RTL2 Assignment 2

Group Topic: Student Engagement

Part A: Literature Review (1200 Words)

What are the implications of students with low-SES on student engagement within English
classrooms?

To discuss the consequences of student engagement Kelly (2008) uses the scope of English
languages in middle schools in order to focus on low-SES students and "minorities" in the U.S. He
connects the constructive interaction of the participant with his research into social psychology to
greater involvement and a higher quality of his work. Via his study, he then recognizes that low SES
can play a role in participating students, but most of that is related to individual differences. He
found that the creation of individual narratives is indiscriminate about social status and thus
overlooks the presumption that the low ESS is an important variable in determining the presence of
students in English classrooms. He supports this through the middle-class background lens and the
desire that students need to interact more regularly doing so, “cultivated their children’s verbal
skills” (Kelly, 2008) In-turn will lead to more student involvement. He argues that what determines
participation in classrooms are not racial or low-SES, but the past rates of achievement of the
individual student.

The Callow and Orlando paper(2015), which explores more closely the participation effects of low
SES students, clearly contradicts these ideas. Based on their perception, students with low-SES begin
to experience a disadvantage and this is not only due to individual experiences, but also because of
their financial position. We consider that by not addressing the needs of the low-SES classes, we can
“amplify rather than alleviate these existing challenges for learning” (Callow and Orlando, 2015). The
study "fair go pedagogy" uses specific methods of procedures and interactions to provide knowledge
in tandem with the use of new technologies in the future of teaching pedagogy. Our results show an
increase in the participation of students with a high SES rate and thus link this engagement to the
integration of effective pedagogy and new technology (the fair go pedagogy).

Similar to the Callow and Orlando principles, American scientists Lawson and Lawson (2013) also
seek to recognize better learning structures targeting low SES and homelessness, but in a US
context. Lawson and Lawson reveal in the article the specific needs of current student engagement
research. While a large part of students will benefit from a great deal of work and research, We
understand that participation is mostly a "dynamic synergistic mechanism" through their
understanding of the social ecology of education which involves student engagement requiring
ongoing research to help the nuanced and complex needs of students with poorer education. The
main purpose of this article is to ensure true education for the low SES students. The main objective
of this article is constant scientists.

In identifying student engagement for students with low-SES Park et.al (2012) identifies the link
between emotional engagements with increased student engagement. More importantly, they
highlight the importance of promoting a positive psychological wellbeing particularly for students
with low-SES. The study conducts a 3 year study of year 9 students all from low-SES backgrounds and
uses different ongoing psychological measures in order to draw comparisons to their classwork and
their mental wellbeing. In their research they come to the conclusion that students with low-SES
engagement is connected to emotional engagement and as a result, identify that teachers should be
creating activities that not only cater to the curriculum but that also “are supportive of students’
psychological needs.” (Park, et.al, 2012). They state that engagement within the classroom could be
better piqued for students with low-SES if work created is contextual and that appropriate support is
essential in achieving academic success and greater student engagement

Callan (2017) also identifies the link between student engagement and students with low-SES. In his
article he contrasts females at a high-SES school with males at a lower-SES school in order to
establish positive practices that could lead to better achievement within these schools. Within his
research Callan had identified different school wide teaching strategies between the two schools.
While it is known that a schools SES influences the quality of learning through lack of resources,
Callan also found that within these low-SES schools there was also a weaker pedagogical framework.
Rather than utilizing learning strategies that aim for academic achievement as with high-SES schools,
Callan states that the pedagogical strategies used by low-SES schools did not aim for the same sense
of achievement. In doing so Callan challenges the idea of low-SES being the issue in regards to
engagement, where in a school environment the school SES is seems to play a bigger role in securing
appropriate pedagogy and education for its students.

Similarly Sawyer (2017) posits this understanding, illustrating how “students from low-SES
communities can be let down by education” and bases it on the context of the English classroom.
The paper uses research for a 15 year project that was run in public schools in Sydney’s south west
and identifies past pedagogical practices that were successful in creating learning opportunities for
students with low-SES. Sawyer states that successful low-SES classroom engagement is modelled
through a “form of sustained professional development for teachers” and in doing so places the
proficiency of a teacher as the catalyst for student engagement, especially for students with low-SES.
As a result, Sawyer aims for teachers to actively participate in teacher development as well as
teacher research in order to cater to students of low-SES backgrounds.

