; Zavada, Gordijn, Beersma,
Daen, & Roenneberg, 2005). The research established differences in preferred times of the day
and performance (Gelbmann et al., 2012; Biss and Hasher, 2012; Roenneberg et al., 2007; Kim,
Dueker, Hasher, & Goldstein, 2002; Vinne et al., 2015); therefore, it was essential to focus the
current research on how to improve student performance for those enrolled in a class not during
their preferred time of the day. This study focused on identifying best practice instructional
strategies of high school teachers for promoting positive student engagement, achievement, and
behavior to promote equitable performance from all students regardless of time of the day they
were in class.
Research Question
What instructional strategies are most effective for high school teachers in promoting
positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon
classes?
3
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical foundation for this study was constructivism. According to Olusegun
(2015), constructivism suggested that people construct their knowledge and understanding
through experiences and reflecting on those experiences. To accomplish this, people should ask
questions, explore, and assess what they already know. In a classroom setting, constructivism
encourages students to use active learning techniques such as experiments and real-world
problem solving. The basic characteristics of constructivist learning environments included the
sharing of knowledge between students and teachers, shared authority between students and
teachers, heterogeneous small learning groups in the classroom, and the teacher acting as a
facilitator or guide for learning. Some of the goals associated with constructivist learning
environments included students determining how they will learn, student-centered learning,
classroom collaboration, and student reflection on their learning (Olusegun, 2015).
Constructivist theory was best suited for this investigation because it promoted the active
involvement of students in their learning, which promoted higher engagement and overall
academic performance (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012).
In addition to constructivism, best practice strategies to promote student engagement and
motivation were a foundation for this study. The research problem concerned how students
exhibit different levels of engagement, achievement, and behavior at different times of the day.
Identifying best practice strategies for promoting engagement and achievement guided the
researcher in the formation of teacher interview questions and focus group discussion questions.
The researcher needed to familiarize herself with research regarding the most current best
practice strategies for promoting student motivation and engagement in today’s generation of
students. This information was crucial for the foundation of the study, development of the
4
interviews and focus group questions, and provided the researcher with necessary background
knowledge while coding the data. In the constructivist model, students were active participants
in their learning while the teacher facilitated and prompted, mediated, and coached students as
they developed and assessed their understanding of the material.
Rationale
Identifying best instructional practices from high school teachers for promoting student
engagement, achievement, and behavior has many benefits for all high school teachers and
students, especially any practice that might work best for college preparatory (CP) level students
enrolled in classes later in the day. It is often challenging to keep students engaged and on task
at the end of the day due to fatigue and restlessness. Identifying effective practices to overcome
differences in student performance at different times of the day could have a significant impact
on improving teaching practice and student achievement.
Researcher Positionality Statement
The researcher taught at the high school used in the study and has worked in the school
for eight years. The researcher had a good relationship with the majority of teachers in the
building and taught a high-stakes tested subject area. The researcher had anecdotal evidence and
state testing data to support the hypothesis that students typically have higher achievement in
class and on state standardized assessments when enrolled in a course earlier in the day
compared with the last block of the day. There were several biases the researcher had regarding
this study. One bias was that at-risk students were less motivated and engaged than students not
identified as at-risk, and about one-third of students enrolled in CP level classes at the school
used in the study belonged to the at-risk population. The researcher controlled this bias by not
focusing on individual students, but on how teachers accommodate for differences in
5
engagement, achievement, and behavior in their classes overall between morning and afternoon
classes with CP level students. The researcher observed teacher lessons but did not know any
information about the students enrolled in the observed classes.
Definitions of Terms
Academic achievement. “Academic achievement is almost entirely measured with
grades (by course or assignment) and GPA” (York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015, p.7).
At-risk students. In general, at-risk students were defined as students that were poorly
equipped to meet academic standards. Students often fell into several categories when labeled
at-risk. They may have been low-income, academically underprepared, lacking technology
skills, raised by single parents, poor health, having limited access to technology, and immigrant
status (Bulger & Watson, 2006). These risk factors made students at-risk to not graduate on
time.
Chronotype. Human preferences in the timing of sleep and wakefulness (Roenneberg,
Wirz-Justice, & Merrow, 2003).
Circadian rhythm. Often referred to as the "body clock," the circadian rhythm is the 24-
hour cycle that tells our bodies when to sleep, rise, and eat—regulating many physiological
processes (“Circadian Rhythm,” n.d.).
College preparatory (CP). The school and district used in this study identified courses
as college preparatory to promote college readiness for all students. Students enrolled in CP
courses represented the general population of students, including special education students
(those with 504 plans, IEPs, or identified as gifted).
6
Highly qualified teacher status. To be considered highly qualified, teachers must have
had a bachelor’s degree, full state certification or licensure, and prove they knew each subject
they teach (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
High-stakes testing. “High-stakes tests are a part of policy design that links the score on
one set of standardized tests to grade promotion, high school graduation and, in some cases,
teacher and principal salaries and tenure decisions” (Au, 2007, p. 258). Stakes on testing were
considered high when the results of standardized testing were used in the ranking and
categorization of schools, teachers, and students, and those results were reported to the public
(McNeil, 2000).
Morningness-eveningness. Chronotypes have been assessed mainly by questionnaires
designed to associate individuals to tendencies coined ‘morningness’ or ‘eveningness’ (Horne
and Östberg, 1976).
Student engagement. Student engagement typically referred to either students’
psychological investment or willingness to invest time in educational behaviors, or a more
general reference to student involvement in educational activities (York, Gibson, & Rankin,
2015).
Student tracking. An instructional practice that involved placing students into different
classes based on their achievement skill levels, readiness, or abilities. The primary reason for
this practice was to create a more homogeneous learning environment so teachers can provide
instruction better matched to students’ needs, and students could benefit from interactions with
their comparable academic peers (Steenbergen-Hu, Makel, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016).
Synchrony effect. The idea that individuals perform best when working during their
preferred chronotype (Goldstein, Hahn, Hasher, Wiprzycka, Zelazo, 2007).
7
TN Ready. TNReady was a part of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program
(TCAP) and was designed to assess true student understanding, not just basic memorization and
test-taking skills (Tennessee Department of Education, n.d.).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study introduced how time of the day can influence human performance.
The researcher discussed concepts of chronotype and synchrony effect along with supporting
research regarding the change in chronotype from childhood to adolescence, which indicated
adolescents exhibit higher performance in the afternoon compared to the morning. Chapter 1
also discussed the theoretical framework, key terms, purpose and significance of the study, and
the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions of the study.
Chapter 2 contained the review of literature relevant to the topic of study. The topics
discussed in the literature review were biological clocks, chronotype, morningness-eveningness,
chronotype and age/gender, chronotype and student performance, memory and time of day,
classroom activity and behavior, and effective instructional strategies to promote student
motivation and engagement. Chapter 3 was the methodology of the study. Chapter 3 included
the research design, data collection, coding process, data analysis, and a description of the study
participants and research setting.
In Chapter 4, the researcher presented the research findings, including a visual
representation of the coding process. In Chapter 5, the researcher provided an interpretation of
data presented in Chapter 4 to determine conclusions. Chapter 5 also included how the findings
related to broader theoretical issues, analyzed the research process, described implications for
future studies, and made recommendations for future related studies.
8
Summary
Identifying best practice strategies to promote positive engagement, achievement, and
behavior from high school students in classes despite time of the day can have a positive impact
on students, teachers, and the school. This study aimed to identify these best instructional
practices by selecting three highly qualified, practicing high school educators in high-stakes
tested subject areas of CP level Biology I, Algebra 1, and English 1 as participants. Participants
initially completed two classroom observations, followed by individual interviews. The
researcher observed each participant once in a morning class and again for their afternoon class
to observe any differences in student engagement or behavior. The researcher also observed any
differences in teacher instruction between morning and afternoon classes. The final step in data
collection was a focus group discussion after completion of all classroom observations. The goal
of this study was to identify effective instructional strategies to overcome the discrepancy in
student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon classes.
9
CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature
There were several areas of previous research to investigate the phenomenon of
differences in student engagement, academic achievement, and behavior among high school
students on a block schedule at different times of the day. Reviewing current research provided
the researcher with the necessary background knowledge to conduct an informed, non-biased
study. The research question focused on identifying best instructional practices by high school
teachers to promote positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning
and afternoon classes. There were several areas of research related to the current study. First, it
was necessary to describe how biological clocks and circadian rhythm worked in animals.
Biological clocks were found to be subject to individual variation. People typically felt most
alert, energetic, and capable at a particular time of the day, which often varied from one
individual to another (Onder, Horzum, & Besoluk, 2012). This preference for a particular time
of the day is an individual’s chronotype.
Next, the researcher reviewed how to identify an individual’s chronotype and the
morningness-eveningness scale of chronotypes. A questionnaire such as the Morninness-
Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) determined an individual’s chronotype. Developed by James
Horne and Olov Ostberg in 1976, the MEQ was a 19-question survey aimed at determining an
individual’s optimal time of day to be active mentally and physically (Zavada, Gordijn, Beersma,
Daen, & Roenneberg, 2005). Concerning chronotype, there were factors that may have
influenced an individual’s chronotype, such as age and gender. In a study conducted by
Gelbmann et al. (2012), it was determined that circadian preference had both genetic and
environmental influences. Gelbmann et al. (2012) also described how chronotype changed with
age. In addition, some studies indicated a slight difference in chronotype between males and
10
females. These studies deduced that gender chronotype differences were most likely due to the
difference in hormone levels between males and females (Duffy et al., 2010; Roenneberg et al.,
2007).
The researcher also reviewed studies related to how chronotype influenced academic
performance in children. According to Onder, Besoluk, Iskender, Masal, and Demirhan (2014),
morning-type students naturally woke up earlier and therefore reached maximum productivity
earlier in the day compared with evening-type students. In their study, morning-type students
performed better on school exams, had a higher grade point average (GPA), and fewer school-
related problems compared with evening-type students. After a thorough review of research
regarding chronotypes, the researcher reviewed research concerning memory and time of day
because memory played a major role in student learning.
Finally, the researcher reviewed research on student motivation and engagement. Many
factors influenced student motivation and engagement other than chronotype. The researcher
needed to be knowledgeable concerning all factors that influence student engagement,
motivation, and behavior to maintain a non-biased study. Saeed and Zyngier (2012) claimed that
student engagement referred to the students’ willingness, need, desire, and compulsion to
participate and be successful in the learning process. Student motivation referred to the amount
of effort given by the student and their focus on learning to achieve academic success. There
were two primary types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The researcher
included an investigation of all these topics in the following review of the literature.
Biological Clocks
A circadian rhythm is an internally driven phenomenon that occurs in an approximately
24-hour cycle. Scientists have observed circadian rhythms in almost all living organisms, from
11
bacteria to humans. Circadian rhythms control many biological and physiological processes
such as sleep-wake patterns, feeding habits, daily performance patterns, and body temperature in
animals. In plants, circadian rhythms influence flowering, position relative to the sun, and
opening and closing of stomata to perform photosynthesis. In humans and other animals, the
cycles of sleep and wakefulness rely on a biological clock, a mechanism that controls gene
expression and cellular activities. Synchronization of the human biological clock aligns with
cycles of light and darkness. Within the human brain, the hypothalamus contains clusters of
neurons that form a structure known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). The SCN receives
light sensory information from the eyes and controls the release of melatonin, the sleep-inducing
hormone, from the pineal gland within the brain. As the amount of light entering the eyes
decreases, the SCN triggers an increased release of melatonin. As the amount of light increases,
melatonin production decreases. (Urry, Cain, Wasserman, Minorsky, & Reece, 2018, pp.1016,
1092-93). According to Onder, Horzum, and Besoluk (2012), “While melatonin secretion is
high during night, cortisol secretion increases with light. Melatonin and cortisol are important
components of bodies’ time keeping system. Awakening response is associated with cortisol
whereas sleep is associated with melatonin” (pp. 162-163).
Many psychological and physiological processes within the human body vary throughout
the day, typically with peaks and troughs roughly coinciding with light and darkness,
respectively. Biological clocks were subject to individual variation. People felt most alert,
energetic, and capable at a particular time of day, which often varied from one individual to
another (Onder, Horzum, & Besoluk, 2012). This preferred time of day was an individual’s
chronotype. There were two most commonly identified chronotypes, morning-type and evening-
type. Morning-type individuals were larks, while evening-type individuals were owls. Many
12
studies suggested that chronotype varied with age and gender. The ability of an individual to
anticipate peaks in their physical and mental capacities had an important influence on scheduling
and accomplishment of everyday activities such as learning and coursework for students (Onder,
Horzum, & Besoluk, 2012). An individual’s preference for morning or evening activities
appeared to be a non-traditional but promising indicator of academic success for students.
According to Preckel et al. (2013), “Recent research has documented statistically meaningful
relationships between chronotype and academic performance and demonstrated that eveningness
and academic performance are negatively related, whereas morningness and academic
performance are positively related” (p. 115).
In a study performed by Carrier and Monk (2000), they investigated the relationship
between circadian rhythm and human performance. They claimed that maximum performance
should be midday with minimal performance early in the morning and late at night. Carrier and
Monk expanded on this by explaining that working memory tasks showed a maximum around
midday, while the peak for immediate (learning) memory peaked in morning hours. Carrier and
Monk discussed how alertness and performance efficiency were determined by the number of
hours an individual is awake and input from the body’s circadian timing system (CTS). They
claimed performance efficiency for a specific task decreased throughout the day. The
mechanism that controlled internal circadian performance rhythm was the same mechanism that
drove the circadian rhythm of body temperature. This mechanism also drove the levels of
cortisol and melatonin circulating in the blood (Carrier & Monk, 2000). Another important
aspect of Carrier and Monk’s study was the idea of the “post-lunch dip.” They suggested there
was a general increase in the natural tendency or desire to sleep during mid-afternoon hours,
which could aid in the explanation of decreased student performance in classes after lunch.
13
Carrier and Monk reported a short-lived decrease in performance during the mid-afternoon
hours, and a high-carbohydrate lunch intensified this effect. However, they said the effect still
occurred even with no lunch (Carrier & Monk, 2000).
For significance to this study, the researcher needed to understand how physiological
processes such as the biological clock influenced behaviors and performance patterns of
individuals. Increased knowledge concerning the optimal time of day for student performance
and alertness could aid school leaders and educators in course scheduling and improvement of
instruction to meet student needs.
