Continued Literature Review and Links to Interview Transcripts

Over the last week I have continued to write my Literature Review, focusing more specifically on engagement in Drama and English. As a continuation of my previous post, these are my further ‘invitations’ to my dinner party with reasoning:

OFSTED (2012): The government policy ‘Moving Forward in English’ is key to understand the required standards expect of schools. The document also identifies the importance of English in education.

Arts Council England (2003): As there are no statutory requirements for teaching Drama or a National Curriculum for this subject, the document ‘Drama in schools’ is considered to be a significant contribution for teaching drama. The document also outlines the importance of Drama and offers relevant explanations as to why students engage in Drama, many of which were closely linked to the views of my colleagues and BAPP peers.

Fautley and Savage (2011): the authors recognize the lack of engagement in the school curriculum that does not appeal to multi-intelligence learners and advocate that cross-curricular learning is key to engaging students in the ‘bigger picture’ of learning.

Fleming (2012): The author offers significant definitions in terms of Drama as an approach to teaching and Drama as a subject. He defines the two as different entities and offers clear examples of how both approaches are used in education.

Anderson (2012): Outlines current arguments in the educational field in relation to Drama. The author also introduces the idea of ‘powerful pedagogies’ which again offer explanation as to why students engage in Drama.

Davies (2012): Is a small-scale researcher who explores the idea of creativity in Drama, offering explanation of why creativity is important in education. Her views are very much in alignment with Ken Robinson

Robinson (2006): A significant, through controversial, theorist who has contributed a great deal to the arts in education. Robinson argues that the arts are collaborative, creative and more humanistic in their approach, again offering reasons why student engage in the subject of Drama.

Simons (2002): Explores the idea of collaboration in Drama. The author posits that because of the collaborative nature of drama, the subject becomes more sensitive in its approach, again offering reasons why students may engage in Drama.

Freeman and Sullivan (2003): Build upon the standpoints of Simons, by arguing that collaboration is fundamental to human life and that Drama is much more holistic in nature.

Stevens and McGuinn (2004): Explore the issues surrounding English teaching in the current climate. They argue that the pressures placed on literacy levels have resulted in English no longer being an arts-based subject. Furthermore they argue that creativity is important in Drama teaching, but is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve in English classrooms.

It has been interesting to explore some of my previous questions through the literature review. For example, I have questioned whether Drama is an approach to teaching or a subject it its own right (Literature Reviews: Reflections and Inquiry Questions). I have discussed this with my SIG also. In my on inquiry, I am treating the two as separate subjects, but I found Fleming (2012) ‘The Arts in Education: An Introduction to aesthetics, theory and pedagogy’ offered a significant standpoint in this argument:

… Fleming discusses a key issue that arises in the literature and provides rationale for the confusion between learning with drama and drama as a subject discipline. In contrast to Fautley and Savage (2011), he identifies that there are two different types of Drama in education: ‘learning in’ and ‘learning through’ drama. Fleming (2012) defines learning through drama as the type of drama that is used to further learning outcomes in any subject area; this could be applied to Fautley and Savage’s cross-curricular approach to learning. Whereas, learning in drama refers to the learning of discipline specific material (Fleming 2012). He considers both the advantages and disadvantages of learning in and learning through drama, reflecting key issues that have been reflected within my own inquiry, concluding that:

‘if the arts are subsumed into the learning objectives of other subject the approach is in danger of becoming mechanical and restricted. On the other hands, a ‘learning in’ approach runs the risk of embracing a traditional, separatist conception of art that plays little heed to the social and cultural context’ (Fleming 2012 p 77).

Today, I have been transcribing my interviews. This has been a lengthy process, as identified by much of the research literature, but it has given me the opportunity to reflect more closely on the themes that are arising between and across the participants answers. Due to confidentiality I will not share what the participants have said during the interviews, however I have noticed that every interviewee has identified that group work is an engagement strategy and that students respond positivity to collaborative work in both English and Drama. As shown below theorists and researchers believe that students engage in Drama because of the focus on collaborative work, but I have found that this is also the case in English in my inquiry.

