EDCURSEC701

Core Practices Within an Observed Learning Environment

Introduction
This enquiry is guided by the seeking of evidence of (pursuant to understanding) those competencies
which facilitate effective teaching that defined by David Berliner (1987) as the deliver[y] of a
curriculum that matches agreed-on outcomes (p. 95).
Upon examination of Berliners hypothesis, it is clear that effective teaching although a seemingly
simple concept actually unfurls into a complex structure of micro-competencies, which, in joint
exercise, deliver effective teaching. In Berliners (1987) terms, effective teaching occurs through:

The provision of clear instructional outcomes (p. 96) that are valued both by the curriculum

and students (p. 102);

The provision of opportunities for students to learn the knowledge and skill that these

instructional outcomes expect or require (p. 96);

The delivery of the curriculum in a way that is matched to instructional outcomes (p. 97);
The delivery of the curriculum in such a way that students have sufficient time to learn what
is required by their instructional outcomes (both in terms of the time allocated to tasks by the
teacher (p. 97), and the time students actually spend engaged with the learning material) (p.

101);
The provision of opportunities for students to experience a high level of success in learning
tasks (p. 100).

In addition, Berliner (1987) posits the following aspects of instruction as essential to the delivery of
an effective curriculum:

The appropriate pacing of curriculum delivery (p. 107);

The effective structuring of the lesson, so that its goals are available to students in order that

they understand the necessity of tasks in the present (and wider) context (p. 107);
The provision of ongoing monitoring of students learning (rather than allowing work to be
carried on independently, unchecked) (p. 108).

The combined delivery of these micro-competencies, in Berliners (1987) view, facilitates and
enhances student achievement and engagement (p. 104). As such, the focus of this author, throughout
practicum experience, has been to seek to understand these competencies through observing their
performance by mentor teachers, engaging in a review of the appropriate literature, and seeking to
personally enact them before a classroom. For the purpose of this enquiry, two micro-competencies
are given particular focus:

The facilitation of cognitive engagement with learning material, to ensure high proportions of

academic learning time; and

The ensuring that high levels of success are experienced by students in classroom contexts.

As such, this essay will: first, analyse observational notes gleaned from preliminary practicum and
formal practicum observations of participating teachers for demonstrated instances of adherence to
these micro-competencies. Secondly, it will examine the literature regarding each of these
competencies, with a view to their definition, demonstration of their utility and delineation of the
difficulties of their realisation in practice. Finally, utilising evidence gained from the practicum
experience, it will reflect upon this authors attempts to express such micro-competencies (evidence
of which is provided in Appendices), critiquing instances of their application and identifying further
sites for improvement.
PART A: The manifestation of micro-competencies in observed classrooms
Prior to analysis of this authors observational notes, a preliminary explanation of their content is
required. The following are derived from observational records of classes instructed by two mentor
teachers, and two additional teachers (voluntarily observed) during the Preliminary Practicum
Experience (hereafter PP) and Practicum Experience (hereafter PE). For reference purposes, those
teachers will be referred to as follows: MT1 (Mentor Teacher #1), MT2 (Mentor Teacher #2), AOT1
(Additionally Observed Teacher #1) and AOT2 (Additionally Observed Teacher #2).
The following section will consider each of the micro-competencies posited for assessment in turn,
considering how their practice was manifested across all observed instructors.

The First Competency: Facilitating Cognitive Engagement

Observed instructors employed a number of strategies to facilitate cognitive engagement.
MT1s classes focused on the provision of student autonomies to facilitate cognitive engagement (see
Furtak & Kunter, 2012 and Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011 for an account of the relevance of student
autonomy to cognitive engagement). Year 13 classes on 05/08 and 12/08 were engaged in the
preparation of portfolios for internal assessment. Cognitive autonomy (permitting students to make
decisions regarding the subject matter of their own learning (Furtak & Kunter, 2012, p. 288)), was
permitted in the earlier and ongoing permission to students to self-select the standards in which they
wished to be assessed, and the subject matter of their submissions (students were permitted to selfselect texts and essay topics). Organisational autonomy (choice regarding the structure of classroom
activities (Furtak & Kunter 2012, p. 289) was also permitted to a limited extent, through MT1s
provision of an option for individual conferencing with students, as an alternative to their silent
attention to their portfolio work.
Both MT1 and AOT2 utilised behavioural engagement (compliance with prescribed rules for physical
behaviour (Axelson & Flick, 2011, p. 41)) as a proxy for cognitive engagement. In MT1s classes,
students were encouraged to focus on their work through reprimands directed at behavioural
disengagement, such as it doesnt sound like youre working (12/08), and AOT2 also encouraged
engagement by directing her focus to disruptive behaviour: You cannot be working if you are
speaking (08/09).
MT2 facilitated cognitive engagement in two observed instances. First, in the demonstration of high
academic expectations for her Year 11 class (an account of the connection between high academic
expectations and cognitive engagement is provided in Kurz et al., 2012, p. 47). Upon return of
practice examination grades to students on 07/09, she emphasized these expectations both broadly (I
expect you all to keep up the good work for your externals) and personally, to various students (You
should be working towards an Excellence Endorsement). Secondly, MT2 encouraged higher-order
learning strategies which encouraged extra-textual thinking (Chin, 2007 and Flavell, 1981 both