Chronotype and Morningness-Eveningness
Daily rhythms such as temperature and sleep-wake cycles influenced many aspects of
human lives. The changes in amounts of melatonin and cortisol released into the bloodstream in
response to amount of light detection by the SCN within the hypothalamus influenced body
functioning. Most people felt most alert, energetic, and productive at a specific time of the day
(Onder, Hohrzum, Besoluk, 2012). The term chronotype referred to the preferred time of day
variation from one individual to another. According to Oginska and Oginska-Bruchal (2014),
“The term ‘chronotype’ is used to describe relatively stable traits of the subjective diurnal
rhythm of activity. . . . Traditionally, it refers to the subjective morning-evening preference” (p.
2). A questionnaire, such as the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), determined an
individual’s chronotype. Developed by James Horne and Olov Ostberg in 1976, the MEQ was a
19-question survey aimed at determining an individual’s optimal time of day to be active
mentally and physically. The majority of questions were preferential and multiple-choice based
with a point value associated with each answer. The valued sum of each answer choice ranged
from 16-86, with lower scores corresponding to evening-type individuals (Zavada, Gordijn,
14
Beersma, Daen, & Roenneberg, 2005). The Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) was a
more recent chronotype indicator developed by Till Roenneberg in 2003. The MCTQ asked
individuals to rate themselves as one of seven chronotypes: Extreme Early, Moderate Early,
Slightly Early, Normal, Slightly Late, Moderate Late, or Extreme Late. Subjects also judged
their chronotype at different life stages to determine how their chronotype changed with age
(Zavada et al., 2005).
A study conducted by Randler, Rahafer, Arbabi, and Bretschneider (2014) investigated
the effect of chronotype on students during their first lesson of the school day. They claimed
with supporting research that children were usually morning-oriented while adolescents around
the age of 12-14 years underwent a dramatic shift toward eveningness. At the end of
adolescence, there was a shift back toward morningness. Randler et al. (2014) claimed that
many studies reported a worse school performance in evening-oriented adolescents or evening
types. This relationship was evident in multiple countries, different school types, and among
university-level students. Evening-type adolescents appeared unable to perform at their best
performance during school lessons. A study conducted by Vollmer, Potsch, and Randler (2013)
found that because adolescents had a shift in chronotype toward eveningness, but the school day
started early in the morning, adolescents’ academic performance suffered due to sleep
deprivation and daytime sleepiness. Vollmer et al. (2013) also indicated a relationship between
chronotype and attention peaks at different times of the day. Adolescents’ performance may
have increased during the morning due to societal pressures and the finding that subjective
alertness increased in the morning (Fabbri, Natale, & Adan, 2008). After reaching their
individual peak, performance likely deteriorated, and errors increased at the end of the school
day (Vollmer et al., 2013).
15
In adolescents, the significant change in morningness-eveningness preference was
associated with different aspects of their lives, such as excessive daytime sleepiness, poor
academic performance, and behavioral and emotional problems (Randler, 2011). Randler (2011)
said morning-type individuals fit better into society because school and work schedules oriented
around a morning schedule. Evening-type adolescents were at a higher risk for lower school
performance and academic achievement. Onder, Horzum, and Besoluk (2012) described
evening-type individuals as creative, emotionally unstable, and had difficult social and familial
relations. Morning-type individuals had decreased mood and energy throughout the day, while
evening-type personalities showed the opposite with increased mood and energy throughout the
day. Evening-type individuals showed greater behavioral problems, lower academic
performance, and higher stress rates in family and social lives. Due to sleep deprivation and
their forced shift to perform at their non-preferred chronotype, it was difficult for late chronotype
children to adapt socially and academically. Onder, Horzum, & Besoluk (2012) claimed that one
of the probable reasons for the negative effects of the typical school schedule on evening-type
adolescents was an insufficient amount of sleep. Fixed school start times were typically much
earlier than peak performance time for adolescent evening-types. Early start times benefitted
morning-type individuals but placed evening-type individuals at a significant disadvantage.
School leaders and educators should be aware of the misalignment between student peak
performance and the timing of the school day. Rather than focusing on persuading policymakers
to make the unlikely change of adjusting school start times, it would be more effective for
educators and school leaders to focus efforts on identifying effective instructional strategies to
motivate and engage students despite time of the day to eliminate the concern of chronotype
misalignment for adolescent students.
16
Chronotype and Age
For significance to this study, it was essential to discuss how chronotype varied with age.
Several studies indicated that chronotype changed throughout an individual’s lifetime. In a study
conducted by Gelbmann et al. (2012), it was determined circadian preference had both genetic
and environmental influences. Gelbmann et al. (2012) also described how chronotype changed
with age. Young children showed strong tendencies for morningness, with estimates close to
90% of children age five or younger. This morningness tendency decreased to 46% in four- to
11-year-olds. During adolescence, a significant shift toward eveningness occurred. Gelbmann et
al. (2012) claimed this significant shift in chronotype during puberty was associated with
physical changes, the increase in academic and social demands, increased independence, more
relaxed parental restrictions, and greater involvement in late-night activities. The results of their
study supported pronounced morningness in young children, but they could not confirm the
previously reported significant drop in morningness preference during puberty. Rather, they
found morningness steadily declined as children matured.
Some studies found that the shift to eveningness chronotype in adolescence was due to
hormonal changes that occurred during puberty. According to Biss and Hasher (2012), “These
chronotype differences are thought to be linked to age-dependent changes in the concentration
and timing of certain hormones, including cortisol and growth hormone, which influence the
timing and quality of sleep” (p. 437). A study conducted by Roenneberg et al. (2007) further
supported this claim. Roenneberg et al. proposed that the changes in chronotype with age along
with significant differences observed in chronotypes between males and females between
puberty and menopause indicated that hormones were most likely involved in the age-dependent
changes of chronotype. In adolescents aged 16-25, the secretion of growth hormone reached its
17
maximum and cortisol (the waking hormone) reached its minimum around 1:00 am, which was
about one hour later than in elderly people age 70 or older (Roenneberg et al., 2007).
Furthermore, it was found that the shift toward evening preference appeared to occur at
approximately age 13 (Kim, Dueker, Hasher, & Goldstein, 2002), which was the typical age of
puberty onset and significant hormonal changes.
Most adolescents experienced a shift to eveningness; therefore, they tended to stay up
later in the evenings. However, school start times tended to be earlier for middle and high school
students compared with elementary start times. Adolescents were typically not receiving an
adequate amount of sleep. According to Carskadon (2011), “The reported number of hours slept
on school nights declined from 8.4 hours in the 6th-grade students to 6.9 hours in the 12th
graders” (p. 638). Carskadon proposed that in addition to changes in the circadian rhythms and
chronotype of adolescents, screen time, technology use, and social engagements in the evening
became more available during adolescence. A relationship existed between the use of electronic
devices such as computers, TV, and smartphones in the evening before bedtime, and shorter,
later, and more disturbed sleep. Most electronic devices emit blue-spectrum light to which the
circadian clock may have higher sensitivity and caused individuals to stay awake later than their
natural circadian rhythm (Carskadon, 2011).
The chronotype shift to eveningness in adolescents had important significance for
education. According to Kim et al. (2002), there were two primary ways eveningness of
adolescents affected their school performance. The chronotype shift to eveningness meant
adolescents were more likely to go to bed later but still had to wake up early for school, which
led to sleep deprivation. The result of this sleep deprivation was sleepiness throughout the
school day, which influenced their alertness and engagement. Also, Kim et al. (2002) found that
18
both younger and older adults performed best during their preferred time of day. Younger and
older adults reported better performance of cognitive tasks, less distractibility, and recognition of
newly learned information at their preferred optimal time of the day. The shift in children’s time
of the day preference as they aged indicated their cognitive functioning was likely at its peak in
the afternoon when school was over or almost over. If adolescent students took tested subjects
such as math and English in the morning, they were most likely learning material during their
less-preferred time of day, resulting in decreased academic performance (Kim et al., 2002).
Not all research agreed that there is a definite shift to eveningness among adolescents. In
1999, Callan claimed that about 33% of high school students had no time of day preference, with
about 20% favoring mornings and 30% favoring afternoons or evenings. This indicated that over
half of the adolescents studied had either no preference, or preferred mornings. Another study
by Intons-Peterson, Rocchi, West, McLellan, & Hackney (1998) found that 57% of young adults
demonstrated no preference on the MEQ. In their study, only 6% tested as definitely evening-
types.
Chronotype and Gender
There was a more pronounced relationship between age differences in chronotype than
gender differences in chronotype among existing research. However, some research suggested a
slight difference between male and female chronotype. While both sexes had a shift toward
eveningness beginning around age 13, Roenneberg et al. (2007) claimed women reached their
maximum in lateness around 19.5 years old while males reached their maximum lateness around
age 21. Roenneberg et al. (2007) also said males, on average, maintained a later chronotype
throughout adulthood compared with females. The gender difference in chronotype disappeared
around age 50, which coincided with menopause in females. Roenneberg et al. (2007) used this
19
evidence to support the idea that gender differences in chronotype were primarily due to the
hormone differences between males and females. Duffy et al. (2010) reported,
The shorter intrinsic circadian period we observed in women may be related to their
higher estrogen levels, because it has been shown that continuous administration of
estradiol benzoate results in a significant shortening of [circadian] period in blind,
ovariectomized female hamsters. Our finding of a shorter intrinsic circadian period in
women may therefore be attributable, in part, to the higher circulating levels of estrogen
in women. (p. 4)
For this study, it was essential to be aware of any gender differences in chronotype while
observing student attention and engagement during classroom observations for data collection
purposes. If females appeared to be more attentive than males at different times of day, it could
be due to the slight difference in their preferred time of the day for peak performance.
Chronotype and Student Performance
Various researchers established that adolescents shift their chronotype from morningness
to eveningness around the age of 13; however, school start times become earlier as children enter
middle school and high school. If adolescents developed a chronotype to favor eveningness,
they went to bed later but still woke up early for school. This led to sleep deprivation, which is
not conducive to learning and optimal student performance throughout the school day. In 2015,
Vinne et al. explained that the chronotype of adolescents was later than in all other age groups,
resulting in overall later sleeping times. Students still woke up early for school leading to
chronic sleep deficiency, which was associated with lower school performance. Vinne et al.
(2015) explained, “the condition of chronic sleep deficiency associated with early work or school
hours and late sleep onset has been called social jetlag” (p. 54). Increased social jetlag has been
20
associated with lower academic achievement, and late chronotypes achieved overall lower grades
than early chronotypes (Vinne et al., 2015).
According to Onder, Besoluk, Iskender, Masal, and Demirhan (2014), morning-type
students naturally woke up earlier and reached maximum productivity earlier in the day
compared with evening type students. Their study found morning-type students displayed higher
performance on school exams, had a higher grade point average (GPA), and fewer school-related
problems compared with evening-type students. Onder et al. (2014) hypothesized because
evening-type individuals were less alert early in the day, they may have had difficulty meeting
expectations of teachers and had lower motivation toward learning and achievement. Evening-
type individuals also typically had more daytime sleepiness, which led to decreased alertness and
motivation. Preckel et al. (2013) sought out to investigate why morning-type individuals had
higher performance compared with evening types. They claimed evening-type students went to
bed later than morning-type students did, but they were required to wake at the same time due to
school schedules. This resulted in evening-type students reporting higher rates of daytime
sleepiness, which was associated with lower school achievement. The results of the Preckel et
al. (2013) study indicated that morningness showed a significant positive correlation with
conscientiousness, cognition, and goal mastery. Eveningness showed a significant negative
correlation with conscientiousness, performance goal orientation, and a significant positive
correlation with work avoidance in school. Furthermore, Preckel et al. (2013) found that
students with a tendency for eveningness received significantly lower marks regarding overall
GPA, math-science only GPA, and language GPA. Preckel et al. (2013) determined eveningness
to be a significant negative predictor of overall GPA, math-science GPA, and language GPA
21
even after controlling for variables such as gender, cognitive ability, and achievement
motivation.
Preckel et al. (2013) proposed that factors such as sleep deprivation, and behavioral
problems and work ethic among students with eveningness contributed to their lower
achievement. The researchers claimed that individuals with an eveningness tendency were more
likely to exhibit characteristics negatively related to academic achievement. These
characteristics included a negative attitude towards school, anxiety disorders, lower levels of
conscientiousness, and higher drug consumption. In 2016, Randler, Bechtold, & Vogel found
that morning-type individuals had greater attention during class and were slower and more
considerate when completing exams while evening types were faster and displayed strategies that
were more impulsive during exams. Another study conducted by Hines (2004) established that
performance efficiency steadily declined throughout the day, while speed increased. The
declines in efficiency were more apparent in the afternoon, even though the ability to perceive
stimuli was lower in the morning. Randler, Bechtold, & Vogel (2016) also investigated how
mood and attitude associated with chronotype may influence achievement. They found that
negative mood was higher in evening types, and positive mood was higher in morning types. In
addition, morning types had a higher positive mood during the entire school day compared to
evening types. The tendency of evening types to have a more negative attitude toward school
may have contributed to their lower academic achievement.
In another investigation concerning how time of day impacts classroom achievement,
Wile and Shouppe (2011) described how morning learning was associated with superior
immediate recall (short-term memory) while material learned in the afternoon was more
beneficial to long-term memory recall. In elementary school, teaching core subjects during
22
morning hours before lunch was more conducive to a younger child’s chronotype because young
children typically had a higher tendency for morningness. Random assignment of class
schedules in high school means they may be learning core subjects such as math, science, and
English at times of the day misaligned with their preferred time of day. Vinne et al. (2015)
found that high school students with an early chronotype earned significantly higher grades
during the early and late morning compared with late chronotypes, but this difference
disappeared in the early afternoon, indicating that early and late chronotypes obtained similar
grades in the early afternoon.
Wile and Shouppe (2011) also discussed the commonality observed and heard in teacher
workroom conversations concerning how to motivate students in afternoon classes and the
consistent reports that afternoon classes were harder to teach. Klein (2001) found that levels of
attention for tenth-grade students were lowest in the afternoon and highest in the morning.
Holloway (1999) reported that students scored better during their teacher’s optimal time of day.
This suggested the teacher’s chronotype influenced student learning as much as the student’s
chronotype. As adults, most teachers may shift back towards an early chronotype; therefore,
they may exhibit higher effectiveness and attention to detail during the morning compared with
the afternoon, which could be a contributing factor to the common assumption that students
perform better in the morning.