…The Arts Council England (2003) argue that Drama allows students to use their imaginations to make sense of the world and their personal experiences, develop confidence and control, work creatively and develop effective collaborative skills. Furthermore, the Arts Council England justifies its stance that drama develops thinking skills by highlighting reasoning and evaluation. The organisation states that ‘Human concerns and relationships are the foundations of much drama’ (Arts Council England 2003 p. 7), which enables students to develop empathy, flexibility and risk-taking; skills that the Arts Council England (2003) claims are essential in the world of work. Again, although this document does not focus specifically on engagement in Drama, it offers rational explanations as to why students engage in Drama.

… As researchers and theorists have identified, collaboration is both a central aspect in creativity and forms the bases of Drama. Simons (2002), not only perceives that communication is an essential aspect of life, but hypothesises that as students discuss ideas in Drama they develop a greater understanding and awareness of others. Additionally Simons (2002) posits that through this process of communication and understanding, drama becomes more sensitive and inclusive in its approach to learning. Similarly, in their article Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton (2003) discuss how creative drama can be used to improve academic performance. Their ideas that drama can be used as an approach to teaching can be compared to Fleming’s (2012) definition of learning through drama. Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton argue in agreement with Simons (2002) that ‘The ability of a person to interact with others is considered one of the most important and significant attributes of mankind’ (2003 p 132). Furthermore, Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton (2003) argue that the ‘Dramatic activities are holistic in nature’. This again links to Robinson’s (2006) ideas of the way we experience life. The theory that collaboration is a central aspect on human life could suggest a further reason why student engage in Drama. In terms of my own inquiry, the drama specialist stated that the majority of drama is in groups, which students tend to enjoy. Interestingly, all English specialists in my inquiry identified group work as an engagement strategy in their subject. This suggests that Drama’s heavily reliance of group work could be one of the reasons why students engage in drama.

I am looking forward to analysing the interviews in greater detail through the data analysis process. As Lara has identified in her blog, the search for literature is both continuing and varied. I feel that after I have analysed the interviews I will find more areas to research in the literature.

Reference List

Anderson, M. (2012) MasterClass in Drama Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning London: Continuum International Publishing Group

Arts Council England Drama in schools www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/726.doc [Accessed on 5th March 2016]

Davies, S. (2010) ‘Creativity in Drama: Explanations and Explorations’ Drama Australia Journal, 33 (2), 31-44

Fautley, M. and Savage, J. (2011) Cross-Curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school: The Arts: Drama, Visual Art, Music and Design USA: Routledge

Fleming, M. (2012) The Arts in Education: An Introduction to aesthetics, theory and pedagogy New York: Routledge

Freeman, G. D., Sullivan, K. and Fulton, R. C. (2003) ‘Effects of Creative Drama on Self-Concept, Social Skills and Problem Behaviour’ The Journal of Educational Research, 96 (3), 131-138

OFSTED (2012) Moving Forward in English https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181204/110118.pdf [Accessed on 22nd March 2016]

Robinson, K. (2006) Do schools kill creativity? http://www.ted.com/playlists/171/the_most_popular_talks_of_all?gclid=CjwKEAjww9O3BRDp1tq0jIP023YSJAB0-j1SJPtorOkmu-CxhXZ3HlvDbMSF-6k0DWRD6QlBi9dFXBoCKgTw_wcB [Accessed on 20^th March 2016]

Simons, J. (2002) ‘Drama and the Learner’ Melborne Studies in Education, 43 (2), 1-11

Stevens, D. and McGuinn, N. (2004) The Art of Teaching Secondary English: Innovative and creative approaches London: Routledge

Inquiry Stage: Thoughts from my Learning Journal and Data Analysis

I have referred back to Reader 7 and the Module 3 Handbook today, to ensure that I am still on schedule for my inquiry. I am still in Stage 3 of the Module, as I am carrying out interviews, observations, having conversations with professionals and using my Learning Journal to reflect upon these processes. As I am carrying out the inquiry, I am beginning to find that I am asking myself more and more questions, rather than coming to a final ‘answer’.