support the view that such strategies encourage cognitive engagement). On 07/09, for instance, she
encouraged students to create mind maps of symbols in To Kill a Mockingbird, and encouraged them
to connect the identified symbols with broad-order thinking: How do these symbols link back to the
theme?... Can we link them to society?
The Second Competency: Providing Opportunities for Success
A number of strategies were also observed which facilitated students success throughout classroom
endeavours.
MT1 provided for students success by scaffolding preparations for significant activities. For instance,
on 02/09, the class was prepared for an Unfamiliar Text essay answer by a Do Now activity in which
students established success criteria for such an answer. A questioning session followed the Do
Now, which ensured students had established appropriate criteria (How many language features do
you need? How many examples from the text do you need?) The culmination was that every student
understood how they were required to answer the question (avoiding their usual complaint I dont
know what the question is asking), providing them with a solid basis to successfully complete the
essay as instructed.
AOT1 provided opportunities for success in his Year 9 class on 08/09 by constructing his lesson
around a number of creative writing activities that did not oblige objective success or correctness.
Exercises such as Make these boring sentences exciting: The cat sat on the mat were not obviously
qualitatively assessable students were capable of investing as much effort as they desired, and
insertion of even some descriptive language was sufficient to complete the task successfully. As such,
all achieved the task. The one opportunity for assessment (opening ones answers up to the class
scrutiny) was voluntary, and students could avoid the prospect of failure if they required. AOT1
ensured that instances of success were felt by students as successful, with explicit verbal praise for
every student that shared their answers: Excellent!, Yes, great use of synonyms and Some
literary genius in this class.

MT2 was also careful to ensure her students experienced instances of success as success, by awarding
students particular and general praise. For instance, on 07/09, when internal results were returned, the
class records were shared explicitly: Everyone in the Department agreed that your Connections
Reports were the best. Not just across the year group, but all submissions. You should all be very
proud, because I am.
PART B: An Examination of the Literature Surrounding the Selected Competencies: How Do
the Competencies Enhance Student Learning?
The following section will analyse the literature surrounding both of those micro-competencies that
this author has given focus to for the duration of the PP and PE. The focus of this section will
therefore be to: first, give definition to both such competencies and explain how they occur in
practice; secondly, demonstrate their utility in enhancing student learning; and finally, delineate those
tensions surrounding exercise of these competencies which problematize their practice.
The First Competency: Facilitating Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement is the extent to which students are willing and able to take on the learning task
at hand (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011, p. 466). It requires substantial engagement where students
consider, interact and implement with the content of the lesson in a deep and thoughtful manner
(Solis, 2008), and think deeply about the content to be learned about what they know and do not
know, to use different strategies for learning that increase their understanding of the material, and to
think critically and creatively about the material to be learned (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p.
124).
As such, cognitive engagement is distinct from behavioural engagement a student may silently
attend to their work, whilst remaining cognitively unfocussed (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p. 124).
Equally, it is distinct from motivational engagement, where a student is dedicated in their pursuit of
the task. Motivationally-engaged students can still defer the mental burden of cognitive engagement
by calling upon a peer or instructor for assistance, rather than engaging with material (Corno &
Mandinach, 2009, p. 90).
5