Memory and Time of Day
The previous sections established that chronotype tended to change in adolescents toward
eveningness rather than morningness. This shift in chronotype resulted in students staying up
later in the evening while still waking early in the morning due to early school start times. This
ultimately led to chronic sleep deficiency among evening-type adolescents, which had a negative
23
impact on their academic achievement. Research concerning how time of day impacts short-
term and long-term memory explained how the brain processes memory and learning at different
times of the day. The research also showed how the shift to eveningness in adolescents followed
by the development of sleep deficiency affected memory and learning. In 1999, Cynthia May
investigated the effects of circadian rhythms on cognitive abilities, specifically, memory,
attention, and decision-making. May claimed that superior cognitive functioning occurred when
testing times synchronized with an individuals’ peak arousal period or preferred time of day
(chronotype). This phenomenon was the “synchrony effect.” In particular, it appeared that
inhibition of distractions or off-task information was most susceptible to synchrony effects. May
(1999) reported that inhibition served three functions related to processing information. First,
inhibition limited access to working memory, which maintained focus to only relevant, task-
oriented stimuli. Second, inhibition suppressed information that was once relevant but no longer
necessary. Finally, inhibition restrained impulsive behavior to promote responsible decision-
making. May (1999) found evidence to suggest each of the inhibitory functions may be impaired
at off-peak times of the day. May claimed individuals were notably susceptible to distractions
during off-peak times of the day. In her study, May did find stable performance throughout the
day for judgment, vocabulary tests, color naming, and generation of sentences. May also found
that younger adults at their peak time of day (preferred chronotype) were highly effective in
suppressing distractions but their ability to avoid distractions worsened during off-peak times.
May (1999) said, “Because suppression of off-task distractions will be particularly difficult at
off-peak times, complex tasks that require focused attention, retrieval of exact information, or
careful control over responses should be completed at peak hours or in a setting in which
distractions are kept to a minimum” (p. 146). May also found that sometimes individuals
24
benefitted from reduced inhibition. For instance, in activities requiring creativity, diminished
inhibition allowed the individual to consider a greater depth of alternatives, which produced a
better product (May, 1999).
Berger (2000) reported that adolescents had a lack of sleep during the school week due to
their tendency to be evening-types, which made them more susceptible to time of day effects on
memory. Berger’s study investigated types of memory tasks best suited for lower levels of
arousal and which ones required higher levels of arousal. The goal of the study was to provide
results to inform school leaders about scheduling certain classes to allow students to learn at their
peak time of day. Berger (2000) reported that a large number of studies showed performance on
tests involving short-term memory was best when given in the morning compared to the
afternoon in adolescents. Berger suggested that the reason for inferior performance in the
afternoon on short-term memory tasks was due to mental fatigue from the student’s accumulated
sleep deficiency. Furthermore, Berger suggested that while performance on tasks involving
short-term memory declined from morning to afternoon, performance on tasks utilizing long-
term memory was generally best in the afternoon. Adolescents were more prone to an evening
chronotype, and their highest level of arousal was in the afternoon. Berger (2000) determined
that high levels of arousal enhanced long-term memory. For complex learning, the finding was
that the level of performance on tasks increased with increased arousal, but beyond a certain
optimal level of arousal, performance fell (Berger, 2000). This could suggest a reason for the
“post-lunch dip” in performance observed among adolescents (Carrier & Monk, 2000). Berger
(2000) found that among high school students, about 40% were early chronotypes, while the
remaining 60% preferred morning-early afternoon. Of the 60% of students who preferred
25
morning-early afternoon, 13% were late chronotypes who exhibited peak learning time in the
evening.
Berger (2000) found short-term memory to have limited capacity and duration.
Rehearsal and repetition of information allowed retention in short-term memory somewhat
longer. While information was in short term memory, it integrated with related information from
long-term memory, which allowed it to enter long-term memory (Berger, 2000). This is why it
is crucial for educators to relate newly learned information to previous knowledge or real-life
experiences, so students can integrate the new information with existing knowledge for new
information to enter long-term memory storage. Information stored in long-term memory may
remain for minutes, hours, days, or potentially a lifetime. Long-term memory recall should
improve throughout the day as arousal increases, while recall of short-term memory was
optimum in the morning (Berger, 2000).
A study conducted by Carrier and Monk (2000) further confirmed these findings of peak
times for short and long-term memory recall. Carrier and Monk reported that immediate
memory peaked in morning hours, working memory showed a maximum for recall about
midday, and long-term memory recall was best in the afternoon. Carrier and Monk also
supported the claim reported in Berger (2000) that beyond a certain period of arousal,
performance fell. Carrier and Monk (2000) found that working memory (part of short-term
memory) recall depended on the size of the working memory load. For a given individual, their
memory load involved with completing tasks affected the timing of the trend over the day. This
could explain why teachers noticed a drop in student performance in afternoon classes, even
though the majority of high school students had peak arousal in the afternoon (Wile & Shouppe,
26
2011). By afternoon, students have reached their maximum working memory load and
experienced mental fatigue (Berger, 2000).
Student Motivation and Engagement
The previous sections discussed how circadian rhythms and chronotype influenced
student achievement. The majority of the research described above supported the idea that
adolescents tend to shift towards an evening-type chronotype, meaning they reached peak
performance ability at some point in the afternoon. As a result, educators need to consider how
they differentiate instruction throughout the day to maintain student engagement at all times
during the day. However, it was important to discuss the many factors that contribute to student
motivation and engagement. While circadian rhythm tendencies may play some part in student
motivation, engagement, and academic performance, many other factors influenced student
motivation and engagement.
In 2012, Saeed and Zyngier investigated how motivation influenced student engagement.
They reported that motivation was a required and necessary element for student engagement in
learning. Student engagement in learning was essential for students to achieve sound academic
outcomes. Engagement occurred when students were involved personally in their work, showed
perseverance in the face of obstacles and challenges, and found joy in accomplishing their work.
Saeed and Zyngier (2012) also claimed that student engagement refers to a student’s willingness,
need, desire, and compulsion to participate and be successful in the learning process. Student
motivation referred to the amount of effort given by the student and their focus on learning to
achieve academic success. There were two primary types of motivation identified—intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. According to Toshalis and Nakkula (2012), the use of extrinsic motivators
occurred within a behaviorist framework where external stimuli such as social expectations,
27
reward, praise, punishments, or threats produced successful outcomes. The shift away from
behaviorist theory to constructivist theory in education coincided with the growing belief that the
best motivators were intrinsic to the student. Intrinsic motivators were internal and valued by the
individual, whether expressed to others or not. Student motivations tended to be stronger, more
resilient, and better sustained when they emerged intrinsically (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012).
According to Saaed and Zyngier (2012), intrinsically motivated students had higher
achievement levels, lower anxiety, and higher self-perceptions of competence in learning
compared with students who were not intrinsically motivated. Furthermore, teachers frequently
used extrinsic motivators like rewards, praise, free time, food, or punishment to encourage and
stimulate student motivation. The majority of researchers believed motivation is not exclusively
intrinsic or extrinsic. A balanced approach to motivation in the classroom with a combination of
both types produced the highest success (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012). A study conducted in 2010 by
Zepke and Leach outlined ten proposals for educators to increase student engagement in the
classroom. Zepke and Leach (2010) proposed educators should 1) enhance students’ self-belief
by encouraging them to create their own knowledge, 2) enable students to work autonomously,
enjoy relationships with others and feel they are competent to achieve their own objectives, 3)
recognize that teaching and teachers are central to engagement by maintaining a positive,
approachable attitude, being well prepared, and being sensitive to student needs, 4) create
learning that is active, collaborative and fosters learning relationships by allowing for frequent
peer interaction within lessons, 5) create educational experiences for students that are
challenging, enriching, and extend their academic abilities, 6) ensure institutional cultures are
welcoming to students from diverse backgrounds, 7) invest in a variety of support services such
as educational technology, 8) adapt to changing student expectations, 9) enable students to
28
become active citizens, and 10) enable students to develop their social and cultural capital by
creating an atmosphere of acceptance and promoting active and engaging peer relationships
among all students (Zepke & Leach, 2010). Saeed and Zyngier (2012) suggested that good
teacher-student relationships, clear instructions, group work, student choice, planning engaging
and interesting learning activities, and making learning important and valuable to students
contributed to promoting student motivation and engagement in their learning. Saeed and
Zyngier (2012) also said that “extrinsic motivation should only be used in a way that enhances
intrinsic motivation rather than undermining it, as extrinsic rewards have a positive effect in
situations where intrinsic motivation is not high” (p. 262).
Student engagement was also an important factor in understanding dropout rates among
high school students. According to Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong (2008), engagement was
the primary factor for understanding dropout and was necessary to promote school completion.
Appleton et al. (2008) defined school completion as graduation from high school with academic
and social skills necessary for college enrollment or entering the workforce. Data examined by
Appleton et al. (2008) indicated that sufficient engagement with school did not occur for many
students. “Data from 2003 indicated that 3.5 million youth and young adults (16-25 years old)
had not earned a high school diploma and were not currently enrolled in school. Many dropouts,
by ages 16-24 were not employed” (p. 372). Additionally, male dropouts aged 25-34 received an
annual average income of $22,903 in 2002, which was the poverty threshold for a family of five.
The average annual income of employed female dropouts was $17,114, which made them unable
to keep a family of four above the poverty line. Also, students who did not complete high school
had higher incarceration rates and had a long-term dependency on social services (Appleton,
Christenson, & Furlong, 2008).
29
Understanding factors that influenced student motivation and engagement other than
circadian rhythm preference was essential for educators to learn how to develop curriculum
strategies to motivate and engage students despite misalignment of class times with a student’s
chronotype for peak performance in learning. The goal of the current study was to determine the
most effective instructional methods for promoting student engagement to overcome the
obstacles of student fatigue and sleep deficiency caused by misalignment of class times and
student chronotypes.
Classroom Activity and Student Behavior
The shift in chronotype from morningness to eveningness in adolescents led to sleep
deprivation and social jetlag (Vinne et al., 2015). According to Witkowski et al. (2014),
“Considerable research has examined the effects of total sleep deprivation (TSD) on cognitive
processes such as working memory, executive functioning, learning, and selective attention”
(p.1). Witkowski et al. (2014) described a direct relationship of TSD and a decreased ability to
sustain attention and alertness over long periods. The results of the Witkowski et al. (2014)
study determined there was a direct correlation between cognitive ability, attention, and student
activity with chronotype. In addition to sleep deprivation leading to decreased sustained
attention and alertness throughout the school day, several behavioral conditions affected student
activity and behavior in the classroom. The following sections investigated the effects of
commonly diagnosed behavior disorders in children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In
addition, the researcher investigated the types of medications prescribed for these disorders and
their effect on student performance throughout the school day.
30
ADHD. According to the Center for Disease Control, ADHD was one of the most
common mental health disorders of childhood. The symptoms often began in childhood and
continued into adulthood. The symptoms associated with ADHD, such as inattention, impulsive
behavior, and hyperactivity, often led to adverse effects in the academic, family, and social
aspects of their lives (Akinbami, Llu, Pastor, and Reuben 2011). Diagnosis for ADHD involved
a medical exam, a checklist for rating ADHD symptoms completed by the parents, teachers, and
sometimes the child. From 2007 to 2009, the average diagnosis of ADHD in children aged 5-17
was 9.0%. The prevalence of ADHD was higher among boys compared with girls (Akinbami et
al. 2011).
A study performed by Loe and Feldman (2007) investigated the academic and
educational outcomes of children with ADHD. The researchers found that children with ADHD
showed significant academic underachievement, poor academic performance, and other
education problems. Children with ADHD scored significantly lower on reading and math
achievement tests, exhibited an increase in repeated grade levels, used more remedial services,
and had higher placement in special education classes. Children with ADHD were also more
often expelled or suspended. Pre-school children with ADHD or symptoms of ADHD were
more likely to be behind in basic academic readiness skills. Initial symptoms of ADHD were
hyperactivity, distractibility, impulsivity, and aggression. These symptoms tended to decrease in
severity over time but remained present and increased in comparison to controls. Those subjects
followed into adolescence failed more grades, achieved lower grades in all subjects on report
cards, had lower class rankings, and performed more poorly on standardized subject exams
compared with control groups (Loe & Feldman, 2007).
31
ODD. According to Drabick and Gadow (2012), characterization of oppositional defiant
disorder (ODD) included a “pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior toward adults
and co-occurs with numerous psychiatric disorders” (para. 1). The disorders that most
commonly co-occur with ODD included ADHD, conduct disorder (CD), and anxiety or mood
disorders. A study conducted by Serra-Pinheiro, Mattos, Regalla, Souza, & Paixão (2008)
investigated the effects of three main behavioral disorder symptoms on academic achievement.
This study examined the effects of inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and oppositional-
defiant symptoms on academic achievement among sixth-grade students. Serra-Pinheiro et al.
(2008) found that out of the three symptoms, only inattention was the main predictor for school
difficulties. In their study, oppositional-defiant disorder symptoms (when not co-occurring with
ADHD symptoms) did not correlate with academic difficulties. However, when looking at
children with co-occurring ODD with ADHD, their risk of academic failure heightened
significantly.
In their research regarding strategies for helping children with oppositional defiant and
other conduct disorders, Webster-Sratton (1993) declared that teachers typically encountered at
least two or more children each year that exhibited “high rates of noncompliance and defiance in
response to teacher requests, aggression, cruelty toward peers, destructive acts, lying, stealing,
and cheating” (p. 437). Webster-Stratton (1993) suggested, “4-10% of children in the U.S. meet
the criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and/or conduct disorder” (p. 437). ODD was often
included in the more general description of conduct disorders. When considering the
relationship of ODD/CD and academic performance, Webster-Stratton (1993) claimed that low
academic achievement manifested in early elementary grades in children with ODD/CD and
continued through high school. These academic deficits included reading disabilities, language
32
delays, and attention problems. Webster-Stratton (1993) said, “It is clear that conduct problems
and a lack of reading ability both place the child at high risk for lower self-esteem, continued
academic failure, further conduct problems, and school dropout” (p. 440).
ASD. According to Hedges, Kirby, Sreckovic, Kucharczyk, Hume, and Pace (2014),
“Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by deficits in
social functioning and communication with restricted interests and repetitive behaviors” (p. 65).
