Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Introduction
For the past two school terms, I have engaged in a series of teaching experiences across a Preliminary
Practicum Experience and Practicum Experience at Onehunga High School, in which I have sought to
commence and develop my practice as a Pre-Service Teacher. In the course of these experiences, I
have taught four classes: a Year 11 Academic Extension English Class, a Year 13 Academic Extension
English Class and two General-Ability Year 9 English Classes. Across these classes, I have attempted
to manifest a number of micro-competencies adjudicated across the literature as necessary in the
delivery of effective teaching. Two of these competencies have been selected for this essays focus:
first, competency in the facilitation of students cognitive engagement (with the subject-matter of their
learning) as frequently and for as long a duration as possible; and secondly, competency in the
facilitation of effective group-work activities (which, when enacted, meet the criteria of cooperative
learning).
Any given teaching strategy will work differently in different contexts for different students
(Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 35). In order to be properly effective as a teacher, therefore, I must
regularly and routinely inquire into the impact of my practice upon my students, and conceptualise
pathways to its improvement in light of issues, problems, concerns, dilemmas, contradictions and
interesting situations that arise in my classroom (Reid, 2004, p. 2). In recognition of this
requirement, the ensuing essay aspires to enact this cycle of inquiry. As such, it will: first, set out the
nature of the two selected micro-competencies implemented in classrooms; secondly, document
instances of the enactment of these micro-competencies by observed teachers across the Preliminary
Practicum Experience and the Practicum Experience; and thirdly, critically analyse and reflect on
three occasions in which each micro-competency was enacted, with a view to identifying issues in
implementation, informing pathways to improvement in my teaching practice and celebrating
instances of success as they arise.

A Preliminary Note
In accordance with the requirements of this assignment brief, and to give background to the occasions
discussed in the ensuing Inquiry Cycles, a significant amount of evidence is appended to this essay as
Exhibits. This evidence is not appended physically, but virtually, in an E-Portfolio located at
charlotteforstere-portfolio.weebly.com. All references within this essay to Exhibits refer to pieces
of evidence uploaded to that Portfolio, under the same referencing system. This essay is intended to
be read alongside that Portfolio.
For a set of instructions on how to navigate the website for specific pieces of evidence, please see
Appendix One.

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Inquiry Cycle: Cognitive Engagement

In the course of my first Inquiry Cycle, I hoped to develop my capacity to facilitate students
Cognitive Engagement (CE) with their learning material as frequently, effectively and for as long a
duration (on each occasion of engagement) as possible. The ensuing section documents my efforts
towards this aim.
1.0 Cognitive Engagement: A Brief Survey
In David Berliners terms (1987), effective teaching is premised upon the delivery of a network of
micro-competencies, amongst which is the delivery of an effective curriculum in such a way that
students have sufficient time to learn what is required by its terms both in terms of time allocated
to tasks by the teacher (p. 97) and in time actually spent engaged with the learning material (p. 101).
To that end, the purpose of the first Inquiry Cycle was to take steps towards realising such
effectiveness by developing my ability to facilitate students CE with their work.
CE is manifested when students think about the learning task at hand in a deep and thoughtful
manner (Solis, 2008) specifically, thinking deeply about the content to be learned about what
they do and do not know different strategies for learning critically and creatively about the
material to be learned (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p. 124). CE is not a stable trait of students
(Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011, p. 466) its experience is sensitive to subject, context (the classroom
environment), and task (the activity) (Helme & Clarke, 2001, p. 137).
CE is distinguished from behavioural engagement (students physical attention to their work)
(Linnnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, p. 124), motivational engagement (students dedication to a task)
(Corno & Mandinach, 2009, p. 90), and emotional or relational engagement (students relationships
with their class, teachers, and school leaders) (Ministry of Education, 2015). However, it is generally
reliant on their realisation1 (Davis et al., 2012, p. 21). To that end, motivational, behavioural and
relational engagement are often used as a proxies to promote CE (Axelson & Flick, 2011, p. 41).
CE emerges as a necessary matter for mastery by virtue of its impact on students: high rates of CE are
positively correlated with students high levels of academic achievement (see Pintrich & Schrauben,
1992; Miller et al., 1996), and later high employment rates and high socio-economic status
(Archumblaut et al., 2012, p. 284).2

1 For an account of why such engagements do not facilitate CE, please see the sources provided. For
the sake of economy, these connections cannot be discussed here.
2