Cognitive engagement is not a stable trait of students (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011, p. 466). Students
cognitive engagement will be both subject-specific (related to the subject of study), context-specific
(related to the classroom context in which learning occurs) and task-specific (related to the actual
learning activity being carried out) (Helme & Clarke, 2001, p. 137).
The importance of cognitive engagement is attested to across the literature, with high rates of
cognitive engagement in students being correlated with high levels of academic achievement (see
Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992), higher later employment rates and higher socio-economic status
(Archumblaut et al, 2012, p. 284) for their less cognitively engaged peers, the alternative is true.
However, despite these correlations, how cognitive engagement predicts these outcomes are less clear
(Spanjers, 2007, p. 23).
The following rationales have been postulated in attempt to explain the connection between cognitive
engagement and the enhancement of student learning:

That the greater the amount of time students spend deeply engaged with their task
(cognitively engaged), the greater the opportunities they have to learn what they are supposed

to learn (Berliner, 1987, p. 100);

Students cognitively engaged in a particular task are more likely to want to invest in
developing deeper learning processes, utilising self-regulating behaviours and metacognitive
strategies (Furtak & Kunter, 2012, p. 284), focus on achieving goals, be flexible with their
work and cope with failure (Willms, 2003, pp. 55-56), put effort into the task at hand (Smiley
& Anderson, 2011, pp. 17-18), and set future-oriented goals (see Malka & Covington, 2004).

All such behaviours support students learning and achievement (see Miller et al., 1996);
According to self-determination theorists, when students are cognitively engaged, they
experience both autonomy and competence. Both such experiences are necessary to the
development of students self-motivation, psychological growth and optimal mental
functioning all of which promote student learning by enhancing their well-being (see Ryan
& Deci, 2000 and Fried & Konza, 2013);

Students that are cognitively engaged (i.e. thinking about why they learn what they learn) will
learn to perceive school as relevant for their future a predictor of higher-level achievement
(Spanjers, 200, p. 74).

Cognitive engagement not only facilitates student achievement within the education sector, but also
(as noted above) supports the development of strategies (such as flexibility and self-regulation) which
serve students beyond their academic learning period. These skills enhance student learning because
they are important predictors of achievement in the workforce existing and future careers do and
will require more than static knowledge, [but] mental agility and adaptability (Clayton-Pedersen
& ONeill, 2005, p. 9.13) and employers focus has moved from workers academic credentials to
their engagement with the organization and contribution of new ideas (Willms, 2003, p. 56). Students
that are equipped with the aforementioned capacities are thus built to thrive in the working
environment.
While a supportable aspiration, the promotion of cognitive engagement in classrooms is a difficult
goal. One problematic intricacy of its implementation is its immeasurability it is an internallyoccurring phenomenon and therefore difficult to gauge. Certainly, there are signals of its experience:
students engagement in behaviours such as active listening, observing and being mindful (Solis,
2008), students questions and language use (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2004, p. 124), students
utilization of metacognitive strategies (Blumenfeld et al, 1992, p. 207), and expressions of enjoyment,
enthusiasm and satisfaction in their learning (Helme & Clarke, 2001, p. 139). The implementation of
cognitive engagement, therefore, requires a teaching professional astute at picking up on and
regarding patterns in the social cues students provide a professional that can not only implement
strategies for cognitive engagement, but measure the rate of their success amongst students.
A further tension in the promotion of students cognitive engagement is that students experiences of
that engagement inform their self-efficacy the more engaged the student, the higher their selfefficacy is likely to be (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998, p. 1807). While supporting students self-efficacy is
important, it is crucial that educators are wary of the delicate balance between high self-efficacy and
overconfidence. Students whose self-efficacy elevates too high are liable to over-estimate their
7