Hedges et al. (2014) suggested symptoms of ASD may improve during the teen years, but there
were varying levels of aggression, resistance to change, unacceptable sexual behaviors, and self-
harm behaviors exhibited among this age group. Anxiety and depression were also common
alongside ASD in adolescents. Approximately 33% of ASD students in high school were
included in general education grade-level academic classes. In this study, 67% of teachers
reported they made at least one accommodation for students with ASD. Students with ASD were
less likely to respond orally to questions, give oral presentations to the class, or work in groups
with peers. Accommodations for students with ASD typically included extra time on tests and/or
assignments or alternate assignments/tests (Hedges et al., 2014). Estes, Rivera, Bryan, Cali, and
Dawson (2010) reported “an increasing proportion of children with ASD made significant gains
in intellectual ability and behavioral functioning due to early intervention and as many as 70% of
individuals with ASD were now thought to have intellectual ability in the average to above
average range” (para. 1). Among their 30 study participants with ASD, there was an
identification of a wide range of achievement outcomes from significantly above expectations to
far below expectations based on grade level placement. Estes et al. (2010) found that reading
and spelling were specific challenge areas for students with ASD. Among their participants,
90% showed at least one discrepancy in spelling, reading, or basic numeracy skills.
33
Additionally, 60% displayed lower than predicted achievement scores. The researchers also
found that 55% of children with ASD displayed attention problems, 31% met full criteria for
ADHD diagnosis, and 7% met the criteria for ODD diagnosis (Estes et al., 2010).
Medications. In an article written for the New York Times, Sroufe (2012) claimed there
had been a twentyfold increase in the consumption of drugs for ADHD over the last 30 years.
ADHD medications were typically stimulants that increased short-term concentration. However,
when given to children long-term, they did not improve academic performance or reduce
behavior concerns (Sroufe, 2012). Two of the common medications for ADHD were Ritalin and
Adderall, which were a combination of the stimulants dextroamphetamine and amphetamine.
Stimulants worked to excite the nervous system, making it curious that these medications aided
to calm those diagnosed with ADHD to help them with attention and focusing on tasks. Sroufe
said, “Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were
different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them” (Sroufe, 2012, para. 10). These
stimulant medications generally had the same effects on children and adults with ADHD. They
enhanced the ability to concentrate, especially on tasks when the individual was feeling fatigued
or bored, but they did not improve broader learning abilities (Sroufe, 2012). In a study
conducted by Punja, Zorzella, Hartling, Urichuk, and Vohra (2013), “Evidence has suggested
that ADHD may be the result of insufficient production of norepinephrine and dopamine in the
prefrontal cortex, resulting in forgetfulness, distractibility, impulsivity, and inappropriate social
behaviors” (p. 2). Stimulant medications increased levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the
prefrontal cortex, which was why they were prescribed to ADHD patients to restore the
functioning of the prefrontal cortex (Punja et al., 2013).
34
There were two main types of stimulant medications prescribed to patients with ADHD.
There was a short-acting methylphenidate medication taken three times daily for immediate
release or an extended-release methylphenidate, which used a controlled release formula
delivering the medication at a controlled rate throughout the day. While short-acting stimulants
showed in numerous studies vast improvement in ADHD symptoms, the problem with these
short-acting medications was that it was difficult to obtain patient compliance in taking the
medication as directed, especially in young children. While there was more compliance with the
once-daily, extended-release medication, they were priced up to 15 times more than the short-
acting medications (Punja et al., 2013). According to Charach & Fernandez (2013), the benefits
of psychostimulants wore off when patients did not administer the medication every 3-5 hours
for the immediate release formulas. Best practice guidelines recommended that children with
ADHD take the medication as directed all day, every day, to achieve lasting effects. Charach
and Fernandez (2013) found that once-daily, extended-release medications improved the
duration and compliance of stimulant use compared with immediate-release medications among
ADHD patients.
Student behavior was one of the many factors that influenced engagement and
achievement in the classroom. For this study, it was necessary to outline the most common
behavioral conditions diagnosed in children and adolescents, as they influenced student
engagement and achievement. ADHD, ODD, and ASD were the most commonly diagnosed
behavioral disorders in children. If students with ADHD were taking a prescribed stimulant
medication, but did not take the medication as directed, it may not be effective in managing the
behavior. If students taking an immediate-release medication took their medicine in the morning
but forgot to take their afternoon dose, their ability to pay attention and focus could be much
35
different in the morning compared with the afternoon. Therefore, it is possible that if there were
observed differences in behavior between morning and afternoon classes, then it could be due to
ADHD medication effects wearing off from the morning dose because immediate-release
medications lasted only 3-5 hours (Charach & Fernandez, 2013).
Summary
Examination of the literature regarding biological clocks, chronotype, memory and time
of day, student motivation and engagement, and classroom activity and student behavior was
necessary because the current study aimed to investigate the differences in student engagement,
achievement, and behavior among high school students at different times of the day. Based on
anecdotal evidence, and a study conducted by Wile and Shouppe (2011), there was a
commonality observed and heard in teacher workroom conversations concerning how to
motivate students in afternoon classes and consistent reports that students were more challenging
to teach in the afternoon.
The majority of research examined supported that chronotype changed with age. Young
children under the age of 13 were typically morning-type, and then a shift toward eveningness
occurred around age 13, which lasted until around age 21. As adults, there was typically a shift
back toward morningness (Gelbmann et al., 2012). While there were few studies to indicate a
difference between male and female chronotypes, those studies that did identify a difference
found females were more prone to be morning-type than males of the same age (Roenneberg et
al., 2007). The majority of studies reviewed also indicated that among adolescents, there
appeared to be a difference in academic achievement depending on the individual’s chronotype.
Previous research has shown that the majority of adolescents shifted their chronotype from
morningness to eveningness and began to stay awake later in the evening with peak performance
36
in the afternoon. However, schools started earlier as adolescents moved from middle school to
high school, which led to accumulated sleep deficiency and “social jetlag” that impaired their
performance in school (Vinne et al., 2015).
The research regarding student motivation and engagement supported that intrinsic
motivation had the most substantial effects on engagement and achievement. However, to
become permanent in children, intrinsic motivation needed to be developed and nourished.
Educators should use extrinsic motivation techniques to facilitate the development of students’
intrinsic motivation for maximum student benefit. (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012). Student behavior
influenced engagement and achievement. Three of the most common behavior disorders
afflicting adolescents were ADHD, ODD, and ASD. Medications for these behavior disorders
had a positive effect on student engagement and their ability to focus if taken as directed, but
non-compliance was a significant problem for children taking these medications. If the patient
did not follow medication instructions consistently, there were possible adverse effects on their
behavior, which negatively affected their engagement and academic performance (Punja et al.,
2013; Sroufe, 2012; Charach & Fernandez, 2013).
37
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology
The research examined in the literature review (Vollmer, et al., 2013; Gelbmann et al.,
2012; Kim et al., 2002) indicated many adolescents had a shift in their chronotype from
morningness to eveningness beginning around age 13. For high school students, this shift in
chronotype meant they had expectations to be productive during their non-optimal time of day.
Due to most adolescents identifying as evening types, they stayed up late even though they must
wake up much earlier than their biological clocks would prefer because of early school start
times (Gelbmann et al., 2012). While at school, student expectations required them to be alert,
motivated, and provide great effort regardless of their chronotype. This led to fatigue and
accumulated sleep deprivation over time, which affected their memory and overall academic
performance (Vinne et al., 2015). It is unlikely that school systems will delay start times due to
several community and family factors. Therefore, this investigation aimed to identify effective
instructional strategies to promote positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior at all
times of the day in an attempt to counteract the accumulated sleep deprivation of adolescents and
the observed differences in student performance at different times of the day due to their
chronotype preferences.
Research Question
What instructional strategies are most effective for high school teachers in promoting
positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon
classes?
Population and Sample
Participants in the study were ninth-grade level teachers at a rural, public high school
with a student population of approximately 2,300 students. The researcher selected three
38
teachers of college-preparatory (CP), state-tested subjects (math, science, or English). All CP
classes at the selected school were composed of general education students within the
performance ability range of special education to gifted. The teacher participants must have also
taught the same course in the morning (1st or 2nd block) and in the afternoon (4th block), so the
researcher could effectively compare student performance and engagement in morning versus
afternoon classes. All participants were highly qualified teachers for their subject area. The
researcher chose teacher participants with CP courses because students enrolled in CP courses
represented the broadest range of student abilities within one class. The researcher chose teacher
participants of subjects with high stakes testing because these courses fulfilled graduation
requirements and had the most significant impact on teacher and school performance
evaluations. Participants taught the same course in the morning (1st or 2nd block) and afternoon
(4th block) because the study investigated differences in student engagement and performance at
different times of the day. Selection of ninth-grade level teachers eliminated the variable of
student age as a factor for student motivation and engagement in the classroom. All teacher
participants signed an informed consent document (See Appendix A) before any collection of
research data.
Description of Instruments
The researcher used three instruments to gather data for this investigation. First, the
researcher observed each teacher during two different class periods on the same day—once in the
morning and again in the afternoon for the same subject class. Due to the researcher also being a
teacher at the school used for the study and not able to be out of class for observations, the
lessons were video recorded and watched later for data collection. In the classroom
observations, the researcher observed any teacher modification of instruction between morning
39
and afternoon courses, and levels of engagement and performance from students in each class.
The researcher created and distributed a video release form (See Appendix B) for students and
parents to sign before recording any lessons because all students observed were under the age of
18. Any students who did not sign and return the video release form or declined being video
recorded were not visible in the recordings. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, the
recordings were only viewed by the researcher for the data coding process and were not posted
anywhere for public viewing.
After completion of classroom observations, the researcher conducted individual
interviews with each teacher participant. The researcher conducted these interviews in person at
a time chosen by the participant—either during their planning period, before school, or after
school. The interview questions (See Appendix C) allowed the researcher to gather data about
teacher perceptions of student learning, performance, and behavior at different times of the day.
Additionally, the interview questions aimed to investigate best instructional practices
implemented by each teacher for promoting maximum student engagement and achievement.
The final instrument for data collection was a focus group involving the researcher and
all three participating teachers. The focus group allowed the researcher to summarize the
findings from the personal interviews and classroom observations, and allowed for member
checking by the teachers in order for them to clarify, explain, or contribute additional
information to the findings. The researcher and participating teachers discussed any instructional
modifications that were most effective to keep students engaged and motivated at all times of
day, regardless of student chronotype.
40
Research Procedures and Time Period of Study
After receiving IRB approval and permission to conduct the study from the District
Central Office, the researcher selected three teachers to participate in the study and made
personal contact with each teacher to ask for their informed consent to participate. Selection of
teacher participants depended on whether they taught ninth grade, CP level classes in a high-
stakes tested subject area (math, science, or English). Once three teachers agreed to participate,
the researcher began scheduling classroom observations for each teacher. The researcher
observed each teacher participant in two different class periods during the same school day. To
conduct observations without missing class, the researcher used an iPad to record the lessons.
The researcher confirmed parent permission for video recording through the submission
of a video release form. To ensure privacy and confidentiality for the teacher participants and
students, only the researcher viewed recordings for the data coding process. After completion of
classroom observations, the researcher scheduled personal interviews with each participating
teacher. The researcher conducted interviews at the preference of the teacher—before school,
after school, or during their planning period. The final step in data collection was the focus
group with the researcher and all three participating teachers.
Data Analysis Procedures
The researcher conducted open coding after each step in the data collection process—
observations, interviews, and a focus group. Open coding allowed the researcher to group data
and begin establishing value and meaning to the data. The researcher conducted axial coding at
two different points in the data collection process—once after completion of personal interviews
to draw connections between open codes of the classroom observations and interviews, then
again after the focus group to identify connections among all data. Finally, after the researcher
41
collected all data and completed axial coding for the data, selective coding helped the researcher
identify the themes from the collected data.
Trustworthiness. The researcher used multiple techniques to ensure the trustworthiness
of the study. The triangulation of data collection supported the credibility of the results. The
researcher used classroom observations, personal interviews, and a focus group to provide three
methods of data collection. After the teacher participant interviews, the researcher used member
checking to allow participants to review open coding notes to ensure the researcher did not
misinterpret or misrepresent participant responses. Member checking also occurred during the
focus group with a discussion of the class observations. Participants had the opportunity to
clarify, explain, or contribute additional information to the findings. These member checks
supported the credibility of the study. The researcher also provided sufficiently thick, detailed
descriptions of the context to support the transferability of the study. The researcher compiled
detailed written and oral descriptions throughout the data collection process to demonstrate an
understanding of the research setting.
After collection of all data, a non-participant, school administrator reviewed the study to
provide peer debriefing to support the dependability of the study. Finally, the researcher
maintained an audit trail to support the confirmability of the study. The audit trail included all
video recordings of lessons, researcher notes on lesson observations, transcripts of participant
interviews and the focus group, and audio recordings of each interview and the focus group.
After the completion of data collection, the researcher compiled a detailed description of the data
collection and analysis process, coding process, and the interpretation of the data.
42
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Limitations. The rural classification of the school used in the study was out of the
researchers’ control. The demographics of students and teachers may not be the same in another
school setting; therefore, results and conclusions were only applicable to other rural high
schools. Additionally, any personal student issues that affected student engagement and
academic performance during the time of the study may or may not have influenced the results.
As the researcher had no control over how teachers or students behaved during the video-
recorded class observations, another limitation was participants could have put on a false display
for the camera rather than an authentic representation of a daily lesson.
Delimitations. One delimitation of this research study was the use of one rural high
school setting. The researcher worked as a teacher in the high school involved in the study.
Another delimitation for the study was not to include third block classes because the school
involved in the study had four lunch periods during the third block, which meant classes took
breaks at different times during this period for lunch. This would have added other variables to
the study. The researcher selected teachers and courses involving only ninth-grade students to
control the variable of student age. The results may or may not apply to students outside of ninth
grade. A final delimitation was the selection of participants that taught CP level courses. The
high school involved in the study offered honors-level courses also, but CP level courses had the
broadest range of student abilities within one class, which provided for a broader representation
of the general population.
Assumptions. For this study, the researcher assumed that participating teachers provided
candid and transparent feedback during the interviews and focus group. The researcher also
43
assumed that teachers would demonstrate authenticity in their lesson delivery for the video-
recorded observations.
44
CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation of the Findings
The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the phenomenon of differences in
student engagement, achievement, and behavior at different times of the day to determine the
most effective instructional strategies educators use to overcome this phenomenon. The data
gathered, and interpretation of the results, provided insight for all education stakeholders to
improve instructional and curriculum practices in the high school classroom setting. This
chapter outlines the research approach, a detailed description of the participants and research
setting, methodology, and the presentation of the findings. The study involved the collection of
data through classroom observations, participant interviews, and a focus group. The classroom
observations aimed to provide the researcher with evidence of differences in student engagement
and behaviors at different times of the day. Three high school educators participated in
individual interviews. The interview questions aimed to gather educator insight in the areas of
student engagement, achievement, and behavior and how the time of the day influenced those
areas. The focus group participants included the researcher and the three educator participants.
