Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Improving student engagement is an ever present theme in secondary schools, whereby the
purpose of improving student engagement is to escalate student learning and ultimately improve the
level of student achievement. This literature review seeks to explore factors embedded in classroom
However engagement is a term which requires further clarification. Corso, Bundick, Quaglia
and Haywood (2013) define student engagement as three elements. The first being the psychological
level, such as thought. The second is engagement with feelings for example the relationship to others
and the school, and engaged in action i.e. learning activities (p.52). Kizildag, Demirtas-Zorbaz and
Zorbaz (2017) designed a school engagement scale to facilitate a definition for their empirical study
which included inner engagement, environmental engagement with curriculum and, school and
teacher management which bares similar themes to the work of Corso et al. (2013). Paige, Sizemore
and Neace (2013) conducted a study of 362 9th grade students in a low achieving school to evaluate
the relational effect of incorporating Higher Order Thinking (HOT) tasks upon student engagement.
Data from 648 observation were analysed, and the results suggested that the incorporation of HOT
tasks improved student engagement (p.114) justifying need for a more challenging curriculum (p.116).
Connor and Pope (2013) hypothesised that busyness does not necessarily represent full cognitive
engagement. The research studied 6294 students across 15 schools, and reported that while most
students reported working hard, there was a lack of affective and cognitive engagement, and that the
work was not enjoyable (p.1426). The study also found that engagement declines in the 10th grade,
females were better engaged than males, teacher support was a factor, traditional lecturing did not
1
stymie engagement and students who were said to be fully cognitively and actively engaged in
learning, they had better mental and physical health (pp. 1431-1433).
To elaborate on the theme of teacher influence upon classroom climate the empirical work of
Allen et al. (2013) is relevant since the study sought to evaluate the relationship between teacher-
student interactions as a predictor for student achievement. The researchers were observing three
domains which were, classroom organisation, instructional support and emotional support (p.77). The
empirical study was conducted in using observations of 643 student across 37 classrooms in 11 schools
(p.80) which established a baseline which was used to predict outcomes using a standardised test.
Analysis of the results showed that one important predictor for achievement was a classroom
environment which adolescents found emotionally and intellectually engaging (p.92). Also the level of
emotional and instructional support from the teacher was also closely related to achievement (p.93),
and the importance emotional and social learning for adolescents (p.94). The researchers concluded
that professional development focusing upon improved emotional, instructional and organisational
interactions may enhance the effectiveness of the teacher, hence improving student learning (p.95).
Cooper and Miness (2014) also explore the realm of teacher-student relations in terms of
caring. Thirty three high school students were interviewed. The students placed importance upon the
teacher understanding them as people and learners (p.264) and also that is was important that the
relationship was co-constructed between teacher and student, whereby the student has agency over
the level of personal information revealed to the teacher. One important aspect of this study is the
orientation upon the student perception, and how does the student know the teacher genuinely cares
in what the researchers describe as relational caring, in comparison to virtuous caring (p.278).
Hagenauer, Hascher and Volet (2015) also conducted research in the realm of teacher-student
relations from the teachers perspective, with the purpose of the study being to explore predictors of
2
teacher emotion. In the study teacher self-efficacy was used a control variable for joy, anxiety and
anger (p.394). The results suggest a correlation between teacher emotions and teacher-student
relations, however the researchers advise caution due to a contradiction in burnout rates and self-
reported information, and that the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to draw
Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012) also focussed their research upon the teacher, in terms of
investigating the influence of teacher self-efficacy upon student motivation and achievement (p.483).
The participants were eighty high school teachers from four cities in Iran, and 150 students of those
teachers selected. The instruments used for the study in both cases were questionnaire. The teachers
questionnaire used Likert scales, and the student questionnaire was designed to capture more
qualitative data (p.485). The data were analysed using SPSS software and a correlation between
teacher self-efficacy and student motivation to be true (p.487). Furthermore the study found higher
levels of teacher self-efficacy correlated to higher levels of student achievement (p.488). Shoulders &
Krei (2015) also sought to investigate the topic of teacher self-efficacy from the perspective of the
teacher, in terms of how the teacher perceives levels of student engagement, effectiveness of their
instructional strategies and classroom management. The study surveyed 256 rural American teachers,
and found that these teachers held positive views of themselves across the mentioned categories, and
this did not vary according to years of experience as anticipated (p.57). Limitations of the study were
identified as teacher self-reporting, and an unreliable data cross-section as the sample used was not
truly indicative of the teachers in rural schools. Knsting, Neuber & Lipowsky (2016) conducted a
longitudinal study into the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and their instructional quality.