capacity, engaging less in learning (on the supposition that they know enough already) and dismiss
the significance of the task at hand (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p. 130). When that occurs,
instances of cognitive engagement will decline. Of course, previous experiences of cognitive
engagement could guard against this if students are or have been aware of why they are learning
what they are learning, and see the task at hand as part of a larger process of education, they will not
be inclined to overconfidence. Instead, they will recognise the relevance of the task to the ongoing
process of learning, and engage it with suitable effort. However, where this awareness has not arisen,
the risk remains.
As such, while a virtuous aspiration, the facilitation of cognitive engagement in classrooms is a
complicated affair.
The Second Competency: Providing Students with Opportunities for Success
The provision of opportunities for success for students requires the design [of] environments and
[making of] assignments so that students can have experience at attaining high levels of success
(Berliner, 1987, p. 100). In other words, educators must work at designing a classroom and delivering
a curriculum in a way which permits students when they are investing the appropriate amount of
effort to experience success at least 80% of the time (Berliner, 1987, p. 100). This figure is not
merely an across board figure students should not just experience success across 80% of their
aggregate class time. They also require this rate of success in individual tasks (Brophy, 1980, p. 9). In
some circumstances, the psychological state of the student might merit an alteration to this rate
individuals who fear failure may require a higher rate, for instance (see Crawford, 1978). Similarly,
the nature of the task might prompt a higher rate Brophy (1980) suggests, for instance, that
independent seatwork tasks should encourage a success rate of close to 100% (p. 9).
The provision of opportunities for success is closely tied to the enhancement of students learning
outcomes. High levels of success are associated with students development of an enhanced sense of
self-concept as a learner (Berliner, 1987, p. 101). In the cyclical process of learning, students that
experience success in one task will feel reassurance in relation to all other tasks and will vest their

trust in the educational process conducted by their instructor: they will feel secure that with time and
knowledge, and assistance from their instructor, all tasks are eventually achievable (Berliner, 1987, p.
100).
This cyclical experience of success promotes more positive attitudes towards school, which are
correlated with a better retention of learning and higher levels of achievement (Berliner, 1987, p.
100).The more students enjoy their learning, the greater the time they will vest within it. In the
English subject area, in particular, enjoyment is crucial. Students that enjoy or are interested in
reading, for instance, are far more likely to read more (Medford & McGowan, 2012, p. 787), resulting
in greater improvements to their literacy and reading comprehension skills through their constant
practice (Retelsdorf et al., 2011, p. 551).
Experiences of success also have a crucial impact on students sense of self-efficacy (those judgments
by individuals as to their capability to successfully produce those outcomes required by certain tasks
(Bandura, 1977, p. 193)). The experiences of independent mastery (successful achievement) of tasks,
are the most influential source of developing high self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, p. 202). The fostering
of high self-efficacy in students is crucial, as it acts as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy where
one considers oneself capable of success, it will likely follow (Gecas, 2004, p. 382). Individuals selfefficacy expectations inform their willingness to engage in tasks, the effort they expend, their
persistence in the face of adversity (Bandura, 1977, p. 194) and their experiences of anxiety and
depression until task completion (see Siegel et al, 1985). Students with high self-efficacy are likely to
have stronger motivation levels (Midgley et al., 1989, p. 247) and experience higher levels of overall
achievement (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990, p. 81, and Henson, 2001, p. 4).
However, promotion of success is not the only key to facilitating high self-efficacy. It is important, in
providing opportunities for success, that success is celebrated as it arises. Mastery experiences can be
enhanced or dismissed by instances of verbal persuasion encouragement or discouragement which
supports or dismisses an individuals perceived capability to perform a certain task (Bandura, 1977, p.
198). This reflection on success is crucial, since students reception of experiences of success will be
contextual to their psychological state (Bandura, 1977, p. 200). Students suffering from imposter
9

syndrome (a conviction that intellectual successes are premised on luck, circumstance or external aid)
can read down experiences of success (Clance & Imes, 1978, p. 241), as will students with
perfectionist tendencies (see Merriman, 2012; Dunkley et al., 2003). In order to ensure the benefit of
experiences of mastery are felt, therefore, students must experience success as success.
As above, however, the tension must always remain that experiences of success must be balanced.
Experiences of over-mastery can foster overconfidence (Clark, 2001, p. 19). Schumann (2013), for
instance, notes that too much success and not enough opportunity for error might lead the learner into
an illusion of competence (pp. 18-19). As such, while fostering success is an important focus, students
must be stretched on occasion, in order that they might contextualise their achievements as part of an
ongoing journey of education.
Therefore, as above, while the benefits of manifesting opportunities for success amongst students are
obvious, implementation of this micro-competency must be cautious to its difficulties and intricacies,
in order that its full benefits are felt.
PART THREE: Enactment of Micro-Competencies in a Classroom Environment
In practicing my enactment of the aforementioned competencies in a classroom context, I engaged in
a number of instances of experimentation, seeking to find pathways through which to realise their
manifestation. While these efforts were numerous, the limitations of this enquiry mean that my
reflection on these attempts is limited to analysis of one instance of application of each competency.
However, it is noted here that these attempts were situated across a far broader context, in which
attempts were variously successful and unsuccessful.
The First Competency: Facilitating Cognitive Engagement
My attempts to facilitate cognitive engagement across my teaching experience occurred in a number
of ways: encouraging metacognitive thought as a proxy to cognitive engagement, encouraging highorder and broad thinking through teacher questioning procedures, providing for student autonomy
(in sessions in which students were permitted to self-select from a number of tasks) and providing for
a supportive teaching and learning environment, through praise, inclusiveness and positivity.
10