The focus group aimed to gather insight into how educators modified instruction between
morning and afternoon classes. Another goal of the focus group aimed to determine which
instructional strategies were best suited for establishing student engagement and achievement at
any time of the day.
All participants in the study taught the same grade level and course level at the same
school. The triangulation of data collection using classroom observations, personal interviews,
and a focus group and the coding of the raw data led to the development of thematic findings.
45
Research Methodology Applied to Data Analysis
The research methodology applied to data analysis for this study was phenomenology.
This study investigated the phenomenon of students exhibiting differences in engagement and
achievement between morning and afternoon classes and the instructional differentiation
employed by teachers to overcome this phenomenon. The collected data took into account
anecdotal evidence from highly qualified educators and observational evidence by the researcher
to identify common themes among the data to construct a better understanding of the
phenomenon. Identification of common themes among the data allowed the researcher to draw
conclusions that could improve instructional practices for classroom educators in similar high
school settings.
Research question.
1. What instructional strategies are most effective for high school teachers in promoting
positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon
classes?
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants
All participants were educators at the same high school located in eastern Tennessee.
Participants in the study were ninth-grade teachers at a rural, public high school with a student
population of approximately 2,300 students. The researcher selected three teachers of college-
preparatory (CP), state-tested subjects (math, science, or English). All CP classes at the selected
school included general education students within the performance ability range of special
education to gifted. The teacher participants must have also taught the same course in the
morning (1st or 2nd block) and afternoon (4th block), so the researcher could effectively compare
student performance and engagement in morning versus afternoon classes. All participants were
46
highly qualified teachers for their subject area. Participant 1 (P1) had 14 years of teaching
experience and highly qualified in the area of grades 7-12 Biology. Participant 2 (P2) had 21
years of teaching experience and highly qualified in the area of grades 7-12 English. Participant
3 (P3) had eight years of teaching experience and highly qualified in the area of grades 7-12
Math.
The researcher chose teacher participants with CP courses because students enrolled in
CP courses represented the broadest range of student abilities within one class. The researcher
chose teacher participants of subjects with high stakes testing because these courses fulfilled
graduation requirements and had the most significant impact on teacher and school performance
evaluations. Participants taught the same course in the morning (1st or 2nd block) and afternoon
(4th block) because the study investigated differences in student engagement and performance at
different times of the day. The selection of ninth-grade level teachers eliminated the variable of
student age as a factor for student motivation and engagement in the classroom. All participants
signed an informed consent form (see Appendix A) before the commencement of any data
collection.
Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group Data Presentation
The researcher first collected data from classroom observations. The researcher taught at
the high school involved in the study and could not personally perform observations. An iPad
device recorded each lesson. Each participant recorded a morning class and an afternoon class
on the same day to ensure viewing of the same lesson for both classes. The researcher provided
video release permission forms to film students (see Appendix B) because all students were
under the age of 18. No student names or other identifying information was gathered or used in
this study. The researcher collected all video release forms prior to any class observation
47
recordings. Students who did not provide consent or did not submit the video release form were
out of the camera view while recording. To ensure students were authentic in their behaviors,
students did not know when the video recording took place. No students appeared to notice the
recording device during the observations.
The purpose of the class observations was to investigate signs of engagement and other
student behaviors that could affect learning and achievement and compare those signs and
behaviors between students enrolled in morning and afternoon classes for the same subject area.
Additionally, the researcher observed any differences in teacher instruction between morning and
afternoon classes. The researcher conducted observations for P1 on February 3, 2020 for 2nd
block (9:28am-11:00am) and 4th block (1:13pm-2:45pm) Biology 1 classes. Observations for P2
were on February 4, 2020, for 2nd block and 4th block English 1 classes. Finally, observations for
P3 were on February 6, 2020, for 1st block (7:40 am-9:14 am) and 4th block Algebra 1 classes.
The researcher used notes and data gathered from the observations to develop the participant
interview questions and the guiding questions for the focus group.
Upon completion of the classroom observations, the researcher personally interviewed
each educator participant. The researcher developed the interview questions, and the dissertation
committee evaluated and approved the scripted questions. Each participant received the same
questions in the same order. Appendix C contains the questions used during the interviews. The
purpose of the participant interviews was to gain insight into educator perceptions and ideas
surrounding student engagement, achievement, and behavior and how these three factors could
be interrelated. The researcher also hoped to determine which instructional strategies the
participants found most useful to promote higher engagement and achievement in their
classrooms.
48
The researcher used Zoom, an online video conference program, to conduct the focus
group due to school closure from the COVID-19 pandemic. The researcher and the three
educator participants participated in the focus group. The questions for the focus group were
open-ended and based on data gathered from the classroom observations and personal
interviews. The primary purpose of the focus group was to identify which instructional
strategies worked best to promote the highest student engagement at different times of the day,
regardless of the content area. The researcher transcribed the audio texts from the interviews and
the focus group for the coding process to develop themes and identify any common experiences
echoed among participants.
After the collection of all data, the researcher uploaded all notes and transcripts to
MAXQDA for open coding. The researcher started with notes taken from the classroom
observations, grouped the raw data into categories associated with answering the research
question. As the researcher worked through the interviews and focus group transcripts, the
creation of more codes helped categorize the raw data until themes emerged, incorporating all
the data. The researcher worked through each piece of data twice to ensure appropriate coding
of all notes and responses. After grouping the data into similar topics related to answering the
research question, axial coding helped the researcher determine the emerging themes of the data.
After identifying emerging themes, the researcher began to see parallel trends in the data to
develop selective coding (see Figure 4.1).
49
Figure 4.1
Coding of Raw Data from Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group
50
Figure 4.1 (continued)
Coding of Raw Data from Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group
51
Figure 4.1 (continued)
Coding of Raw Data from Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group
52
Figure 4.1 (continued)
Coding of Raw Data from Classroom Observations, Interviews, and Focus Group
53
Study Findings
Based on responses from the interviews and focus group, and notes from the classroom
observations, the following themes emerged from the coding process to answer the research
question: What instructional strategies are most effective for high school teachers in promoting
positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon
classes?
1. Academic feedback
2. Student accountability
3. Classroom management
4. Use of multiple instructional strategies
5. Short lesson segments
6. Clear and concise directions
7. Lesson pacing
8. Student attention
9. Student behavior
10. Increase in achievement
11. Incentives/Rewards
12. Student Participation
Academic feedback. The classroom observations, interviews, and focus group data all
indicated that providing academic feedback to students throughout a lesson increased student
engagement and achievement. During the observations, the researcher noticed that when the
teacher circulated around the room to answer questions and provided constructive feedback,
students were more likely to stay on task with their attention on the assignment. During the
54
focus group, P3 discussed how they used the flipped classroom method at the time of the
observations and how that method helped provide academic feedback to students during the
lesson. “In the flipped class, they learn at home, and then we just drill, drill, drill, and drill in
class. So I am able to walk around and then help them . . . [and] I was able to find the mistakes.”
In the interview with P2, they discussed how using the student Chromebooks every day helped
with academic feedback by saving instructional time. “I enjoy using technology in the
classroom. We use it every day. I like that it gives me, most of the time, immediate feedback so
I can look immediately and see who’s completed assignments.” When students received
continuous feedback throughout a lesson, it kept them focused on the lesson and held them more
accountable.
While providing feedback is imperative at all times of the day, based on the classroom
observations it was even more critical in afternoon classes to keep them on task and engaged. In
all three of the afternoon class observations, students were more talkative, fidgety, and harder to
keep focused and engaged. To overcome this change in behavior in the afternoon, all
participants circulated around the class more to correct behavior and provide immediate feedback
on assignments, which kept students on task.
Student accountability. A vital role of educators is to teach students how to hold
themselves accountable for their actions and behaviors. However, it is important not to be too
authoritarian. Students need to know their teachers are correcting behaviors and actions out of
genuine care about them and the desire for them to be successful. When asked about student
behavior differences between morning and afternoon classes, P1 said:
Second block, not as many problems. They seem to be self-moderating better. So fourth
block, I do not think kids have the same self-control, the ability to think, ‘Well, I’ve got
55
to get through this class too,’ so they end up going to sleep or whatever . . . if I try to do
very harsh treatment, very austere and just be authoritarian, that doesn’t go very well.
Based on the classroom observations, interviews, and focus group data, it appeared the
best way to hold students accountable was to monitor them closely throughout the lesson.
Teachers should correct any behaviors or actions that could affect their learning or the learning
of those students around them. All participants agreed during the focus group that circulating
and consistently monitoring/correcting student behavior held them more accountable. Student
accountability relates to engagement and achievement because if students were allowed to act
and behave how they chose in class without accountability for their actions, it did not take long
for them to begin off-task or disruptive behaviors.
Even though high school students should have more self-accountability than elementary
age students should, they are still immature and need guidance from teachers on how to manage
their actions to reach their fullest academic potential. The researcher noted evidence for this
when assigning independent work time for students without close monitoring to keep students on
task. During the morning class observation for P1, students had the last thirty minutes of class to
work on two different assignments. After going over their instructions, the teacher sat down at
their desk. Five minutes into working independently, fifteen students were off task not working
on their assignment. The teacher circulated a few times after noticing off-task behaviors, but did
not consistently circulate and several students remained off task. However, in the afternoon
class, P1 started circulating immediately after giving student instructions and students displayed
more focus on their assignment. When the teacher continued to circulate and give feedback to
students throughout the independent work, students showed higher engagement and the teacher
held them more accountable. In the morning class observations, there were fewer behavior
56
issues from students and they remained mostly on task, which did not require the teacher to walk
around prompting or correcting off task behavior. In the afternoon class observations, there were
more off task behaviors from students and the participants responded to this by circulating to
prompt or correct the behaviors and kept students on task and accountable.
Classroom Management. Effective classroom management to regulate student behavior
is an essential skill for any educator. If student behavior is out of control, learning is less likely
to occur. During the classroom observations, distractions for students came primarily from the
behavior of their peers, so teachers needed to monitor behavior consistently and appropriately
deal with problem behaviors. The participants agreed that the key to classroom management was
consistency, teacher-student relationships, and close monitoring by the teacher. When describing
how building a personal connection with students often led to fewer behavior problems and a
stronger work ethic, P3 affirmed, “Well, if they don’t feel like they’re separated from the class or
if they feel some sort of personal connection to me, they’re more apt to give me what I want.
They’re more apt to try harder.” During the focus group, P1 also discussed the importance of
forming relationships with students to increase engagement. P1 said, “You got to have some
informal connection socially with your kids. That tremendously helps engagement. [When
students realize] ‘Oh, he really is on my side. . . . He really wants me to succeed. Okay. I’ll work
and I’ll work harder.’”
In addition to forming positive relationships with students to decrease behavior problems
and increase engagement, consistent student monitoring was key for classroom management and
maintaining student engagement and focus, especially in afternoon classes. During the focus
group, all participants agreed that teacher circulation was effective in helping regulate classroom
discipline. In all three class observations, as soon as the teacher stopped circulating, the chatter
57
started, and it would quickly build. Participants also agreed that classroom management and
student behavior were more problematic in afternoon classes, and more frequent monitoring was
required in the afternoon compared to the morning.
Use of multiple instructional strategies. When participants used multiple instructional
strategies throughout their lesson, it kept the attention of the students, which increased their
engagement. Using multiple instructional strategies seemed to be equally effective at all times of
the day. During the focus group, P2 said:
You don’t want to spend the entire period reading. You want to break it up. You do the
DGP, you read a little, you answer some questions, you have a video, or you have
something else in there. So I think maybe changing three times during a class period or
mixing it up a little bit. . . . Because they can’t be doing the same work, their brain working
the same way the whole period.
When asked about instructional strategies that promoted higher achievement, P2
indicated, “I can’t make every lesson a game or a group or a station type of thing, but don’t do
the same thing every single day the same way because then they get bored.” During the focus
group, P3 added to the discussion on using multiple instructional strategies throughout a lesson
saying, “So I guess I never thought of it, but I guess I always have tried to have at least three
separate slots of time for something in class.” The research participants agreed that it was
important to use different instructional strategies during class, and all agreed that three to four
different activities probably worked best. Participants also agreed that if teachers tried to do too
many different activities, the purpose of the activities/assignments might get lost because
students need enough time to work with and process the information provided in each
assignment.
58
Short lesson segments. In addition to using multiple instructional strategies in a lesson,
it was evident from the lesson observations that educators should keep each lesson segment as
short and concise as possible to maintain student attention and engagement. Short lesson
segments appeared to be especially important for maintaining engagement in afternoon classes.
When asked about how student behavior related to engagement, P1 explained, “I think behavior-
wise, I just can’t do it for too long. It’s got to be short. . . . Especially my regular kids, I got to do
something that’s fast.” When asked about how they differentiated between morning and
afternoon classes, P2 talked about the importance of taking short breaks between lesson
segments in afternoon classes. “But fourth period, they need to get up. They need to stretch.
They need a drink of water. They need to go to the bathroom more. They need to move. So I
try to give them that opportunity.” The importance of providing short breaks in the afternoon to
keep students engaged was also evident in the classroom observations.
After watching all the lesson observations, it was evident there was more fatigue and
sleepiness in the afternoon classes. It also became apparent after watching the lesson
observations that the length of each lesson segment was necessary for maintaining student
attention and engagement. Based on notes taken from the observations, students could mostly
focus their attention on an assignment or activity for about 25 minutes before they became
distracted or participated in off-task behaviors. The attention span decreased greatly in afternoon
classes. Overall, students in the afternoon classes were able to focus on a task for about half the
time of students in morning classes. Because of this observation, shorter lesson segments could
be especially useful in afternoon classes for promoting higher student engagement.
Clear and concise directions. Students in the lesson observations combatted several
distractions throughout the lessons. Their peers in the class, something passing by the window,
59
visitors, teacher phone ringing, intercom announcements, etc., distracted students. Due to these
significant distractions, it was essential that the participants provided clear, concise directions
and repeated them multiple times for students to comprehend the instructions and expectations.
P2 elaborated on the implementation of clear, concise directions at different times of day stating,
“Well, afternoon classes need the directions repeated several more times.” P1 also affirmed this
idea by saying, “If I let them do a lot of things on their own they get less engaged. They need
more direction. They need more of me clarifying what’s going on.”