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

It is clear much hangs on CEs realisation. To that end, the purpose of the ensuing Inquiry Cycle is to
critically reflect on my attempted manifestations of CE in the classroom context, in the hope of
facilitating competency in that regard.
1.1 Observations of Cognitive Engagement in Practice
In order to manifest any competency effectively in practice, the starting point is the observation of its
manifestation in a variety of classroom contexts, by a variety of educators (Bilash, 2009). The ensuing
section provides details of all those instances across the Practicum and Preliminary Practicum
Experience period where CE was observed. For ease of reference, observed teachers are referred to as
follows: Mentor Teachers (MT1 and MT2) and Additionally Observed Teachers (AOT1, AOT2, and
AOT2).
CE Through the Provision of Student Autonomy
MT1s Year 13 classes utilised student autonomy to promote CE (for an account of this strategy, see
Furtak & Kunter, 2012; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). In classes on 05/08 and 12/08 students were
engaged in the completion of portfolios for internal submission. Cognitive autonomy (permission to
students to make decisions regarding the subject-matter of their learning (Furtak & Kunter, 2012, p.
288)) was provided by permitting students to self-select the NCEA standards for which they wished to
submit, and the texts they would rely on for such standards (see Exbibit 1.1.1). Organisational
autonomy (permission to students to make decisions regarding classroom activities (Furtak & Kunter,
2012, p. 289)) was provided to a limited extent students were permitted to attend to silent work, or
make use of an option for individual conferencing (see Exhibit 1.1.2).
CE Through Behavioural Engagement
Both MT1 and AOT1 utilised behavioural engagement (students compliance with prescribed rules for
physical behaviour) as a proxy for CE (for an account of this strategy, see Axelson & Flick, 2011, p.
41). In MT1s Year 13 class on 12/08, student were encouraged to cognitively engage through
demands focussed on behavioural disengagement, such as it doesnt sound like youre working (see
Exhibit 1.1.3). AOT1, in a Year 9 class on 08/09 also encouraged CE by directing focus to disruptive
behaviour: you cannot be working if you are speaking (see Exhibit 1.1.4).
CE Through High Expectations
MT2 worked to facilitate CE by demonstrating high academic expectations in her Year 11 class (for
an account of this strategy, see Kurz et al., 2012). Upon returning examination grades on 07/09, she
2 The precise way in which CE predicts these positive outcomes is less certain (Spanjers, 2007, p.
23). For an assortment of hypotheses as to the relationship between CE and achievement, please see
Appendix Two.
3

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

emphasised her expectations broadly to the class: Think of your goals for endorsements remember
what good work you have done and look at what you are capable of in another 6-7 weeks, and to
individual students: You should be working towards an Excellence endorsement (see Exhibit
1.1.5).
AOT1 encouraged CE in the demonstration of high behavioural expectations across a broad series of
Year 9 classes: on 08/09, by demonstrating faith in students capacity to work not enough work
done today you can do better (see Exhibit 1.1.6); on 12/09, by praising good behaviour I was
really impressed with some people some not good enough (see Exhibit 1.1.7); and on 22/10, in a
Year 12 class, by addressing students self-esteem directly Do you think youre not capable? Trust
me, you are. When I say I believe in you, I really believe that (see Exhibit 1.1.8).
CE Through High-Order Learning Strategies
MT2 facilitated CE in her Year 11 classroom by encouraging learning strategies which supported
extra-textual thinking (for an account of this strategy, see Chin 2007; Flavell, 1981). On 07/09 she
encouraged students to create mind maps of symbols in To Kill a Mockingbird, and to connect those
symbols to wider social issues: How do these symbols link back to the theme?... Can we link them to
society? (see Exhibit 1.1.9).
MT1 similarly encouraged CE in her Year 13 classroom by encouraging extra-textual thinking around
the issue of race in Othello, in a session on 14/10 where she extended historical issues of race in
actors casting, to present uses of Blackface. Students were asked to consider questions such as:
Why is Blackface not ok? and debated contemporary uses of the phenomenon by Kylie Jenner and
NZs Bachelor Art Green (see Exhibit 1.1.10).
CE Through Metacognition
AOT2 encouraged CE by requiring students in a Year 9 class on 18/11 to engage in metacognition (for
an account of this strategy, see Wilson, 1998, p. 694) students were asked to self-reflect upon their
learning for the year and assess their present strengths and weaknesses in a task where they addressed
a letter to their future Year 13 selves (see Exhibit 1.1.11).
CE Through Active Reading
AOT3, in a Year 9 Class on 11/11 facilitated CE (as part of a department-wide move to promote
student literacy) by providing students with active reading practice (for an account of this strategy,
see Taylor et al., 2003, p. 5). Students were encouraged to read through reciprocal teaching methods
(in which they were asked to anticipate the outcome of their text at certain checkpoints (see Gaudin,
2014)) and to utilise active reading strategies (by identifying language features as they read (Taylor et
al., 2003, p. 6)) (see Exhibit 1.1.12).
4