Of the listed attempts, the first is the application of focus an attempt to facilitate cognitive
engagement by encouraging metacognitive strategizing.
On 03/09, I distributed the students of MT2s class1 slips of paper and asked them to reflect on their
performance in the Unfamiliar Text (UT) portion of their practice exam. They were asked to advise
as to their feelings on the exam and UTs generally, and the areas as to those areas which they would
prefer to focus on in their upcoming lessons.
The task was designed to glean a basic assessment of students cognitive engagement with the UT
task. More importantly, it was intended to encourage students to think metacognitively about their
abilities in the UT external, meditating on their strengths and weaknesses, thinking strategically
regarding how they might work to improve their skills (Wilson, 1998, p. 694) and considering the
processing demands of the UT task (Flavell, 1979, p. 907). In line with literature from Linnenbrink &
Pintrich (2003), I hoped to encourage students cognitive engagement in later UT tasks utilising the
engagement of metacognitive strategies as a proxy (p. 127).
Some students responded well to the task, considering areas of weakness and focus (I want to work
on how to write and structure my paragraph answers) and demonstrating awareness of the
requirements of the UT task (Unfamiliar texts consistently asks similar questions across all three
texts) (see Appendix 1 for a selection of student answers). MT2 agreed with the value of the task,
noting in observational notes (Appendix 2) that it was a good Do Now and orally that deriving
student feedback is a powerful tool.
However, the full realisation of the task was problematized by several issues in its performance both
in delivery and later use of students answers.
The first issue was a lack of clarity in instructions, which were delivered verbally only, and were
multiple (as the speaking notes of my Lesson Plan (Appendix 3) attest. While I supposed students
would request clarification if required, my status as a relative stranger in their classroom likely
1 The same activity was carried out with MT1s class, however, for the sake of economy, that activity
cannot be recounted here. It is worthy of note, however, that it proceeded in a very similar way to
MT1s class, and the same feedback applies.
11

precluded their confidence. As such, students zoned in on one requirement of the task express
their feelings while forgetting or failing to complete the rest. A number of students misunderstood
the tasks instructions, expressing only their feelings on the exam (such as 5/10 and nervous). As
such, the benefit of the task was lost.
Upon reflection, a better strategy would have been to transcribe instructions to the whiteboard, or
project via PowerPoints slide. The tasks purpose, after all, was not information recall. In realising a
complicated aim like cognitive engagement the task cannot be thought of in isolation more basic
building blocks (like instructional clarity) require mastery. As such, my focus going forward will be
attention to the multiple delivery of instructions via whiteboard, PowerPoint, or in questioning or
requesting students oral summaries of instructions.
The second issue with the task was that I relied too greatly on students self-reporting to assess levels
of engagement. In general, students responses indicated a general level of engagement with UTs
students aspired to improve and were aware of the processing demands of the task. However, later
work revealed some were openly disconnecting from the material avoiding the completion of
practise essays, even when offered a second chance. I now appreciate that students self-reporting is
an often inaccurate measure of their actual engagement (see Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1995). In relying
too greatly on the written answers before me, I mis-measured the actual levels of engagement in the
class. As such, I imagined that engagement was not an issue, and planned to facilitate other objectives.
In the meantime, students were left disengaged.
My future focus will be to develop an appreciation of the signals of cognitive engagement that
students manifest, and analysing my class behaviour for signs of cognitive engagement. Already,
through exposure to the class dynamic, I am better primed. In recent essay answers, I have seen strong
indicators of engagement from some (employing language I have used, sometimes even in passing, to
describe or analyse language features), while others have adhered to old habits (displaying little sign
of my instruction). My challenge will be to identify these students specifically and focus on
developing strategies for their engagement the provision of autonomy (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011,
pp. 465-466), the direction of questioning towards them (Taylor et al, 2003, p. 5), and their more
12