(Middlesex University, 2015, Module 3 Handbook, p 13)

Current Module Stage…

My observations have surprised me, as I have not found what I expected I would find. I have found from this process, that I have had to look at the ‘place’ of Drama and English in the National Curriculum more closely to try and made comparisons between and across the two subjects. I feel this process has made me more aware of the complexities of teaching, especially aspects of planning, delivery and technological issues that can affect engagement in lessons. I feel that the literature review process has helped me to understand teaching approaches that enhance engagement in more detail and I have begun to make comparisons and contrasts between what I have seen and the findings in the literature. I have been recording in depth analysis of situations in my Learning Journal, but in terms of confidentiality I don’t think it is appropriate to post these on my blog.

I have found the interview process so far very interesting and informative but also, surprisingly, enjoyable. I have appreciated allocating designated time to discuss issues that I feel are important with experienced teaching staff to help inform my own practices. I have recognised in my Learning Journal that although I have become reflective as a practitioner, I often do not get time in a busy day to take time to discuss educational debates and reform in an in depth analytical way with colleagues. I have also discovered that some of the practitioners I have worked with on this process have also carried out educational research, and it has been fascinating to hear their experiences and opinions of this process. I have found the variety of differing opinions on engaging teaching approaches and the relationship between Drama and English in the curriculum fascinating; I feel that it will require in depth analysis of these interviews in order for me to find reasonable correlations and contrasts between participants’ perceptions. I have noticed that views on engagement share similarities between the practitioners I have interviewed so far, but also differ in so many ways even within the same subject area. I have been recording my reflections in my Learning Journal, but again to maintain confidentiality and anonymity I do not feel that it is fair to share these views online.

Next Steps and Thinking Forward…

As I have established in my reflections above, the analysis of the interviews and lesson observations will be a complex process. Referring back to my inquiry plan, I identified that I would use Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006 in Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 2010) for analysing my qualitative findings.

(Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 2010 p 233)

Although I still believe this is a good method of analysis to use, I still feel a little unprepared to begin to analyse my findings for both the observations and interviews. I think the sheer volume and variety of data is also adding to this feeling on uncertainty. My first stage will be to transcribe my interviews/observations. However, I feel that I then need to conduct more research into this method of analysis – particularly focusing on the ‘generation of initial codes’ and ‘reviewing themes’. I am going to look back at Blaxter, Hughes and Tight's (2010) chapters, 'Preparing to analyse data' and 'Analysing your data', paying particular attention to the sections on observations and interviews.

ACTION POINT: Conduct more research into data analysis of qualitative date in art-based research.

ACTION POINT: Ensure that I am making notes throughout this process and fully understand what steps I need to take in order to interpret data objectively

I have found the inquiry process for far enjoyable and enlightening, although not completely without its stresses and complexities. I feel that I need to fully prepare for the next stage of the inquiry to ensure all of this is communicated effectively in my final submission.

Reference List

Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (2012) How to Research. England: Open University Press

Inquiry Update: Literature Review so far...

I have realised that it has been a while since I last blogged. I have been writing up sections of my literature review in order to help me identify and understand the current theories and debates on the topic is engagement in education. This process has also helped me to understand my own opinions on the literature, and whether it correlates or contradicts what I have discovered in my own inquiry thus far, particularly in observations and interviews. Inspired by Lisa’s blog, I have decided to briefly list my ‘guests’ to my literature review dinner party, so far, and the reason I have invited these researchers:

Reschly and Christenson (2012): the authors have co-edited, ‘The Handbook of Engagement in Education’ which includes chapters of the views representing many significant researchers. The book provides a good outline of current debates, whilst at the same time offering a clear overview of engagement in education.

Fredricks, Blumenfled and Paris (2004): the researchers have published a key text, which is often referred to when defining engagement. There is debate on whether there is one true definition of engagement, however the majority of authors identify that engagement is multifaceted, definable in three ways: behavioural, cognitive and emotional.

Furrer and Skinner (2003): both are noteworthy researchers in the field, with decades of research behind both. They highlight that teaching directly impacts upon engagement. Argue the importance of ‘relatedness’ and teacher-student relationships

Roorda et al (2011): states that teachers warmth and support is vital in engaging students. They write specifically about how adolescents are as reliant, if not more reliant, than younger students on teacher-student-relationships (TSRs).