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

CE Through Language Practice

AOT4, in a Year 9 Samoan class on 18/11 promoted CE by obliging students to engage in language
practice (for an account of this strategy, see Solis, 2008). Students were engaged individually and
publically in Samoan conversation, in which they were expected to respond, in full sentences, to basic
questions (see Exhibit 1.1.13).
1.2 The First Occasion: Metacognitive Strategising
My first attempted implementation of CE occurred on 03/09 with my Academic Extension Year 11
English class. Within the course of that lesson, I carried out two separate attempts at promoting CE
within the class. Each of these attempts will be addressed separately, although they are both subsumed
under the first occasion.
The First Task: Concept and Implementation
The first task I carried out with the class was a brief Do Now exercise, where students were
distributed small slips of paper, and asked to reflect on their recent practice Unfamiliar Text (UT)
exam. Specifically, they were asked to consider the following questions: What were our feelings
about the exam? What did we find easy about close reading? What was hard? What skills do we need
to acquire before the external exam? (see Exhibit 1.2.1). Instructions were given verbally.
The short task was to perform two key functions. First, I hoped it would measure students levels of
CE with the UT task the extent to which they appreciated the processing demands of the UT task
would be read as an indicator of their general engagement. Secondly, I intended the task to encourage
students into CE with UTs, by forcing them to engage metacognitively with them (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2003, p. 127): first, by assessing what they had to do in the task to ensure success (Flavell,
1979, p. 907); and secondly, assessing themselves in relation to those criteria meditating on their
strengths and weaknesses, and thinking strategically about how they might work to improve their
skills (Wilson, 1998, p. 694).
The First Task: Reflection
Students worked well to complete the task, with some exercising significant metacognitive focus (as
is evident in the sophistication of their answers; see Exhibit 1.2.2). My mentor noted the value of the
task, writing in observational notes that it was a good Do Now (see Exhibit 1.2.3) and adding
orally that deriving student feedback is a powerful tool.
However, the task was unsuccessful as a means to promoting CE for many students. Some did not
complete the task appropriately, reflecting only on their feelings in the exam (see Exhibit 1.2.4). For

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

those students the benefit of the task was lost since they did not engage in metacognition, they did
not cognitively engage.
The first reason for this was a deficiency in instructions, which were extensive and delivered verbally
only. While I assumed the class would ask for clarification if required, my status as a relative stranger
likely precluded their confidence. Upon reflection, a better strategy would have been to transcribe
instructions to the whiteboard, and question students after instruction to ensure understanding (Alber,
2013). The task, after all, was not an information recall exercise.
The more significant difficulty was my over-estimation of my students capacity to engage directly in
metacognitive thinking. While students offered seemingly insightful assessments of their strengths,
weaknesses, and sites for development, their later work revealed their metacognitive self-analysis to
have been lacking while they collectively felt their skills regarding identification and explanation of
language features were strong, such skills were actually underdeveloped. Clearly, my students had not
engaged in the task with full metacognitive focus and therefore, it was likely inefficient as a proxy to
CE.
Not only did students not experience CE in relation to that task, but in relying on their answers in the
design of later lessons, I risked diminishing their ongoing CE with UTs further. Student self-reporting
is not always an accurate measure of engagement, skill or interest (see Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1995).
Had my mentor not intervened, I would have relied on students self-assessments in the design of later
tasks providing them with activities well above their actual skill level. The impact of such lessons
would have been to put students in a self-efficacy reducing position, since they would likely fail at
mastery of such tasks (Bandura, 1977, p. 198). Since self-efficacy plays a facilitative role in CE
(Pintrich & De Groot, 1990, p. 38) its maintenance was (and is) crucial.
My failing in this regard was the projection of my own adult capacity onto students. At Year 11,
metacognitive strategy is still a relatively new subject matter, and must, like any new skill, be
scaffolded (An & Cao, 2014, p. 554) students will not spontaneously engage in metacognitive
thinking (see Lin & Lehman, 1999). Reflecting on this error, in future, I realised I would have to work
to scaffold metacognitive strategies explicitly for my students. In fact, a session of metacognitive
approaches (study strategies and alternative approaches to UTs) would likely be appropriate, in order
to give students better insight as to any misconceptions they might be harbouring (see Chew, 2010).
The Second Task: Concept and Implementation
Following completion of the Do Now, I attempted to engage my students again through
metacognition by working them through a strategic approach to understanding the requirements of UT
Excellence questions. The class was provided with a set of questions and a UT (Exhibit 1.2.5) and
instructed to annotate the Excellence question, pulling out key words (Exhibit 1.2.6). I guided the
6