explicit oral support (Archamblaut, 2003, p. 320) will all be necessary in their re-engagement with
material.
The final and most significant issue in my implementation of this task was that I over-estimated my
students capacity to engage directly in metacognitive thinking. Many students tended to overestimate their skills, stating they were comfortable identifying language features and would be better
served focussing on the purpose of the text. Their later exams and essays revealed this was not the
case a sign they had not approached the task with full metacognitive focus and addressed the true
state of their capabilities. As such, since my students were not primed for metacognitive thinking, it
was likely inefficient as a proxy to their engagement.
Furthermore, to rely so heavily on student responses ran a risk of diminishing students engagement in
the activities which unfolded from the task. I had hoped that the task would act as a proxy to
prompting cognitive engagement with further UT tasks, where students could clearly reflect on how
the tasks met their self-professed needs. However, had I proceeded with planning lessons around
students estimations of their own skills, I would have presented them with tasks too challenging for
them and they would have been left in a difficult, isolation and self-efficacy reducing position. Selfefficacy plays a facilitative role in cognitive engagement (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990, p. 38). Where it
is deflated, rather than inflated, disengagement is the more likely result. Luckily, my ensuing lesson
plans were corrected by my mentor, who suggested I focus on lower-order skills, which she
considered the students were yet to acquire.
My failing in this regard was to project my own adult capacities onto students, attempting to foster
their confidence by providing them with a difficult task, rather than considering their limitations. At
only Year 11, higher-order thinking is still a relatively new subject matter. Metacognitive thinking,
likely any new skill, must be scaffolded (An & Cao, 2014, p. 554), and I presumed the skill of my
students too readily.
Reflecting on this error, for the future, I will have to work to scaffold metacognitive strategies. In fact,
a session on metacognitive approaches (study strategies and alternative approaches to UTs) would

13

likely be appropriate, in order to give students more insight as to their misconceptions regarding
appropriate study strategies and approaches to the exam (see Chew, 2010).
The Second Competency: Providing Students with Opportunities for Success
As above, my attempts to provide students with opportunities for success were numerous across the
course of my PP and PE. Attempts to facilitate success included: the facilitation of differentiated
instruction, the provision of scaffolding activities (designed to ensure success in later, more difficult
versions, of tasks), and the provision of explicit positive feedback to students (in order to ensure
success was experienced as success).
As above, in this enquiry, I focus on one attempt to manifest this competency: in an instance in which
I endeavoured to provide my students with differentiated instruction. As a preliminary point, I note the
class in which this strategy was applied is of peculiar construction. It is intended for Academic
Extension students, but populated with a number of lower ability students forced to the classroom by
timetabling. The mix is even, with around 50% extension students and 50% lower ability students.
On 15/09, I designed and carried out an activity which sought to provide for students mixed abilities
offering them all a prospect of success, even at differing levels of capability. This was an attempt at
differentiated instruction taking into account the different skills, experiences, interests and rates of
learning and capabilities in the classroom (Burns & Boice, 2015, p. 975).
I provided all students with a UT, which I had deliberately selected as slightly above the standard Y13
level, agreed with MT1, to provide an opportunity for stretching the advanced students in the class
(who had been complaining of boredom with its pace and content). The difficulty level of the text was
made explicit at the outset. Students were presented with two options for the session. The first option
was the independent preparation of a written response to one of two questions on the text, to be
submitted for feedback. The second option was to engage in an instructor-led discussion of the text, in
recognition that some students may prefer to learn through discussion or group work, rather than
independently (Kingore, 2005). My Lesson Plan exhibits my speaking notes for these instructions (see
Appendix 4), which attests to the manner in which the task was explained to students.
14