Kelm and Connell (2004): introduce the idea that care is important but so is structure in a classroom environment.

Skinner and Belmont (1993): have written a key text in the literature of engagement, which is referred to by many other authors in the field. They explain why structure is so important.

Jang, Reeve and Deci (2010): all of the researchers have published independent work and are all significant contributors to the vital theory of ‘autonomy support’ in engagement. They theorise that autonomy support increases engagement. They also identify that structure is not the same as control. Independently, Reeve (2009) has identified why teachers adopt a more controlling style over autonomy support; these include reasons such as pressures from above and below as well as control being perceived as good behaviour management.

Ainley (2012) and Darr (2012): both individual researchers argue that motivation is not inextricably linked to engagement (unlike the researchers above), arguing that motivation is not essential to achieving engagement in activities.

Janosz (2012): this authors questions whether engagement can be studied as an independent construct, as engagement is so reliant on the environment in which the learning activity is taking place and is mainly human in its nature.

I have decided to post some sections of my literature review on my blog because I believe that they are important in my inquiry, especially as my first inquiry questions is: Using subject specialists’ perceptions and literature, what is student engagement in the teaching of English and Drama? In the sections below, I have tried to outline the current debates in the literature, whilst relating this to my inquiry so far.

... Reschly and Christenson (2012) state that the subject of engagement, although a fairly new term in educational discourse introduced in the 1980s, has become a highly researched topic in recent decades that has ‘captured the interested and curiosity of international researchers from a range of discipline’ (p v). Reschly and Christenson (2012) conclude, in alignment with many scholarly theorists, that engagement in indistinguishably linked to effective learning, which is a key determiner for academic success. Therefore, it engagement offers important insight into the understanding of student learning (Reschly and Christenson 2012). A key fact that arises in the literature is that student engagement decreases as children progress through their education (Assor 2010).

... Defining ‘engagement’ has become one of the most controversial debates within the literature itself. Reschly and Christenson (2012) state that ‘The study of engagement is hindered by lack of consensus in both the number of subtypes and the definitions of student engagement’ (p 11). This key flaw in the research has made defining my inquiry considerably difficult. From studying the literature, it has become evident that the work of Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004) has become paramount in the definition of engagement for most researchers in the field. They identify that engagement is multifaceted and can be defined in three ways, ‘Behavioral engagement draw on the idea of participation’, ‘Emotional Engagement encompasses positive and negative reactions to teachers… and willingness to do the work’ lastly, ‘cognitive engagement… incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness to extert the effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult skills’ (Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris 2004 p 60). The majority agree that engagement is a multidimensional construct, however the lack of clarity in the facilitators and indicators of engagement has meant that research in this field has lost precision (Reschly and Christenson 2012). In terms of my inquiry, the most detailed and concise definition derivers from the work of Reschly and Christenson, who have evaluated the theories and debates of thirty-five published researchers, many of whom are experts in this field:

‘Student engagement refers to student’s active participation in academic and co-curricular or school-related activities, and commitment to educational goals and learning. Engaged students find learning meaningful, are interesting in their learning and future. It is a multidimensional construct that consists of behavioral (including academic), cognitive and affective subtypes. Student engagement drives learning; requires energy and effort; in affected by multiple contextual influences; and can be achieved by all learners’ (Reschly and Christenson 2012 p 816-817).

... Furrer and Skinner (2003) theorise that ‘relatedness’ is a key concept in successfully engaging students. Relatedness can also be referred to as ‘connectedness’ or ‘belonging’, and this process includes, ‘views about the self as loveable (or unworthy of love) and about the social world as trustworthy (or hostile)’ and has been used to explain, ‘the long-term effects of secure versus insecure attachments to caregivers’ (Furrer and Skinner 2003 p 148). Furrer and Skinner (2003) hypothesize that relatedness is a key contributor to engagement in classrooms when children are exposed to challenge. They further argue that children who feel supported by their teachers become more engaged as they feel valued which in turns results in positive emotions (Furrer and Skinner 2003). It is widely accepted by academics, in addition to professionals in my work place, that the role of the teachers is significantly diverse (Anderson 2012). Particularly in my role as an Academic Coach, it has become evident that teachers become much more than simply a vessel to deliver facts to students to pass exams.