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

class through the exercise with hints, and we then discussed their answers annotating the same
Excellence question on the whiteboard. Students were then asked to complete the UT essay utilising
those key words as success criteria for an answer.
The intention of the task was to model (and then to have students enact) a metacognitive strategy for
reading comprehension of UT questions (Ahmadi et al., 2013, p. 236). Modelling has been shown as
an effective strategy for the teaching of metacognitive thinking when persistently repeated it can
increase students metacognitive skill (see Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993). I hoped, as
students became competent with metacognitive strategising in relation to UTs, their CE with UTs
would increase. Further, I hoped that the exercise would facilitate students CE by improving their
emotional engagement with the task (Davis et al. 2012, p. 21) students were anxious about UTs, and
I hoped that breaking an Excellence question down into smaller, more manageable aspects would
lessen their anxiety regarding the experience (Monem, 2010, p. 67).
The Second Task: Reflection
The task was variously successful with students. Some met its requirements with enthusiasm,
constructing success criteria and working to complete answers (Exhibit 1.2.7), while others avoided
the task altogether (Exhibit 1.2.8). The issue for this latter group of students is the same as in the
previous task if metacognitive strategy is not employed, then the benefits of CE are unlikely to
arise, rendering the task a fruitless one.
I believe there were two reasons for the failure of these students to attend to the lessons requirements.
The first was that, while I modelled a metacognitive strategy (how to perform a task), I did not model
metacognition (how I was thinking as I enacted the strategy) (Schraw, 1998, p. 117). In essence, I left
students with a toolbox, but no instruction manual for their use. Without understanding of how they
were expected to perform, it was no surprise that they disengaged (Adelman & Taylor, 2015, p. 10). A
better strategy would have been to articulate, as I worked students through a different example, how I
was thinking about the task for instance, what kind of criteria I was using to identify keywords
(e.g. that I was looking for instructing words like explain or discuss). When students are given
the how, they can more closely mimic my own metacognitive strategy the necessary preliminary
step to their autonomous use of metacognition (Chick, 2015) and thereby, to CE.
Secondly, I failed to effectively quantify the value of the strategy to students, which may have
precluded their interest in employing it themselves. My mentor notes I only asked students about the
value of the task after its completion (Exhibit 1.2.9). However, understanding the utility of
metacognitive strategy is crucial to motivating students into its use (Ames & Archer, 1988, p. 261);
students that understand the importance of a task are far more likely to engage in it (see Nolen, 1988;
Paris & Oka, 1986). Upon reflection, it would have been more effective to provide students with a

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

rationale for the task prior to its completion (rather than asking them to speculate a rationale
afterwards).
In addition to these concerns, I note another issue observed by my mentor that I moved too
quickly through students ideas regarding the questions deconstruction (Exhibit 1.2.10). My
habitualised quick pace is an important tendency to break in order for discourse to stimulate
learning, the rate at which information is presented should match cognitive capacity (Tobin, 1987, p.
69). Where information is presented too quickly, then CE cannot occur students must be afforded
the ability to think deeply about the information with which they are presented before they can
cognitively engage (Solis, 2008).
Reflecting, this is easy to remedy wait time in conveying complex information does not have to be
long at all in order to afford benefits. Rowe (1969), for instance, has reported that wait times of
between 3 and 5 seconds during the communication of complex information are associated with
higher levels of student engagement (p. 13). As such, my future focus will be to manifest a general
awareness of pacing, and orchestrate pauses during discussion. The benefits of this skill are multiple,
which renders the acquisition of this skill imperative not only will such pauses facilitate CE, but
they are likely to promote note-taking (a skill which my Year 11s have yet to master) (DeZure, 2015,
p. 3) and improve student comprehension and retention of material (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 66).
1.3 The Second Occasion: Revisiting Metacognitive Strategising
As a result of deficient application in the first instance, my second attempt at facilitating students CE
revisited metacognition as a strategy to engagement. The attempt occurred on 22/10, with the same
Year 11 Academic Extension class.
Concept and Implementation
The task I provided to students was designed to provide a scaffolded opportunity for students to
review the processing demands of the UT task, and to establish success criteria for an Excellence
answer. I provided students with two exemplar answers from the previous years UT exam at Merit
and Excellence level (produced by students under the tutelage of MT2 that year) (see Exhibit 1.3.1).
Students were given five minutes to guess the exemplars grades, discussing in pairs. Once grades
were revealed, students were then asked to review the answers again, annotating similarities and
differences between each. Students observations were to be added to a Venn Diagram copied into
their books (see Exhibit 1.3.2), and students were also asked to contribute at least one insight to the
Venn Diagram projected onto the whiteboard. I hoped that students contributions to the Excellence
aspect of the diagram would form the basis for success criteria, which they could then use in the
production of a UT essay. Once the Venn Diagram was completed, student contributions were
discussed, and I filled in any additional requirements that students missed (see Exhibit 1.3.3).
8

