In her article, Cooper (2014, p. 364)
outlines that there is a significant lack of understanding of why students
engage or disengage from school classrooms in American high schools, despite
the fact that there are discrepancies between, ‘low levels of engagement and
high importance of engagement’. This article not only defines ‘engagement’ on a
classroom level, but also aims to address the significant issue of the role of
the teacher in classroom engagement, ‘an individual student’s likelihood of
engaging might rest on chance as classes are made and students are distributed
across available options (Cooper, 2014, p. 364). Cooper (2014) also aims to
provide a three part framework, by which teaching practices can be analysed in
correlation to positive classroom engagement.
In the introductory paragraph, Cooper (2014)
states that, ‘Classroom engagement is an active state of responding to a class
through focused behaviour, emotion and cognition’ (p. 365). Similarly to both
the work of Parsons et al. and Wang, Bergin & Bergin (2014), Cooper (2014)
identifies that engagement can be categorised into cognitive, affective
(emotional) and behavioural engagement. However, Cooper (2014, p. 365) argues
that, ‘Although engagement occurs along these three dimensions, these elements
are also highly synergistic, such as hey feed off and into one another, building
the boundaries between them and collectively constituting a holistic experience
of classroom engagement’.
Cooper provides a line of argument through
explaining the work of Nakkula (2003) to introduce the concept that student
identity is linked to emotional engagement. Cooper (2014) states that identity
is formed through relationships with peers and teachers in both classes and
extracurricular activities through their successes and failures. Through the
use of existing literary research, Cooper (2014, p. 366) argues that, ‘this
emerging body of research suggests that identity development could be an
underlying mechanism by which adolescents subconsciously make meaning of
classroom experience and then engage or disengage accordingly’.
Under the subheading, ‘Teaching for
Engagement’, Cooper (2014) outlines her motives for this article, by
introducing the theory of three differing teaching practices that engage
students (connective instruction, academic rigor and lively teaching), using
the work of other theorist. Cooper (2014, p. 366) defines ‘Connective
instruction’ based on the work of Martin & Dowson (2009) as, ‘practices
that emphasize individual students’. Additionally, Wolf, Crosson & Resnick
(2005) refer to ‘academic rigor’ as ‘practices that promote the academic
dimension of the classroom’ (Cooper, 2014, p. 366). Finally, Cooper (2014, p.
366) states that the third practice is ‘lively teaching practices, which are
conceptualized here as those that emphasize active learning opportunities’. The
study aims to examine how these three theorised practices can be used
individually, or in combination to engage students in the classroom.
Furthermore, Cooper (2014) argues that this study will inform teachers’
decisions about how to attain high student engagement levels.
Next, the article provides practical ways of
thinking and recognising the differing teaching practices, which are then used
in the subsequent study. Cooper (2014, p. 367) defines the theoretical
conceptions of Martin & Dowson (2009) as six teaching practices, that can
be recognised in a classroom as the following: promoting relevance, conveying
care, understanding students, giving affirmation, using humour to relate to student
and allowing self-expression. Academic rigor (justified through the theoretical
knowledge of Wolf et al.) is categorised by: challenging work, academically
pushing students and delivering passion for content. Interestingly, Cooper
(2014) does not draw upon existing theoretical frameworks in the identification
of lively teaching as the following: games and fun activities, group work and
assigning projects. Cooper’s
(2014) perspective is that all strategies will engage students but, she hypothesizes
that connective instruction will produce the most engagement, as the focus of the
study is on adolescent participants.
(Cooper, 2014, p 367)
Cooper (2014) outlines the research methodologies,
stating that a representational sample was chosen consisting of 1, 132 students
from grades 9-12 of a Texas school, where surveys were given to these students
that asked questions relating to the 12 teaching practices outlined from
connective instruction, academic rigor and lively teaching. A pilot survey was
conducted were teaching staff gave paper surveys to students to report on their
lessons (Cooper, 2014). However, Cooper (2014) questioned the validity of this
survey data (using existing theoretical research knowledge), as students may be
influenced by the fact that they were reporting on the teacher that provided
the questionnaire, therefore different teaching staff from assorted subjects
administered the surveys during the actual research process. Case studies were
also used in classes where there were discrepancies between reported engagement
levels from students (Cooper, 2014). Cooper (2014) outlines the process where
six to eight students, who were representational of the classes, were selected
to be observed and interviewed. Evidence was provided using Regression Analysis
of survey data (quantitative data) and case study data (qualitative data) was
transcribed and coded (Cooper, 2014).
Cooper (2014) concluded that challenge
(academic rigor) showed the weakest correlation with engagement, whereas care
and understanding (connective instruction) showed the strongest correlation
with engagement. Moreover results indicated that, ‘connective instruction and
engagement was more than seven times stronger than the relationship for rigor
and lively teaching (Cooper, 2014, p. 382). In terms of subject areas, Cooper’s
(2014) evidence showed that, ‘students were more engaged in electives –
particularly in the arts (p. 379) and this may have been due to the fact that
English and academic subject placed greater focus on academic rigor. Cooper
(2014) concludes that all three teaching practices promoted and increased
classroom engagement. However, Cooper (2014) also argues that, ‘variations in
engagement might also be due to other factors, such as difference across
students or other class characteristics’ (p. 377).
Finally, Cooper (2014) perceives that
further research would need to be undertaken to fully examine if connective
instruction does in fact increase student engagement. However, she does argue
that ‘with a stronger, more systematic understanding of how various teaching
practices link to engagement, educators can begin to more uniformly modify
classes for increased engagement (Cooper, 2014, p. 397)
I chose to review this article because it
helped me to ‘move forward’ in my inquiry by finding out more about engagement
in education (blog post link). Secondly, I also want to find out what
strategies and tasks teachers in English/Literacy and Performing Arts use to
engage students. I felt that analysing the concept of three teaching practices
in this article, I would be able to link my observational data to existing
theory. Furthermore, I would be able to identify if there are any links between
what I find in my own inquiry and the conclusions and results in this existing
research. I found the research to be valid, as it was well referenced and
researched with existing theoretical knowledge and findings.
Thinking critically, this research was carried
out in the American education system. This makes me question whether it is
directly related to my inquiry topic and whether I can legitimately make
comparisons with my own research and Cooper’s (2014) research conclusions. Although
this article recognises the research’s limitations, these findings are only
representational of one school, this can vary massively between schools within
one country let along across countries. I also question whether Cooper (2014)
was biased towards proving that connective instruction was the most effective
way to engage students.
Bibliography
Cooper, K. S.
(2014) Eliciting Engagement in the High School Classrooms: A Mixed-Methods
Examination of Teaching Practices. American Educational Research Journal, April
2014, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp. 363-402
Martin,
A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.
Nakkula, M.
(2003) Identity and possibility: Adolescent development and the potential of
schools. In: Sadowski, M Adolescents at school: Perspective of youth identity,
and education, pp. 7-18 Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Wolf,
M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous
reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26(1), 27–53.