The researcher realized the importance of clear and concise directions while watching the
classroom observation videos. In the morning observations for P1 and P3, there was time at the
end of class for students to work on assignments independently. Both P1 and P3 listed two or
three different assignments the students should have worked on for the remaining class time. In
both classes, students worked well for about 5-10 minutes, but off-task behavior quickly
escalated. In their afternoon classes for that same lesson, both P1 and P3 changed their delivery
of instructions. P1 told them to focus on working on an online quiz, while P3 told students to
work on practice problems in the Delta Math program on their Chromebooks. This minor
adjustment in giving students one thing to work on rather than two or three led to a significant
increase in engagement compared with the morning classes. P1 contributed to this discussion
during the focus group expressing, “Sometimes, I like to give options. And I think maybe that’s
a mistake. If I’m going to give them options, I need to write them up on the board, ‘Do this
first, do this second, do this third.’” All participants agreed that repeating clear and concise
directions appeared to increase student engagement, especially in afternoon classes.
Lesson pacing. There was an obvious difference in attention spans and engagement
between morning and afternoon classes after watching the recorded lessons. Two of the three
60
participants adjusted the pace of their lesson between morning and afternoon to accommodate
those differences. Student attention spans significantly reduced in the afternoon compared with
morning classes. When discussing this observation in the focus group, P2 attested, “Yeah. Well,
I think as it gets closer to 2:40. If the clock gets close to 2:40, they’re done. They’re done. So
you do probably have to make it a little faster to get it finished before their attention span runs
out.” When asked about whether they had ever observed differences in student behavior
between morning and afternoon classes, P3 affirmed:
First is sloths. Fourth is rabbits. . . . Behavior wise, I think fourth period, they’re just
harder to keep in their seats, harder to keep, not that they need to stay in their seats, but
obviously I’m teaching. They need to stop talking and they need to not be throwing stuff
and things like that. So fourth period is harder to tame…But I feel like, thinking back to
my entire teaching career, I feel like every fourth period is always, kids are done for the
day and it’s the last period of the day. So they’re done. They’re energetic to be free and
go out, especially on sunny days, they’re excited to get out of here.
All participants agreed that they typically move at a faster pace in afternoon classes. P1 said this
could also be because “We’ve also done the same lesson multiple times.” Therefore, whether the
faster pace in the afternoon was due to multiple rehearsals of the lesson or recognition of shorter
attention spans in the afternoon, the data showed a faster lesson pace in afternoon classes helped
maintain student engagement.
Student attention. After examining the classroom observations and discussing those
observations with the participants in the focus group, the data showed that student attention
might change throughout the school day. After watching the recorded lessons, it was evident
that in morning classes, the participants had their students’ attention for about 10 to 15 minutes.
61
By the fourth block, the observed overall attention span decreased to five to seven minutes
before they started participating in off-task or disruptive behaviors. The chatter and talking were
much quicker to escalate in the afternoon also. Students seemed to lose focus in half the amount
of time in the afternoon when compared with morning classes. When asked about differences in
student engagement between morning and afternoon, P2 said, “[Fourth block is] just full of
energy, like an electron. Just go all over the place but then not using that attention to focus on
me. Just having lots of energy, but not using that to actually focus.” In addition, when asked
how student behavior relates to engagement, P2 attested about fourth block, “They seem to be
more engaged because that energy does hone in on me every so often. So they do answer more
questions and they do pay attention, but it’s kind of the attention span of a toddler.”
During the focus group, participants discussed how long they could typically keep
student attention. All participants agreed that they could hold students’ attention for a maximum
of 25-30 minutes before they became distracted and off-task. While attention spans seemed to be
shorter in the afternoon, morning classes needed different strategies to keep their attention. P2
had some insight into attention spans in morning classes. P2 explained:
So, I try to be more excited first period so I can wake them up and then I give them a
break and I tell them to move around and things like that. Whereas fourth period, we
don’t really need a break besides to tame the chaos.
Based on the data, teachers were more energetic and upbeat and gave more breaks for movement
to keep students awake and maintain their attention in the morning, but in the afternoon,
participants had to tame students down to keep their attention.
Student behavior. The data showed that student behavior influenced engagement and
achievement at any time of the day. Due to decreased attention spans and being more energetic
62
and active in afternoon classes, student behavior was often more problematic in the afternoon
classes. When asked about any observed differences in behavior between morning and afternoon
classes, P3 expressed, “Morning, more often in their chairs, not wanting to get up and go to the
bathroom. Fourth block . . . definitely more antsy, wanting to get more active.”
While coding the data from the classroom observations, the researcher observed 14
disruptive behaviors, but only four of those behaviors came from students in morning classes.
The majority of disruptive behavior occurred in the afternoon classes. The researcher also
noticed during the classroom observations that more challenging or disruptive behavior came
from male students compared to females. P2 supported this by saying, “So fourth period is
harder to tame, but also I have some typical boys my fourth period this semester.” When
discussing the behavior of ‘typical boys’ during the focus group, all participants agreed that it
was more often male students who were off-task, fidgety, or trying to distract other students.
When discussing how technology relates to student engagement, P2 disclosed, “There are some
boys that like to get on cool math or other games…I don’t feel like girls will do it as much, but
boys will definitely get on there and play a computer game at any opportunity.” All participants
agreed this observation regarding male student behavior could take place at any time of the day,
but male students displayed more off-task or disruptive behaviors in afternoon classes compared
with the morning.
Increase in achievement. Data from class observations, interviews, and the focus group
indicated that when students showed engagement, there was an increase in achievement from the
perspective of the teacher. When asked about observed differences in student achievement
between morning and afternoon classes, P3 acknowledged:
63
I mean obviously there’s probably a correlation between those kids [4th block] being
buzzy and crazy and not paying attention, to lower achievement. First period is tired,
which translates into them not focusing as well. And then fourth period’s energetic, so
they also don’t focus as well. So I feel like it probably balances out to being the same
amount of achievement.
When asked the same question regarding achievement, P2 disclosed about afternoon classes:
Often those are the classes that have lower grades compared to the morning classes
because there are more missing assignments. . . . Because they’re just, they’re tired and
they lose focus. There have been differences in test scores. Not so much this semester,
but last semester I had a huge gap from my test scores and grades from my fourth period
to my first period.
When asked the same question regarding differences in achievement between morning
and afternoon classes, P1 stated, “As far as achievement goes, I don’t think I’ve noticed that
much of a difference. I’d have to look at my scores.” When asked about the relationship
between student engagement and achievement, P3 said, “Yes, there is definitely a positive
correlation, strong positive correlation between student engagement and student achievement.
Which, I think student engagement looks a little different between first and fourth.” In response
to the same question concerning the relationship between student engagement and achievement,
P2 stated, “Well you can’t have one without the other, in my opinion. They have to be involved.
They have to know what’s going on in class. It’s paramount. They have to be engaged to pass
and to get the assignment.” During the focus group, the participants discussed strategies that
could increase student engagement, which in turn would boost achievement.
64
The researcher and participants discussed how formative assessment strategies were
effective in promoting engagement and measuring student achievement. P3 said, “If I didn’t do
formative assessments, I would miss those gaps that most of those kids missed somehow in
eighth grade. So for me, it gets them back on track.” All participants agreed that formative
assessments allowed teachers to measure achievement daily and useful tools for promoting
student engagement. While there may not be a consistent agreement among the participants that
achievement differs between morning and afternoon, all participants agreed that student
engagement definitely leads to an increase in achievement, and they agreed there was typically
higher engagement in the morning compared with the afternoon.
Incentives or rewards. Based on data gathered from the participants, another way to
increase student engagement at any time of the day was the use of incentives or rewards during
class. Incentives observed fostered productive and positive behavior from students, which
decreased distractions and promoted higher engagement. In the observation of their afternoon
class, P3 used the incentive of allowing students to take out their phones and listen to music if
they worked diligently for ten minutes. P3 noticed students were beginning off-task, disruptive
behavior, so they used the phones as an incentive for students to focus on their work. The off-
task, disruptive behaviors almost immediately stopped, and students began working on the
assignment. After ten minutes, students could retrieve their phones and listen to music. They
continued to work diligently for the remainder of class time. Participants also agreed that
incentives could promote higher achievement from students. P2 articulated:
I give out candy for answering questions right. And sometimes I’ll hide little notes on a
study guide and be like, ‘If you actually saw this, give me a fist bump tomorrow.’ So
then the next day I’m like, ‘Does anybody owe me anything?’ And then of course the
65
kids who didn’t study don’t. And then the kids who did study, give me a fist bump and
then it’s a little secret inside joke that we have.”
When asked about instructional strategies that promoted engagement and achievement, P2 said,
“Things where they can get up and move or move to stations or groups, I think helps with ninth-
graders in particular.”
P2 sometimes used movement as an incentive or motivator for students. P3 also
mentioned in the focus group they used gamification in the form of ‘board races’ to motivate
students, and the winning teams received food rewards of their choice. P2 explained, “They love
the board races. The first three teams that win, I’ll just go buy them what they want, like Takis
or whatever. So they’re running to the board and it’s chaos, but it’s fun.”
All participants agreed that pairing incentives or rewards with formative assessment
strategies promoted higher engagement because the students were having fun earning the
rewards, and when they were having fun, there was more engagement. Participants also agreed
that formative assessments were useful tools for promoting engagement and achievement at any
time of day, which made them effective strategies to overcome the observed differences in
student engagement between morning and afternoon classes.
Student participation. From the gathered data, student participation in the lesson
fostered higher engagement and achievement at any time of the day. However, the amount of
participation varied from morning to afternoon. P1 stated, “Second block feels more fresh with
their engagement. They are trying. They may be writing things down more, the pens aren’t
getting heavy to them.” When asked about fourth block regarding student participation, P3 said,
“They do answer more questions, and they do pay attention, but it’s kind of an attention span of a
toddler.” When P2 was asked about how their question trail activity that involved moving
66
around the room affected the student’s engagement, they said, “I can see them actually moving
around and participating. Again, they like it so they’re engaged in it. There’s nobody that’s just
sitting down. . . . They all actually get up and participate.”
When asked about instructional strategies used to foster high engagement and
achievement, P3 said, “I let the students just give me numbers and scenarios or just make up
problems on the spot, and they seem more apt to want to do questions that they made up on their
own.” According to P2, students were more likely to participate if they were actively involved in
creating something for the lesson. This possibly created a personal investment for them, which
made it more likely they would participate and increase engagement and achievement. All
participants agreed there was often more student participation in afternoon classes compared
with the morning because they were more awake and energetic. However, due to their decreased
attention span in the afternoon, the participation may not be as effective in promoting
engagement and achievement in afternoon classes.
Trustworthiness
Several methods used throughout the study ensured trustworthiness. The use of three
data sources in the forms of classroom observations, participant interviews, and a focus group
provided triangulation of data to enhance trustworthiness. Transcriptions of all interviews and
the focus group allowed member checking for participants to review and ensure accurate
recording of responses and responses came from their personal perspective. An impartial peer
reviewer examined the questions and transcriptions to ensure the methods of collection were
valid. The peer reviewer also helped ensure proper interpretation of the results from the data
collection and analysis. All participants had access to the transcripts of their interview and the
focus group upon request for member checking to ensure accurate recording and reporting of
67
responses. The researcher maintained an audit trail including all student permission forms for
recording lessons, participant consent forms, video recordings, researcher notes from
observations, transcripts of participant interviews, and a video recording and transcript of the
focus group.
Summary
Through classroom observations, interviews, and a focus group, data gathered helped the
researcher understand and provide insight into answering the research question. The data
revealed several key instructional strategies most effective in promoting positive student
engagement, achievement, and behavior when accommodating for differences in these attributes
between morning and afternoon classes. First, the data indicated frequent circulation by the
teacher throughout the lesson increased student engagement, especially in afternoon classes.
Second, the data showed that separating lessons into multiple, small segments with clear, concise
directions led to a higher engagement at any time of the day, especially in afternoon classes.
Third, when educators adjusted lesson pacing to accommodate differences in student attention
spans from morning to afternoon, it fostered higher engagement and achievement. Finally, the
data showed the use of multiple formative assessment strategies throughout a lesson increased
student participation, cultivating higher engagement and achievement at all times of the day, but
especially in morning classes when participation was typically lower.
68
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
This study aimed to identify instructional strategies most effective in promoting positive
engagement, achievement, and behavior from high school students despite time of the day. The
researcher selected three highly qualified, practicing high school educators in high-stakes tested
subject areas of college-preparatory (CP) level Biology I, Algebra 1, and English 1 as
participants. The researcher initially completed two classroom observations, followed by
individual interviews with each participant. The researcher observed each participant once in a
morning class and again for their afternoon class on the same day to observe any differences in
student engagement, participation, or behavior. The researcher also observed any differences in
teacher instruction between morning and afternoon classes. The final step in data collection was
a focus group discussion after completion of all classroom observations and participant
interviews. The purpose of this study was to identify instructional strategies most effective in
overcoming the discrepancy in student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning
and afternoon classes.
Statement of Problem
Existing research on the topic of how the time of the day affects performance focused on
whether there was a difference in human performance at different times of the day (Carrier &
Monk, 2000; Fabbri, Natale, & Adan, 2008; Onder, Horzum, & Besoluk, 2012; Preckel et al.,
2013; Randler, 2011; Randler, Bechtold, & Vogel, 2016; Randler, Rahafer, Arbabi, and
Bretschneider, 2014; Roenneberg et al., 2007; Vollmer, Potsch, and Randler, 2013; Zavada,
Gordijn, Beersma, Daen, & Roenneberg, 2005). The research established differences in
preferred times of day and performance (Biss and Hasher, 2012; Gelbmann et al., 2012;
Roenneberg et al., 2007; Kim, Dueker, Hasher, & Goldstein, 2002; Vinne et al., 2015). This
69
qualitative study focused on observed differences in student engagement, achievement, and
behavior between morning and afternoon classes and the identification of best practice strategies
for promoting these attributes to keep students engaged at all times of the day and promote
equitable performance from all students regardless of the time of the day they are in class.
Research Question
Observations of students and perspectives of highly qualified, state-tested subject area
teachers allowed the researcher to gain insight and understanding in connection to the following
research question:
1. What instructional strategies are most effective for high school teachers in promoting
positive student engagement, achievement, and behavior when accommodating for
differences in student engagement, achievement, and behavior between morning and
afternoon classes?
