Student Engagement : Classroom Action Research Implementation

Active student engagement is seen to be a predictor of student learning and performance (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White & Salovey, 2012) and a considerable challenge in previous classes has been the high rate of Academic Integrity breaches. A Culture of Academic Integrity includes Student Engagement (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016 cited in Torrens University Australia, 2020c). The challenge within this project was to actively engage more students, while still in the Blended Synchronous Learning Context, and, in the process, teach these students to build on their knowledge and that of their peers. The concept of the More Knowledgeable Other (Verenikina, 2003, McLeod, 2019) was core to the intention, based on Vygotsky’s Social Constructivist theory of learning, in which peer learning and social collaboration appear to satisfy the requirement for socialisation for students who are currently isolated. The Zone of Proximal Development supports peer learning, allowing students to take advantage of knowledge possessed by peers and not just the facilitator (Verenikina, 2003; McLeod, 2019). These are also supported by the Community of Inquiry (CoI), alignment with Blended Learning contexts (Garrison, 2020). Active engagement is, therefore, a logical precursor to the demonstration of the needs and methods of building the requisite skills in critical thinking and application of theory to practical scenarios. The research approach was an extension of a previous approach, due to the necessity of working with students in a Remote Synchronous Learning context and moving away from lectures. In previous classes, I had begun to use Mentimeter (Mentimeter.com), as a means of reflecting on learning, and providing quizzes to refresh key concepts. This product uses slides to collect responses from students and display them in the form of answers to multiple choice questions, word clouds or open-ended text. Collected data can be downloaded as a spreadsheet for further analysis. I had also previously introduced Jamboard, a Google interactive whiteboard product which is accessible via computer or smart device and could be used by students in collaboration to build scenarios or responses to prompts. (Jamboard.Google.Com).

For this research, I built upon activities from previous classes, and planned specific formative Learning and Teaching Activities (LTA) which were aligned to the requirements of the Summative Assessment Tasks (AT), and therefore closed the loop in Constructive Alignment, by ensuring alignment between LTA, AT and the SLO. (Biggs, 2003). Activities were small group collaborative activities based on peer learning and Social Constructivism (McLeod, 2019; Garrison, 2020). To achieve the desired outcomes, I had “flipped” the classroom (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018) and required students to prepare for each class, by reviewing class materials in the form of a slide pack and an associated recording explaining key concepts, providing further areas for consideration. In some classes, I also provided additional materials such as academic papers, small case studies or You Tube clips to further explain the more difficult concepts.

The planned LTA, their alignment to the AT and additional comments, are found in CAR Activities, below. The LTA, carried out over 5 classes, were initially intended over 4 but I found that students required more time than planned to resolve set tasks. Each LTA was aligned to a component of a Summative AT, intending students to collaboratively develop solutions within the LTA. Students built a single Jamboard slide based on initial theory, as a reinforcement of class materials. Students were then divided randomly into small groups of 4 – 6, and were allocated a blank Jamboard slide, with LTA instructions. The groups worked collaboratively to build the solution, and since Collaborate-Ultra (LMS) does not allow recording of Group Breakout Rooms, I shared the Jamboard slides and moved between the slides, prompting groups where assistance was required. Some groups seemed to take longer than others to begin their work, however each group achieved a level of outcome prior to moving all students back to the Main Room. A debrief, and feedback discussion was undertaken once all students were back in the Main Room, with a presentation by the Group Leader in most cases. It did appear that some groups found the activities difficult and some were unable to use their microphones to report back. Students were provided with access to the Jamboard slides outside of class to refresh their knowledge and understanding. These activities were also recorded and available for students following classes.

CAR Activities.pdf

Download PDF • 110KB

Analysis