The intention was that all students would have the opportunity to succeed. Those that worked
independently would obtain a strong experience of mastery over a difficult task, to buttress their selfefficacy (Bandura, 1977, p. 202). Success would be confirmed through extensive feedback on
submitted essays. Other students (particularly, lower-ability students, many of whom I knew preferred
group work) would experience the same success through the vicarious experience of planning a
successful answer through discussion. In addition, students would have the individual prospect of
mastery over the text in seeing their contributions to the discourse valued by the group; all students
were instructed to take notes on their peers contributions a move designed to validate all students
individual perspectives as interesting and engaging (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013, p. 12).
In general, most students obliged the task and successfully completed its requirements. Many
rendered answers (see Appendix 5), and I observed all students in the discussion group annotating
their poem. Several of those latter students submitted answers of their own volition later (one such
answer at Appendix 6), many of which addressed a number of matters discussed in the group, as well
as original ideas. While the class was not formally observed, I note the supervising relief teacher
complimented the class engagement and studiousness.
However, two concerns remained following implementation. First, practically, my engagement with
the discussion group precluded involvement with the essay-writing group (asides from monitoring
obvious behavioural engagement). Several lower-ability students (who had selected to work
independently), who would have benefited from closer supervision at their essay-writing, were left
isolated. The result was their failure to obtain success in the established criteria completion of an
essay answer. This undermined the purpose of the task, which had been to allow students to feel
successful at a complex text, bolstering their self-efficacy for simpler ones.
If replicating this task in future, I ought not to let the structure of the lesson leave some students
abandoned. At some point, this Lesson Plan requires the supervision of essay-writing students. One
option might be that I could leave the discussion group to function independently at its
commencement discussing with essay-writing students their intentions, and using those
conversations as an opportunity to draw over students that give any indication that they might struggle
15

to work independently. Alternatively, there might be an option to integrate the essay-writing students
into the discussion group at the end of class, prompting those students to share their findings with the
discussion group. In one feedback session, MT2 noted the power of public assessment as a
motivating factor for disengaged students (see Appendix 7 for notes on this conversation). This
assessment might be sufficiently persuasive to ensure disengaged students stay on task.
My second concern relates to the activitys effect on students self-esteem. It was anticipated that the
majority of lower ability students would join the discussion group, and this occurred in practice
(although several diligent high-ability students selected group work). My concern is that, if the ability
levels of groups (for this task, or a similar one) became too obvious students engaging in group
work being the ones that need help the task could impede the self-efficacy of discussion group
students. Students in the discussion group might not experience the activity as one of success,
defeating the purpose of the task.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that the evidence is unclear as to whether ability grouping
affects low ability students negatively. Merina (1993) suggests that students that perceive themselves
as being labelled low ability experience correlated feelings of low self-worth. However, Kulik
(1992) and Hallihan (2000) note that ignoring differences in ability for the sake of self-esteem can
actually produce more damaging effects than labelling or ability grouping.
If repeating this Lesson Plan (or another similar) in future lessons, the first strategy must be to avoid
labelling any option in a way that could be tied to a lower-ability option. Instructions should frame
the discussion group option as one for students that prefer discussion or would like to debate,
rather than those who need help. The second strategy would be to encourage the ongoing integration
of high ability students to the group. This would guard against students assessment that groups are
divided by ability (even if this occurs via student selection). Having high-ability students in the
discussion group contributes to further benefits, in any event: in implementing this Lesson Plan,
having two high-ability students contributed to a strong discussion, and other students certainly
benefited from both hearing the views of their peers. Even more importantly, they benefited by having
their own views given credence when their high-ability peers annotated their poems in line with
16

lower-ability students contributions. Peer approval especially from obviously high-ability students
seemed stronger than my own, in many regards. Thus, even if there is any impact to self-esteem
from this activity, it could likely be overwhelmed by peer support.

Reference List
An, Y-G., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the Effects of Metacognitive Scaffolding on Students' Design
Problem Solving and Metacognitive Skills in an Online Environment. Journal of Online Teaching and
Learning, 10(4), 552-568.

17

Archambault, I., Janosz, M. & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher Beliefs as Predictors of Adolescents
Cognitive Engagement and Achievement in Mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research,
105(5), 319-328. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2011.629694.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Anilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. (2002). Three methods for studying
developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 343364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709902320634447.
Axelson, R., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining Student Engagement. Change, January/February, 38-43.
Berliner, David. (1987). Simple Views of Effective Teaching And a Simple Theory of Classroom
Instruction. In D. C. Berliner & DB.K. Rosenshine (Eds.) Talks to Teachers: A festschrift for N. L.
Gage (pp. 93-110). New York: Random House.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Puro, P., & Mergendolter, J. R. (1992). Translating motivation into thoughtfulness.
In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 207-239).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brophy, J. (1980, October). Recent Research on Teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the North Eastern Educational Research Association. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED204280.pdf
Burns, M. & Boice, C. (2015). Teaching Strategies. Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School
Psychology, 973-977.
Chew, S. (2010). Improving Classroom Performance by Challenging Student Misconceptions About
Learning. Observer, 23(4).
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students
responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive
thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815.
Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Clayton-Pedersen, A. R. & ONeill, N. (2005). Curricula Designed to Meet 21st Century
Expectations. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation (pp. 9.1- 9.16).
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88108. DOI: 10.1080/00461528309529266
Crawford, J. (1978). Interactions of learner characteristics with the difficulty level of the instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 523-531.
Dantonio, M., & Paradise, L. V. (1988). Teacher question-answer strategy and the cognitive
correspondence between teacher questions and learner responses. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 21(3), 7184.
Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R. S., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980)
Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham &
A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906911.
Flavell, J. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills.
New York: Academic Press.
18