... Roorda et al (2011) hypothesised that the impact of TSRs would show a stronger correlation with younger children, similarly to Furrer and Skinner’s (2003) study. Yet, their findings evidenced that ‘in contrast with strong assumption in the literature, affective TSRs remained important, or were even more influential, for older students, even into late adolescence’ (Roorda et al 2011 p 520). These results are much closer in configuration in terms of my own research and observations within my work placement. Both studies shows that effective teacher-student-relationships were important in engaging students, yet such contrasting findings suggest that the impact of the teacher-student-relationship is variable across different learning environments. In this way, my own observations may be as a result of the specific social, cultural and organisational environment of my school and not generalized across all adolescents in secondary schools.

... Jang, Reeve and Deci (2010) interpret that autonomy support can be characterized by the way teachers, ‘(a) nurture inner motivational resources, (b) rely on noncontrolling informational language, and (c) acknowledge the students’ perspectives and feelings’ (p 589). This differs from control as the child is at the center of the instructive approaches adopted by the teacher (Jang, Reeve and Deci 2010). Jang (2008) queries whether the language used by teachers to engage students in tasks and posits that ‘Do it because I said so’ (Jang 2008 p 802) is controlling and therefore does not engage students. Jang (2008) further argues that rationales are important in engaging students in learning activities, particularly in potentially boring and seemingly irrelevant learning tasks. As Jang (2008) identifies, I have seen how teachers in English and in Drama give rationales for completing tasks, often showing empathy and listening to students’ objections about how they do not find a task interesting or relevant. These discussions teachers have with their classes about why they are being asked to complete and activity are often key factors in students then engaging in particularly uninteresting tasks.

... Ainley (2012) argues that ‘one way of distinguishing motivation and engagement is to identify motivation as an underlying psychological process and engagement as a descriptor for the level of involvement or connection between a person or activity’ (Ainley 2012 p 285). Furthermore, Darr (2012) ascertains a similar standpoint that, ‘motivation is understood as the ‘why’ are reason behind a given behaviour’ (p 32) and ‘engagement as the actual partners of action and involvement a person displays in tasks and activities’ (p 34). Therefore, engagement in closely linked to motivation, yet these researchers argue that motivation does not have to be present for students to be engaged.

Reference List

Ainley, M. (2012) “Students’ Interest and Engagement in Classroom Activities” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 283-302

Assor, A. (2012) “Allowing Choice and Nurturing an Inner Compass: Educational Practices Supporting Students’ Need for Autonomy” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 421-439

Christenson, S. L., Reschly A. L. and Wylie, C. (2012) “Preface” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. v-ix

Christenson, S. L., Reschly A. L. (2012) “Jingle, Jangle and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 3-20

Darr, C. W. (2012) “Measuring Student Engagement: The Development of a Scale for Formative Use” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 707-723

Furrer, C. and Skinner, E. (2003) ‘Sense of Relatedness as a Factor in Children’s Academic Engagement and Performance’ Journal of Education Psychology, 95 (1), 148-162

Jang, H. (2008) ‘Supporting Students’ Motivation, Engagement, and Learning During an Uninteresting Activity’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 798-811

Jang, H., Reeve, J. and Deci, E. L. (2010) ‘Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 588-600

Janosz, M. (2012) “Part VI Commentary: Outcomes of Engagement and Engagement as an Outcome: Some Consensus, Divergences and Unanswered Questions” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 695-703

Kelm, A. M. and Connell J. P. (2004) ‘Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement’ The Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 262-273

Reeve, J. (2009) ‘Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Towards Students and How They can Become More Autonomy Supportive’ Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 159-175

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, M. Y., Spilt, J. L. and Oort, F. (2011) The Influence of Affective Teacher-Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach Rrview of Educational Research, 81 (4), 493-529

Skinner, E. A. and Belmont, M. J. (1993) ‘Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behaviour and Students Engagement Across the School Year’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571-581

Skinner, E. A. and Pitzer, J. R. (2012) “Developing Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping and Everyday Resilience” in S L Christenson, A L Reschly and C Wylie  (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement London: Springer pp. 21-44