The study sampled of 203 German teachers also using self-reporting method over a 10 year period,
2001, 2008 and 2011. The findings showed a positive relationship between teacher self-efficacy and
instructional quality which echoes the findings of Shoulders & Krei (2015).
3
On the other hand the relationship between student self-efficacy, engagement and
achievement is yet to be discussed. Arabzadeh, Salami, Nadery, and Bayanati (2013) undertook quasi-
experimental research to determine if cognitive function is affected by ones self efficacy. The study
used two student groups of 25 participants aged 14-17 years old, and was administered using pre and
post-test design. One group was the control group, the other group was taught self-efficacy strategies
for 15 sessions. The researchers found the group who had been taught self-efficacy strategies had
improved cognitive engagement positively influencing learning, showing that the constructs of
efficacy and engagement and impact upon learning are related (pp.70-71). Reeve and Lee (2014)
sought to study the relationship between engagement, motivation and achievement. The research
was a longitudinal design over a 17 week semester and involved 313 Korean high school students, who
at three points during semester filled out 2-page questionnaire (p.530). The researcher concluded that
a reciprocal relationship exists between motivation and engagement, and that one could be used as a
predictor for the other (p.538). Regarding pedagogy McPhail (2013) analysed six qualitative case
studies of observations and interviews with teachers and students regarding pedagogic modalities.
McPhails concluding discussion points to the importance of the skill of the teacher to be able to select
the appropriate modality of pedagogy is essential to allow underachieving groups access to the
Much of the research presented was teacher centric. Further exploration with a student
centric focus therefore is a valid avenue to explore. Themes proposed for the preliminary data
collection to inform the action research proposal include teacher-student relations, teacher and
student self-efficacy in the classroom, and to some degree pedagogical choice which are elements of
4
Part B Data Collection Protocol
Note the survey was created using Survey Monkey (Monkey 2017).
5
6
Consent form
I am working on a project titled Improving Student Engagement for the class, Researching Teaching
and Learning 2 at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to
help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.
The topic of the survey relates to aspects of classroom dynamics and how these themes relate to the
student learning. The themes which the survey is targeting are teacher-student relationships,
perceived teacher efficacy, student self-efficacy and pedagogical effectiveness. The results from this
survey will be used to inform the design of an action research project.
I have read the project and have been given the opportunity to discuss the information and
my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me,
and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
I consent to participating in this survey.
I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the Researching
Teaching and Learning 2 unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the
data.
I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my
relationship with the researcher/s, now or in the future.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university
student who is 17 years old.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old,
and provide my consent for the persons participation.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
7
Part C Protocol explanation
a) The participants selected for data collection are secondary high school students in a western
Sydney school. The reason for choosing this school was based on the likelihood of the author
demographic. The school has an ICSEA value of 941 indicating the students are of below the
state average for socioeconomic status, with 77% of students in the bottom/middle quartile
(ACARA 2017). Participants for this survey are in stage 4 and generally have performed below
b) The rationale for choosing survey was based on the literature reviewed, survey being the
common form of data collection. Additionally, the anonymity of surveys is beneficial in this
instance as students will be answering questions about their teacher, and lastly surveys can
be administered much quicker than interviews. The survey questions were designed to elicit
information relating to the identified themes within the literature review, which are teacher-
student relations, perceived teacher efficacy, student self-efficacy, and pedagogical influences
within the framework of classroom dynamics. The decision to write a student-centric survey
was selected since much of the literature reviewed took a teacher-centric approach, therefore
Readability using appropriate literacy levels was also a consideration. Also the survey uses two
modes of data collection and gathers both quantitative and qualitative data (Neuman 2005).
