Action research Plan

Criterion 1 – Description of MeE, applied to own professional practice

MeE framework entails both the psychological as well as sociological elements of learners’ motivation and engagement. Building on the research from the psychology of education and the sociology of education of the N.S. W Fair Go Project (FGP), the MeE framework aims at overcoming the inherent shortfalls of failing to account for dimensions of social power and the own complexities as it regards students’ motivation and engagement (N. S W., 2006).

Further, Munns et al. (2013) conceptualize that MeE framework operates as a heuristic for providing teachers with analytical tools for schools and classrooms focused towards developing productive interventions for enabling students to develop robust and healthy relationships with what they learn (Munns & Woodward, 2006). MeE framework is founded on the principle of substantive engagement of learners through valuable learning activities. The approach further suggests a multifaceted approach to students’ engagement as pivotal to creating equitable learning outcomes (Price, 2008).

As conceptualized by Munns & Woodward (2006), classroom interactions, pedagogy, and individual guidance enhance engagement by promoting learners’ confidence and self-belief in their abilities to achieve something in school. Substantive engagement should prompt students to focus on learning and equip them with problem-solving and critical thinking skills (Patton, 2012).

Within the ‘e’ngagement sphere, great focus is on the classroom processes and discourses and the social power dimensions (Munns & Woodward, 2006). Relationships within the teaching and learning contexts should be purposely designed to foster active participation of students. ‘e’ngagement provides reflective, substantive, and contextualized knowledge to enable students to perform excellently and remain optimistic throughout their learning (McNiff, 2017). In a classroom, students are the centers of learning and thus have feelings of self-belonging and ownership of their learning. The ‘E’ngagement aspect integrates both the motivation and ‘e’ngagement spheres (Munns & Woodward, 2006). ‘E’ngagement emphasize on positive school ethos, diversified curricular and extracurricular activities in a classroom.

The research action plan will entail inquiry-based teaching pedagogy. The plan helps in developing learners critical thinking processes and remains inquisitive of their surroundings. As described by Bishop et al. (2012), the approach prioritizes learners’ questions, thoughts, and learning strategies thereby transcending the realms of general curiosity.

Criterion 2: Personal Philosophy, including own approach to student engagement

As an educator, I believe learning is a collaborative process encompassing the cohesiveness of teaching and learning processes. Collaborative learning emphasizes the principle of positive interdependence based on a built-in incentive for accountability (Kilcommins, McCarthy, & Ryan ). Individual responsibility leads to promotive interaction, development of social skills, and eventually group processing. Mercer & Dawes (2014) conceptualize that students create meaning in discourse in a collaborative environment where they can synthesize information and relate it to a framework of prior knowledge. Further, Kohn (1999) suggest that educators should jointly involve students in classroom tasks to foster interactive dynamics and engagement. Collaborative learning mainly entails promotion of exchange and involvement of each learner to yield shared cognition (Vass, 2017).

I affirm collaborative learning as it transcends the typical teacher-focused education to perceive the learner as the center (Vass, 2017). I believe in educators being expert designers of intellectual experiences rather than knowledge transmitters for students. According to Munns et al. (2013), collaborative learning occurs effectively when students actively exchange ideas to solve a problem. As conceptualized by Munns et al. (2013), achievement of learning goals is greatly influenced by the levels of learners’ engagement. Equally, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) describes the collaborative model of learning as integral to creating an enjoyable classroom.

In affirmation, (Rogoff et al. (2013) argue that intent participation gained from collaborative learning offers learners firsthand learning thereby enhancing learning accountability. Following the principle of substantive engagement described in the MeE framework, collaborative learning philosophy promotes engagement by granting students opportunities to actively interact with their environment in solving problems (Munns et al., 2013). Particularly, understanding interactive dynamics coupled with collaboration methods can help me as an educator to achieve credible performance in the classroom.

References

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). A theoretical model for enjoyment. In Beyond boredom and anxiety (pp. 35-54).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.

Kilcommins, M. McCarthy, & A. Ryan (Eds.).Integrative learning international research and practice. London:Routledge.

Kohn, A. (1999). Appendix B: What to look for in a classroom. In The schools our children deserve. Moving beyond traditional classrooms and "tougher standards". Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Munns, G., Sawyer, W., & Cole, B. (Eds.). (2013). Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/Open.aspx?id=423270

McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research: All You Need to Know. Los Angeles, CA: Sage..

Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education. 40:4, 430-445.

Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: The REAL Framework.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 193-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940600703969

New South Wales Department of Education and Training, University of Western Sydney, & Priority SchoolsPrograms (N.S.W.). (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student engagement. The Fair GoProject. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/futures learning/media/School_is_for_me_Pathways_to_student_engagement-1.pdf

Patton, A. (2012). Work that matters: The teacher’s guide to project based learning.

Price, D. (2008). Learning futures: Engaging students. London, United Kingdom: Innovation Unit.

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., Peter M. & Clapham, S. (2012). Professional development, changes in teacher practice and improvements in Indigenous students’ educational performance: A case study from New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 28 (2012) 694-705.

Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 175-203.

Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. Somerset, NJ: Wiley. (especially Introduction: Choosing creativity.)

Vass, E. (2017) Building dialogic spaces through inclusive conversations. In Attard, C. et al. Engaging Schooling. Taylor & Francis.