In another study, Zammit (2011) critiques traditional pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment as she
claims it disengages many students from low-SES backgrounds. She claims that within Australian
classrooms, the traditional learning practices that are instated are rigid and deny a sense of
achievement for many students with low-SES within an English classroom. In identifying the positive
practices of the multimodal, her research implements multilateral assessments in high school
classrooms as a new way to incorporate ICT in the classroom and provide a new medium of
assessment. She finds that this development takes away a sense of judgement on students with low-
SES as it “disrupts the delivery of negative messages about the students’ knowledge, ability, place,
voice and control” (Zammit, 2011), as this is a newer practice so the focus on error is alleviated. Also
this practice sees to increase student engagement and has linked to improvements in their language
and literacy outcomes.

Conclusion

The research above sees positive ways to increase student engagement within the classroom for
students with low-SES. Congruently it also highlights the impact that this positive engagement could
have for the students, as it highlights many areas of difficulty that would arise when creating
activities and developing pedagogy. In seeing the contrast from different articles, one thing stands
out the most in regards to students with low-SES, that we should make more attempt in
understanding the nuances and complex needs of students with low-SES, this is informed through
thorough research.

Part B: Data Collection Protocol

The following data collection is informed by the literary review found above, in this certain questions
are constructed in order to cement certain ideas found in the review. My Interview pool will use a
full time teacher, a casual teacher as well as a preservice teacher who have all taught in an English
classroom in order to compile understanding of student engagement. There will be a minimum of 3
candidates for the interview.

Interview Protocol:

 Teacher’s name to be established. They must have taught an English classroom.

 Provide interviewee with ethics sheet with brief outline of protocol, instructing a digital
signature of it (printed name). On this protocol there will be a look at the main topic of
student engagement as well as privacy concerns being covered.
 Interviews will be conducted online via Skype and transcribed onto paper.
 Interviews will run anywhere between 5-15 minutes with questions that are constructed
based on the literature review.
 Anytime the Interviewer feels that they want to stop they have the freedom to leave
 Interviewer to follow a script surrounding 10 open ended questions. Any tangents gone
through will be considered when addressing the Data collection protocol explanation.
 These questions are flexible and mostly act as a guideline to ensure time is used efficiently
and that the interviewer will stay on topic.
 Below is 3 questions that may be asked that can be built upon.

Questions List:

1. What are some difficulties that you have observed in your classes that are unique to
students with low-SES?
2. How would you increase engagement levels of low-SES background students in the
classroom?
3. Do you think the current curriculum caters for students with low-SES?
Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled 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.

This project will look specifically at the implications of students with low-SES on student engagement
within English classrooms

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information 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 answering these Interview questions.
 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: __________________________________

Part C: Data Collection Protocol Explanation

Interviews were chosen as the most appropriate protocol for this literature review. With the
nuances and specificities of the needs of students with low-SES an interview can expand on simple
questions with the combination of personal experience which plays a big role in the understanding
of how to best suit the needs of low-SES students.

This interview will start with a brief overview of the topic of Students with low-SES and student
engagement. Interview is semi-structured with three main direct questions to follow. According to
George Mason University (2010) this ensures that the interviews are efficient with time as well
having the potential to expand on certain questions. In doing so the interviewer also ensures that all
questions are similar, providing consistency throughout the candidates. Interviews will be conducted
online via video chatting software Skype, due to time and distance being difficult to manage.
Another advantage is the fact that interviews can be recorded to make sure transcribing has little
errors. And also by proposing the interviews online via video, an Interview setting can still be
replicated.

In regards to the ethical processes, the names of the interviewees will be based on their teaching
title; e.g. Pre-Service Teacher 1, Casual Teacher 1, Full-time Teacher 1. Those who are interviewed
will be of an English teaching background in order to cater to the specificity of English students with
low-SES. Those interviewed will be given consent sheets as well as a brief introduction during the
beginning of the Skype interview.
References
Callan, G. (2017). Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement. Psychology in the
Schools, 1106-1122.

Callow, J., & Orlando, J. (2015). Enabling exemplary teaching: a framework of student engagement
for students from low socio-economic backgrounds with implications for technology and
literacy practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1-23.

George Mason University. (2010). Interviewing for Action Research. NCLC 203.

Kelly, S. (2008). Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms.
Social Science Research, 434-448.

Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement
Research, Policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research, 432-479.

Park, S., Holloway, S., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Jin, L. (2012). What Makes Students Engaged in
Learning? A Time-Use Study of Within- and Between-Individual Predictors of Emotional
Engagement in Low-Performing High Schools. Journal of Youth and Adolesence, 390-401.

Sawyer, W. (2017). GARTH BOOMER ADDRESS 2017: Low SES contexts and English. English in
Australia; Volume 52 Number 3, 11-20.

Zammit, K. (2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-economic
backgrounds: using Bernstein's pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and Education,
203-220.