Questions numbered 1-10 represent the quantitative data elements of the survey. These
questions are comprised of Likert and Rating scales. The decision to use these scales over an
option which may have been multiple choice was to reduce the reading load, and the amount
of time taken to complete the survey which is one benefit of using structured response scale
questions (Buddies 2017). Surveys which take too long may also result in the participant
abandoning the survey (Harrison 2017, p.2). Another reason for the choice of scale based
8
questions is that this method avoids the use of Yes/No questions (Beadell 2017) which would
Harvard Universitys tip sheet for designing survey questions (Harrison 2007) recommends
providing instructions, and important framing information, i.e. that the questions relate to the
class the student is in now, and only this class. The order of the questions has been considered
also been considered (p.2) in that general questions have been placed at the start to avoid
putting off the respondent. Open ended questions have been placed at the end of the survey
for this reason, and since participants are more likely to skip and open ended question (p.2).
Difficult to understand language and technical terms (p.3) were also avoided.
The scales used for questions 2-10 are also ordinal, and consistently labelled for readability.
Beadell (2017) recommends that scale questions are designed with 5-7 categories, 5 being the
choice here. The language used avoids being evocative (p.4) and the questions themselves are
not double-barrelled (p.3). The rationale for including open ended responses was to collect
some qualitative data, which would be used to triangulate findings of the qualitative and
quantitative data, and derive correlations between questions 1-10, and questions 11-14
strengthening any findings (Write 2017). Lastly a benefit of creating a digitally usable survey
is that is can be accessed using multiple devices, and also metrics can be obtained from the
9
References
ACARA 2017, My School Evans High School, Blacktown, NSW, viewed 20/08/2017 2017,
<https://www.myschool.edu.au/SchoolProfile/Index/105190/EvansHighSchool/41823/2016
>.
ACARA 2017, My School Evans High School, Blacktown, NSW, viewed 20/08/2017 2017,
<https://www.myschool.edu.au/ResultsInNumbers/Index/105190/EvansHighSchool/41823/
2016>
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective
Arabzadeh, M., Salami, M., Nadery, M., & Bayanati, M. (2013). THE EFFECTS OF TEACHING SELF-
Beadell, S 2017, Surveys 101: A Simple Guide to Asking Effective Questions, viewed 14/08/2017 2017,
<https://zapier.com/learn/forms-surveys/writing-effective-survey/>.
<https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/references/how-to-design-a-
survey>.
Corso, M., Bundick, M., Quaglia, R., & Haywood, D. (2013). Where Student, Teacher, and Content
10
Cooper, K., & Miness, A. (2014). The Co-Creation of Caring Student-Teacher Relationships: Does
doi:10.1353/hsj.2014.0005
Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Not Just Robo-Students: Why Full Engagement Matters and How
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9948-y
Hagenauer, G., Hascher, T., & Volet, S. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom: associations with
015-0250-0
Harrison, C 2007, Tip Sheet on Question Wording, Harvard University Program on Survey Research,
<https://psr.iq.harvard.edu/files/psr/files/PSRQuestionnaireTipSheet_0.pdf>.
Kizildag, S., Demirtas-Zorbaz, S., & Zorbaz, O. (2017). School Engagement of High School Students.
Knsting, J., Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of
instructional quality in the classroom. A Journal of Education and Development, 31(3), 299-
322. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7
McPhail, G. (2013). Mixed pedagogic modalities: The potential for increased student engagement
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on the Students' Motivation
11
Paige, D. D., Sizemore, J. M., & Neace, W. P. (2013). Working inside the box: exploring the
relationship between student engagement and cognitive rigor. (Report). NASSP Bulletin,
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students' classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in
Shoulders, T., & Krei, M. (2015). Rural High School Teachers' Self-Efficacy in Student Engagement,
50-61.ACARA 2017, My School Evans High School, Blacktown, NSW, viewed 20/08/2017
2017,
<https://www.myschool.edu.au/SchoolProfile/Index/105190/EvansHighSchool/41823/2016
>.
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/>.
Neuman, WL 2005, Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, vol. 13, Allyn
Write 2017, Data Triangulation: How the Triangulation of Data Strengthens Your Research, viewed
process/data-triangulation-how-the-triangulation-of-data-strengthens-your-research/>.
12