Fried, L. & Konza, D. (2013). Using self-determination theory to investigate student engagement in
the classroom. International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 19, 27-40.
Furtak, E. & Kunter, M. (2012). Effects of Autonomy Supportive Teaching on Student Learning and
Motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 284-316. doi:
10.1080/00220973.2011.573019.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high
school students cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 464-482.
Hallinan, M. (2000, August). Ability group effects on high school learning outcomes. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
Helme, S. & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying Cognitive Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133-153.
Kingore, B. (2005). Differentiating instruction: Rethinking traditional practices. Retrieved from
http://www.bertiekingore.com/diffinstruct.htm
Kulik, J. (1992). An analysis on the research of ability grouping. Storrs: The National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Kurz, A., Telapatra, D., & Roach, A. (2012) Meeting the Curricular Challenges of Inclusive
Assessment: The role of alignment, opportunity to learn, and student engagement. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 37-52, doi:
10.1080/1034912X.2012.654946
Linnenbrink, E. & Pintrich, P. (2003). The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Student Engagement and
Learning in the Classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137. doi:
10.1080/10573560308223.
Malka, A. & Covington, M. V. (2004). Perceiving school performance as instrumental to future goal
attainment: Effects on graded performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 60-80.
Medford, E., & McGowan, S. (2012). The influence of personality characteristics on children's
intrinsic reading motivation. Learning and Individual Difference, 20, 786-791.
Merina, A. (1993). Is there life after tracking? NEA Today, November, 12.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravidram, B. & Nichols, J. D.(1996). Engagement in
academic: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
Morge, L. (2005). Teacher-pupil interaction: A study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935.
Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1995). Assessing Classroom Learning: How students use their
knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement test questions in science and social
studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 185-223.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

19

Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement
in classroom tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes
and consequences (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Retelsdorf, J., Kller, O., & Mller, J. (2011). On the effects of motivation on reading performance
growth in secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 21, 550559,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.001.
Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students cognitive engagement in online
learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 2337.
Rotgans, Jerome I. & Schmidt, Henk. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning
classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 465-479. doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9272.
Roth, W. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of
context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709736.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Schumann, S. (2013). The Accuracy of Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Outdoor Education. (Doctoral
Dissertation). University of Utah, Utah.
Smart, J. & Marshall, J. (2013). Interactions Between Classroom Discourse, Teacher Questioning and
Student Cognitive Engagement in Middle School Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
24(2), 249-267. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9297-9.
Smiley, W. & Anderson, R. (2011). Measuring Students Cognitive Engagement on Assessment Tests:
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Short Form of the Cognitive Engagement Scale. Research and
Practice in Assessment, 6, 17-28.
Solis, A. (2008). Teaching for Cognitive Engagement: Maximising the Promise of Shared Instruction.
Retrieved from
http://www.idra.org/idra_newsletter/april_2008_student_engagement/teaching_for_cognitive_engage
ment/
Spanjers, D. (2007). Cognitive engagement as a predictor of achievement (Doctoral Dissertation).
University of Minnesota, Ann Arbor.
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Peterson, D., & Rodriguez, M. (2003). Reading Growth in High-Poverty
Classrooms: The Influence of Teacher Practices That Encourage Cognitive Engagement in Literacy
Learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3-28.
Tomlinson, C., & Moon, T. (2013). Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom.
Virginia: ASCD.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation. Results
from PISA 2000. Retrieved from http://www.unb.ca/crisp/pdf/0306.pdf
Wilson, J. (1998). Metacognition within mathematics: A new and practical multi-method approach. In
C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching mathematics in new times: Proceedings of the 21st
annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 693-700. Gold
Coast, Queensland: MERGA.
Wolters, C., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self- regulated
learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classroom. Instructional
20

Science, 26, 27-47.

21