Theoretical Approach
The theoretical foundation for this study was constructivism. According to Olusegun
(2015), constructivism suggested that people construct their knowledge and understanding
through experiences and reflecting on those experiences. To accomplish this, people must ask
questions, explore, and assess what they already know. In the classroom setting, constructivism
involves encouraging students to use active learning techniques such as experiments and real-
world problem solving. The basic characteristics of constructivist learning environments
included the sharing of knowledge between students and teachers, shared authority between
students and teachers, heterogeneous small learning groups in the classroom, and the teacher
acting as a facilitator or guide for learning. Some of the goals associated with constructivist
learning environments included students determining how they will learn, student-centered
70
learning, classroom collaboration, and student reflection on their learning (Olusegun, 2015).
Constructivist theory best suited this investigation because it promoted the active involvement of
students in their learning, which promotes higher engagement and overall academic performance
(Saeed & Zyngier, 2012).
In addition to constructivism, best practice strategies to promote student engagement and
achievement were a foundation for this study. The research problem concerns how students
exhibited different levels of engagement, achievement, and behavior at different times of the day.
Best practice strategies for promoting achievement and engagement guided the researcher in the
formation of the teacher interview questions and the focus group discussion questions. The
researcher needed to familiarize herself with the research regarding the most current best practice
strategies for promoting student motivation and engagement in today’s generation of students.
This information was crucial for the foundation of the study, development of the interviews and
focus group questions, and provided the researcher with necessary background knowledge while
coding the data from classroom observations. The constructivist model encourages students to
be active participants in their learning while the teacher acts more as a facilitator who prompts,
mediates, and coaches students as they develop and assess their understanding of the material.
The research methodology applied to data analysis for this study was phenomenology.
This study investigated the phenomenon of students exhibiting differences in engagement and
achievement between morning and afternoon classes and the instructional differentiation
employed by teachers to overcome this phenomenon. The collected data took into account
anecdotal evidence from highly qualified educators and observational evidence by the researcher
to identify common themes among the data to construct a better understanding of the
phenomenon. Identification of common themes among the data allowed the researcher to draw
71
conclusions that could improve instructional practices for classroom educators in similar high
school settings.
Conclusions and Summary of Findings
This qualitative study explored differences in student engagement between morning and
afternoon classes and teacher perceptions about instructional strategies that worked best to
accommodate those observed differences to increase student engagement and achievement
despite time of the day. The researcher used classroom observations, personal interviews, and a
focus group as a basis for this study. Many factors may contribute to student engagement and
achievement. The data for this study revealed several themes such as academic feedback,
classroom management, student accountability, use of multiple instructional strategies, short
lesson segments, clear and concise directions, lesson pacing, student attention, student behavior,
incentives and rewards, and student participation. These themes became evident during the data
coding process. The researcher started categorizing the data using open coding. After
completion of open coding for all data sources, the researcher used axial coding to generate
emerging themes. Based on these emerging themes, the researcher identified four main
conclusions from the data using selective coding.
Frequent circulation during lessons. The first conclusion drawn from the data was that
frequent and consistent circulation by the teacher throughout the lesson increased student
engagement, especially in afternoon classes. Active monitoring of students fostered higher
engagement by holding students accountable for their actions during class, which made them
more likely to participate in the lesson. The frequent circulation also provided students with
consistent academic feedback throughout the lesson using questioning, prompting, checks for
understanding, and other formative assessment strategies. In addition, when the teacher was
72
more involved with students individually while circulating, they were more likely to form
positive relationships with students, which can increase their motivation to perform well for that
teacher. Finally, frequent circulation throughout a lesson greatly improved classroom
management by reducing disruptive behavior, keeping students on task, and prompting students
to stay awake and focused on the lesson. Teacher circulation was especially crucial in afternoon
classes. The data showed that student attention decreased substantially from morning to
afternoon, and they displayed more off-task or disruptive behaviors in the afternoon. Circulation
and active monitoring significantly reduced these unwanted behaviors and kept students focused
on their lesson tasks. Research by Cotton (1988) claimed the careful monitoring of student
progress was one of the major factors distinguishing effective teachers from ineffective ones.
The study found that monitoring student progress was a strong predictor of student achievement.
Chunking lesson into segments with clear, concise directions. A second conclusion
drawn from the data suggested separating a lesson into multiple, small segments providing clear
and concise directions can lead to increased engagement despite time of the day. The data
showed that students could focus on a task for a maximum of 25-30 minutes before they started
to lose engagement and display off-task behaviors. This timeframe was the same for morning
and afternoon based on data gathered in this study. The high school involved in the study was on
a block schedule, meaning students were in each class for 90 minutes. This length of time means
teachers should break up their lessons into 3-4 smaller segments to prevent student fatigue and
loss of engagement.
The data also revealed that clear and concise directions are required for each lesson
segment to accomplish full focus and engagement from students. When given a list of multiple
assignments at once without repeating clear directions, many students lost interest after 5-10
73
minutes and began off-task disruptive behaviors. However, when given clear, concise directions
for one task at a time, students clearly understood the expectations and maintained a higher focus
and engagement on the assignment. Teachers should employ a variety of instructional strategies
to keep students’ focus and attention. While the data showed the importance of using 3-4 lesson
segments daily, those 3-4 strategies should be frequently changed because students become
bored and lose focus if exposed to the same 3-4 learning strategies every day. The participants
involved in this study used strategies such as class discussion, videos, whole group instruction,
group/partner work, problem solving, and gamification strategies.
Adjust lesson pacing. The data showed that when participants adjusted their lesson
pacing to accommodate differences in attention spans from morning to afternoon, there was more
student engagement. The data from classroom observations indicated that students in the
morning had longer attention spans and could focus well on a task for 10-15 minutes before they
became distracted and engaged in off-task behavior. In afternoon classes, the attention span
decreased to approximately 5-7 minutes for most students. This was especially true with male
students. Previous research indicated there might be a slight difference in chronotype between
males and females (Duffy et al., 2010 & Roenneberg et al., 2007), possibly due to higher
estrogen levels in adolescent females.
The data from this study indicated a noticeable difference in attention span and disruptive
behavior between males and females in ninth grade. There were 14 disruptive behaviors
observed during the classroom observations, and only one of those was from a female student.
In addition, four of the 14 disruptive behavior incidents occurred in morning classes, while 10
occurred in afternoon classes. After discussing these observations with the participants during
the focus group, they agreed that male students typically displayed more disruptive behaviors
74
than females, and male students typically have a lower attention span. They also agreed that this
trend was worse in afternoon classes compared to the morning.
The participants unknowingly compensated for the change in attention span by moving at
a faster pace in the afternoon classes. Moving through the lesson at a quicker pace compensated
for the decreased attention spans, reduced off-task and disruptive behavior, and thus maintained
higher student engagement. All three participants had extra time left at the end of their afternoon
class and implemented a lesson summary closure activity to fill in the additional few minutes.
One participant suggested a faster pace in afternoon classes could also be due to lesson repetition
by the teacher throughout the day. The participants agreed if they were teaching the same lesson
two to three times each day that they were more likely to move faster by the final lesson of the
day. While lesson pacing should be adjusted based on student attention and engagement,
teachers should be conscious to prevent moving faster due to repetition and making lesson
shortcuts in afternoon classes.
Use of multiple formative assessment strategies. Finally, the data showed that the use
of multiple formative assessments throughout a lesson increased student engagement at any time
of the day. Formative assessment strategies used by the study participants included general
questioning, gamification with Kahoot, Plickers, Quizizz, board races, question trails, and
questions and responses using small whiteboards. The interviews and focus group revealed
formative assessments increased student participation and engagement by infusing incentives or
rewards such as food, extra points, or a fun activity involving movement. Formative assessments
also increased student participation because students were more likely to participate in activities
where they received immediate feedback or an incentive/reward. When students actively
participated, they were actively engaged, which should result in higher achievement. Formative
75
assessments also helped teachers gauge the mastery of the material and their lesson pacing.
Formative assessment strategies are also typically quick and could be done to transition to
another segment of the lesson. Using quick and fun assessment strategies retained the focus and
attention of students at any time of the day, but they were especially effective in afternoon
classes.
Implications
The results of this qualitative study indicated how high school educators could modify
their instructional practices to accommodate for differences in student engagement, achievement,
and behavior at different times of the day. High school educators can improve student
engagement and achievement due to the time of the day differences among adolescents in several
ways. They can use frequent circulation to monitor students throughout the lesson, fragment
their lessons into 3-4 smaller segments for block schedule, adjust lesson pacing to meet student
attention span needs—slower pace in morning classes and faster pace in afternoon classes, and
using multiple formative assessment strategies with incentives throughout the lesson to gauge
achievement and promote participation.
This study suggested that the use of frequent monitoring and a diversity of short
instructional strategies can significantly increase student engagement and achievement by
decreasing off-task, disruptive behaviors, promoting student participation, and increasing student
accountability. Educators and all stakeholders in education can use these findings to improve
instructional practices and teacher evaluations. Using these simple strategies could significantly
improve classroom management for educators and student participation, engagement, and
achievement among high school students despite misalignment of the typical school schedule
with their chronotype.
76
Limitations
The rural classification of the school used in the study was out of the researcher’s control.
The demographics of students and teachers may not be the same in another school setting;
therefore, results and conclusions are only applicable to other rural high schools. Additionally,
any personal student issues that affected student engagement and academic performance during
the time of the study may or may not have influenced the results. As the researcher had no
control over how teachers or students behaved during video-recorded class observations, another
limitation is participants could have put on a false display for the camera rather than an authentic
representation of a daily lesson.
Delimitations
One delimitation of this research study was the use of one rural high school setting. The
researcher worked as a teacher in the high school involved in the study. Another delimitation for
the study was not to include third block classes because the school involved in the study had four
lunch periods during the third block, which meant classes were broken up at different times
during this period for lunch. These breaks would have added other variables to the study. The
researcher selected teachers and courses involving only ninth-grade students to control the
variable of student age. The results may or may not apply to students in other grade levels. A
final delimitation was the selection of participants that taught CP level courses. The high school
involved in the study offered honors-level courses also, but CP level courses had the widest
range of student abilities within one class, which provided for a broader representation of the
general population.
77
Recommendations for Further Research
During the focus group, there was a discussion regarding recommendations for further
research to investigate how time of the day affects learning among high school students. One
participant suggested investigating how different class sizes affect student engagement. It would
be interesting to see if any differences exist in student engagement at different times of the day
when comparing smaller class sizes (less than 25) with classes of more than 25 students.
Because the results of this study indicated best instructional practices to promote high
engagement at different times of day, utilization of these strategies would be necessary for both
class size samples to see if those same strategies work despite the class size.
Another recommendation would be to apply the same study in an elementary school
setting. Previous research suggested there was a significant shift in chronotype from childhood
to adolescence (Gelbmann et al., 2012), which could have a significant impact on student
engagement at different times of the day. It would be interesting to see if there are differences in
engagement among elementary students throughout the school day or if there are different
instructional strategies that work best to engage those students and compare the results with the
results of this study.
A third recommendation for further research is to investigate how different course
schedules may influence student engagement. The school involved in this study uses a block
schedule where students go to four classes per day, 90 minutes each. A traditional school
schedule typically involves 6-8 class periods, 45-60 minutes each. It would be interesting to
repeat this study in a high school with similar demographics on a traditional schedule to see if
shorter classes eliminate the decrease in attention span and engagement by the end of the day.
78
A fourth recommendation would be to investigate the differences in attention,
participation, behavior, and engagement between male and female high school students. The
previous research indicated there might be a slight difference in chronotype between adolescent
males and females due to increases in estrogen in females at puberty (Duffy et al., 2010). Based
on the classroom observations from this study, male students overwhelmingly showed more
signs of off-task, disruptive behavior, which are indicators of disengagement. The best practices
identified in this study worked well to keep all students engaged, but there may be other
strategies to keep the attention and engagement of male students compared with females.
A final recommendation would be to conduct a quantitative study measuring achievement
differences between morning and afternoon classes. While this study found differences in student
behavior, attention, and engagement between morning and afternoon classes, all participants
agreed these factors influence achievement. Only one participant noticed a discrepancy in
achievement between morning and afternoon classes based on summative assessments in class
and state-standardized tests. The other two participants did not deny a difference, but had never
noticed it in the past. A quantitative study measuring achievement differences on end-of-course
state standardized exams between morning and afternoon classes could strengthen and support
the findings from this study.
Summary
The results of this study were relevant for all high school educators to consider.
Identifying best practices to overcome differences in student engagement, achievement, and
behavior between morning and afternoon classes has been a question the researcher strived to
answer since her first year of teaching. Achieving and maintaining student engagement is one of
the most challenging tasks for an educator. The best practices identified in this study to promote
79
student engagement at different times of day were frequent circulation and monitoring,
fragmenting lessons into multiple, short segments, adjusting lesson pacing to accommodate for
differences in student attention spans between morning and afternoon, and using multiple
formative assessments with incentives for students. Implementation of these strategies will help
high school educators overcome discrepancies in student attention, participation, engagement,
achievement, and behavior between morning and afternoon classes.
80
References
Akinbami, L., Llu, X., Pastor, P., & Reuben, C. (2011). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
among children aged 5-17 years in the United States, 1998-2009. Retrieved December
27, 2019, from National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief: http://www.cdc.gov
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the
Schools, 45(5), 369-386. doi:10.1002/pits
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30137912
Berger, D. D. S. (2000). The effects of time of day of task presentation and individual differences
in self-reported optimal performance periods on the memory of adolescents enrolled in
an early starting time high school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 9969677)
Besoluk, S. (2011). Morningness-eveningness preferences and university entrance examination
scores of high school students. Personality & Individual Differences, 50(2), 248-252.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.038
Biss, R., & Hasher, L. (2012). Happy as a lark: Morning-type younger and older adults are
higher in positive affect. Emotion, 12(3), 437. doi:10.1037/a0027071
Bulger, S., & Watson, D. (2006). Broadening the definition of at-risk students. The Community
College Enterprise, 23-36. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcraft.edu/pdfs/cce/12.2.23-
32.pdf
81
Callan, R. J. (1999). Effects on matching and mismatching students' time-of-day preferences.
Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 295-299. doi:10.1080/00220679909597609
Carrier, J. & Monk, T. H. (2000). Circadian rhythms of performance: New trends.
Chronobiology International, 17(6), 719-732. doi:10.1081/CBI-100102108
Carskadon, M. (2011). Sleep in adolescents: the perfect storm. Pediatric Clinics of North
America, 58(3), 637. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2011.03.003
Charach, A. & Fernandez, R. (2013). Enhancing ADHD medication adherence: Challenges and
opportunities. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(7), 371-379. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-
0371-6
Circadian rhythm. (n.d.). Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com
/us/basics/circadian-rhythm
Cotton, K. J. (1988). Monitoring student learning in the classroom: School improvement research
series close-up. Northwest Regional Educational Lab. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED298085
Díaz-Morales, J., & Escribano, C. (2013). Circadian preference and thinking styles: Implications
for school achievement. Chronobiology International, 30(10), 1231- 1239.
Drabick, D. A., Gadow K. D. (2012). Deconstructing oppositional defiant disorder: Clinic-based
evidence for an anger/irritability phenotype. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry. 51, 384–392. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.010
Duffy, J., Cain, S., Chang, A., Phillips, A., Münch, M., Gronfier, C., ... & Czeisler, C. (2011).
Sex difference in the near-24-hour intrinsic period of the human circadian timing system.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(3), 15602-15608.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1010666108
82
Estes, A., Rivera, V., Bryan, M., Cali, P., & Dawson, G. (2010). Discrepancies between
academic achievement and intellectual ability in higher functioning school-aged children
with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41,
1044-1052. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1127-3
Fabbri, M., Natale, V., & Adan, A. (2008). Effect of time of day on arithmetic fact retrieval in
a number-matching task. Acta Psychologica, 127, 485–490.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.011
Gelbmann, G., Kuhn-Natriashvili, S., Pazhedath, T., Ardeljan, M., Wöber, C., & Wöber- Bingöl,
C. (2012). Morningness: Protective factor for sleep-related and emotional problems in
childhood and adolescence?. Chronobiology international, 29(7), 898-910.
doi:10.3109/07420528.2012.686946
Goldstein, D., Hahn, C. S., Hasher, L., Wiprzycka, U. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Time of day,
intellectual performance, and behavioral problems in morning versus evening type
adolescents: Is there a synchrony effect? Personality and Individual Differences Journal,
42(3), 431-440. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.008
Hedges, S. H., Kirby, A. V., Sreckovic, M. A., Kucharczyk, S., Hume, K., & Pace, S. (2014).
Falling through the cracks: Challenges for high school students with Autism Spectrum
Disorder. The High School Journal, 98(1), 64-82. doi:10.1353/hsj.2014.0014
Hines, C. B. (2004). Time of day effects on human performance. Catholic Education: A Journal
of Inquiry and Practice, 7(3), 390-413. doi:10.15365/joce.0703072013
Holloway, J. (1999). Giving our students the time of day. Personalized Learning, Educational
Leadership, 57(1), 87-89. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/sept99/vol57/num01/-Giving-Our-Students-the-Time-of-Day.aspx
83
Horne, J. A., & Ostberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-
eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4(2),
97-110. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1027738
Horne, J. A., & Ostberg, O. (1977). Individual differences in human circadian rhythms.
Biological Psychology, 5, 179-190. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net
/profile/Olov_Ostberg/publication/298214503_H_O_1977_Biol_Psy_M-Es/links
/56e7172508ae438aab87f6e2/H-O-1977-Biol-Psy-M-Es.pdf
Intons-Peterson, M. J., Rocchi, P., West, T, McLellan, K., & Hackney, A. (1998). Aging, optimal
testing time, and negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 24(2), 362-376. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.362
Kim, S., Dueker, G., Hasher, L., & Goldstein, D. (2002). Children's time of day preference: Age,
gender and ethnic differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1083-1090.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00214-8
Klein, J. (2001). Attention, scholastic achievement and timing of lessons. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 45(3), 301-309. doi:10.1080/00313830120074224
Loe, I. M. & Feldman, H. M. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with
ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 643-654. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl054
May, C. P. (1999). Synchrony effects in cognition: The costs and a benefit. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 142-147. doi:10.3758/BF03210822
McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform:Educational costs of standardized
testing. New York: Routledge.
84
Oginska, H. & Oginska-Bruschal, K. (2014). Chronotype and personality factors of
predisposition to seasonal affective disorder. Chronobiology International, Early Online,
1-9. doi:10.3109/07420528.2013.874355
Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning.
IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. doi:10.9790/7388-
05616670
Onder, I., Besoluk, S., Iskender, M., Masal, E., & Demirhan, E. (2014). Circadian preferences,
sleep quality and sleep patterns, personality, academic motivation and academic
achievement of university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 184-192.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.003
Onder, I., Horzum, M. B., & Besoluk, S. (2012). Chronotype, learning approach, type/time of
instruction and academic achievement of the university students. In L. Golovkin, A.
Maliszkewicz (Eds.), Circadian rhythms : Biology, cognition and disorders (pp. 161-
186). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=nlebk&AN
=550427&site=eds-live
Preckel, F., Lipnevich, A. A., Boehme, K., Brandner, L., Georgi, K., Konen, T…Roberts, R. D.
(2013). Morningness-eveningness and educational outcomes: The lark has an advantage
over the owl at high school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 114-134.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02059.x
Punja, S., Zorzela, L., Hartling, L., Urichuk, L., & Vohra, S. (2013). Long-acting versus short-
acting methylphenidate for pediatric ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
comparative efficacy. BMJ Open, 2013(3). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002312
85
Randler, C. (2011). Association between morningness-eveningness and mental and physical
health in adolescents. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16(1), 29-38.
doi:10.1080/13548506.2010.521564
Randler, C., Bechtold, K., & Vogel, M. (2016). Chronotype and time of day do not influence
mathematical achievement in standardized tests, but impact on affect: Results from a
field experiment. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(5), 54-61.
doi:10.15345/iojes.2016.05.006
Randler, C., Rahafar, A., Arbabi, T., & Bretschneider, R. (2014). Affective state of school pupils
during their first lesson of the day: Effect of morningness-eveningness. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 8(4), 214-219. doi:10.1111/mbe.12060
Refinetti, R. (2012). Daily and circadian rhythmicity. Circadian Rhythm Laboratory: Circadian
Rhythms. Retrieved from http://www.circadian.org/biorhyt.html
Roenneberg, T., Kuehnle, T., Juda, M., Kantermann, T., Allebrandt, K., Gordijn, M., & Merrow,
M. (2007). Epidemiology of the human circadian clock. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 11(6),
429-438. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2007.07.005
Roenneberg, T., Wirz-Justice, A., & Merrow, M. (2003). Life between clocks: Daily temporal
patterns of human chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 18(1), 80-90.
doi:10.1177/0748730402239679
Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative
case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252-267. doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p252
Serra-Pinheiro, M. A., Mattos, P., Regalla, M. A., Souza, I., Paixão, C. (2008). Inattention,
hyperactivity, oppositional-defiant symptoms and school failure. Arq Neuropsiquiatria.
66(4), 828-31. doi:10.1590/S0004-282X2008000600010
86
Sroufe, L. A. (2012, January 28). Ritalin gone wrong. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of
research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on k-12 students’
academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899. doi:10.3102/0034654316675417
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). TN Ready. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov
/education/assessment/tnready.html
Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Jobs for the
Future. Retrieved from https://www.howyouthlearn.org/pdf/Motivation%20Engagement
%20Student%20Voice_0.pdf
Urry, L. A., Cain, M., Wasserman, S., Minorsky, P., & Reece, J. B. (2018). Campbell biology:
AP edition. Pearson Education, Inc.
Vinne, V., Zerbini, G., Siersema, A., Pieper, A., Merrow, M., Hut, R. A…Kantermann, T.
(2015). Timing of examinations affects school performance differently in early and late
chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 30(1), 53-60.
doi:10.1177/0748730414564786
Vollmer, C., Potsch, F., & Randler, C. (2013). Morningness is associated with better gradings
and higher attention in class. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 167-173.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.001
Webster-Stratton, C. (1993). Strategies for helping early school-aged children with oppositional
defiant and conduct disorders: The importance of home-school partnerships. School
Psychology Review, 22(3), 437-457. doi:10.1080/02796015.1993.12085665
87
Wile, A. J., & Shouppe, G. A. (2011). Does time-of-day of instruction impact class
achievement?. Perspectives In Learning, 12(1), 21-25. Retrieved from
https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=pil
Witkowski, S., Trujillo, L., Sherman, S., Carter, P., Matthews, M., & Schnyer, D. (2014). An
examination of the association between chronic sleep restriction and electrocortical
arousal in college students. Clinical Neurophysiology. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.026
Zavada, A., Gordijn, M. C. M., Beersma, D. G. M., Daan, S., & Roenneberg, T. (2005).
Comparison of the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire with the Horne-Östberg’s
Morningness-Eveningness Score. Chronobiology International, 22(2), 267-278.
doi:10.1081/CBI-200053536
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680
88
Appendix A:
Participant Informed Consent Form
89
Participant Informed Consent Form
Title of Study: Evaluating Time of Day Influence on Achievement and Engagement for High
School Students: Investigating Effective Instructional Strategies
Principal Investigator: Rachel Brouillette
Carson-Newman University
Email: [email protected]
You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this
study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will
involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is
anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
Information and Purpose: The study for which you are being asked to participate is a part of
dissertation research focused on investigating differences in student engagement and
achievement at different times of day in a classroom setting. The purpose of this study is to gain
a better understanding of this phenomenon to determine best instructional practices for
promoting student engagement and achievement at any time of day.
Your Participation in Study Procedures: Your participation in this study will consist of two
classroom observations, an individual interview, and a focus group. Your participation is
strictly voluntary. There is no penalty for discontinuing participation.
Participants will complete:
1. Two classroom observations on the same day (1st or 2nd block and 4th block)
2. Individual interview
3. Focus group
The study will begin in January 2020 and will be completed by April 1, 2020. Audio and video
recording will be used throughout the research process. These recordings will be kept
confidential. Each participant will be given a pseudonym for the duration of the research. All
recorded material will be kept secure and private. You will have the opportunity to review your
responses in the researcher’s notes upon request at any time during the duration of the research.
Benefits and Risks: There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study.
However, the benefit will be gaining insight regarding student performance at different times of
day. This may assist in modifying instruction with best practices for promoting student
engagement, motivation, and achievement at any time of day. There are no known foreseeable
risks associated with participating in the study.
Confidentiality: Your responses during observations and interviews will be anonymous. Every
effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the following:
• Assigning code names/pseudonyms for participants on all research notes and
documents.
90
• Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher.
Participant data will be kept confidential except in cases where the researcher is legally obligated
to report specific incidents. The researcher will not share your individual responses with anyone
other than the research supervisor.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the researcher at [email protected], or
her supervisor, Dr. Steve Davidson at [email protected].
Subject’s Understanding
• I agree to participate in this study that I understand will be submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the EdD degree in Curriculum and Instruction at
Carson-Newman University.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary.
• I understand that all data collected will be limited to this use or other research-related
usage as authorized by the Carson-Newman University.
• I understand that I will not be identified by name in the final product.
• I am aware that all records will be kept confidential in the secure possession of the
researcher.
• I acknowledge that the contact information of the researcher and her advisor have
been made available to me along with a duplicate copy of this consent form.
• I understand the data I provide will not be used to evaluate my performance in my
classes.
• I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time with no adverse
repercussions.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the above information. I am
aware that I can discontinue my participation in the study at any time.
Signature__________________________________________________________
Date_______________
91
Appendix B:
Video Release Form for Students
92
Dear Parent/Guardian,
I am a teacher at Science Hill High School and currently pursuing my Ed.D in Curriculum and
Instruction at Carson Newman University. I am working on my dissertation research as a
requirement to receive my doctoral degree.
The purpose of my research is to gain insight regarding differences in student engagement and
achievement at different times of day. The goal of the study is to discover or create instructional
strategies to best promote student engagement at all times of day to maximize student
achievement.
To collect data, I will need to conduct observations of students in class at different times of day
to observe differences in alertness, engagement, and overall participation in lessons. As a
classroom teacher myself, I cannot leave my class to conduct the observations. Instead, I will
video record the lessons and watch later to collect data observations.
The focus of the video will not be on individual students in the class. I am looking for general
signs of alertness, engagement and participation from the class. No student names or any other
personal information will appear on any materials in my dissertation. The video recordings will
be kept confidential and will not be viewed by anyone other than myself. The form on the back
of this letter will be used to document your permission for your child to be video recorded for the
purpose of my dissertation research.
Participation in the study is voluntary, and refusal to participate will involve no penalty. If you
have any questions, you may contact the researcher at [email protected] or her
dissertation supervisor, Dr. Steve Davidson, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Rachel Brouillette
93
Student Video Release Form To be completed by the parent/legal guardians of minor students involved in this project, and the students.
Student Name______________________________
I am the parent/legal guardian of the child named above. I have read and understand the project
description given in the letter provided with this form, and agree to the following:
_____ I DO give permission to include my child in video recordings as part of observations to
investigate student engagement and participation for the purpose of the researcher’s dissertation.
I understand that my child’s name and any other personally identifiable information about my
child will not appear on any of the submitted materials. There are no known foreseeable risks for
your child to participate in the video observations.
_____ I DO NOT give permission to include my child in video recordings as part of observations
to investigate student engagement and participation for the purpose of the researcher’s
dissertation.
Signature of Parent/Guardian _____________________________ Date: ______________
I am the student named above. I have read and understand the project description given in the
letter provided with this form, and agree to the following:
_____ I DO give permission to be included in video recordings as part of observations to
investigate student engagement and participation for the purpose of the researcher’s dissertation.
I understand that my name and any other personally identifiable information about me will not
appear on any of the submitted materials. There are no known foreseeable risks for participating
in the video observations.
_____ I DO NOT give permission to be included in video recordings as part of observations to
investigate student engagement and participation for the purpose of the researcher’s dissertation.
Signature of Student: ________________________________ Date: _______________
94
Appendix C:
Participant Interview Questions
95
These first two questions should be answered as they relate to student engagement:
1. How do you define student engagement?
2. Describe any differences in student engagement you have observed between morning and
afternoon classes.
These next two questions should be answered as they relate to student achievement:
3. How do you define student achievement?
4. Describe any differences in student achievement you have observed between morning
and afternoon classes.
5. What are your thoughts about the relationship between student engagement and academic
achievement?
These next three questions should be answered as they relate to student behavior:
6. Describe any differences in student behavior you have observed between morning and
afternoon classes.
7. How does student behavior relate to student engagement?
8. How might student behavior affect achievement in the classroom?
These next two questions should be answered as they relate to instruction:
9. How could you modify instruction between morning and afternoon classes to
accommodate any differences in engagement or achievement?
10. Describe some instructional strategies you have found effective in promoting optimal
student achievement.
a. How do these instructional strategies affect student engagement?
Final Question:
11. Are there any additional comments you would like to add about differences in student
engagement, achievement, or behavior at different times of day?