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Students were then presented with an Unfamiliar Text and Question Sheet and asked to use their listed
Excellence criteria to form the basis of an essay answer.
The task was conceptualised so as to provide students with an opportunity to consider to processing
demands of the UT task a metacognitive activity, which (I hoped) would compel CE. In light of
earlier difficulties utilising metacognitive strategizing as a proxy to CE, I scaffolded the task in two
ways. First, the task was designed in connection with prior knowledge (Alber, 2014) students were
already aware from an earlier lesson that all bullet-points of an Excellence question must be addressed
to obtain an Excellence grade, and they were able to review answers for compliance with this rule.
Secondly, the task was scaffolded during its performance as students worked, I offered verbal hints
(see Exhibit 1.3.4) of the kinds of differences they might see in the Merit and Excellence answers
(that would contribute to the establishment of useful success criteria) (Alibali, 2006).
In addition, I attempted to habitualise students use of the strategy, by working to create a positive
learning environment where all students work was validated by their peers where students have a
positive experience during a learning task, they are more likely to use it in the future (Hogan &
Pressley, 1997). As such, I explicitly instructed students to note down their peers contributions to the
whiteboard, in order to ensure all students work would be duly respected by their classmates (see
Exhibit 1.3.5).
Reflection
The implementation of this task was the high point of my teaching at Onehunga High School to date.
Students clearly engaged with the work (as evidenced by Exhibit 1.3.6, which shows a students wellannotated exemplars). My mentor confirmed my perception that students were engaged, noting in
both written (see Exhibit 1.3.7) and verbal (see Exhibit 1.3.8) that they appeared to enjoy the task.
Students gave feedback registering their enjoyment of the activity, both explicitly (in feedback forms
see Exhibit 1.3.9) and implicitly (in their excellent recall of success criteria for an Excellence
answer the next week, during a brief Do Now) (see Exhibit 1.3.10).
The lesson, I believe, was successful in promoting CE for two reasons. First, in an incidental moment
of teaching, I was able to relate student contributions to prior knowledge using a text studied on
03/09 as an example of how one might go beyond the text (see Exhibit 1.3.11). At this point,
students seemed to register the idea more clearly, and several even took notes. The use of prior
knowledge (or, pulling on old learning experiences and incorporating them into the new) has been
shown to provoke CE (Vrugt & Ort, 2008, p. 127). As such, this will be a strategy I will seek to
implement with far more deliberacy and regularity in future. More importantly, I believe the activity
buttressed student self-efficacy in such a way as to promote CE. The literature expresses a correlation
between high self-efficacy and students frequent experience of CE (see Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2003).Students were informed, upon receipt of the exemplars, that they were completed by former
9

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

students of MT2 the previous year. The experience of seeing a peer of their level and tutelage succeed
in the task (and of seeing the content of an Excellence answer demystified) operated as an experiences
of vicarious-mastery, which buoyed student confidence (Bandura, 1977, p. 195). Many students
reported that the task was no longer as intimidating as they had imagined, including one particular
student (with anxiety issues) whose response to the task had always been I cant. Seeing the power
of self-efficacy manifested in the classroom will certainly inform my practice in future, and my
challenge will be to conceptualise and implement tasks that raise student self-efficacy in the same
way. I do think that it was crucial to the tasks success that it was presented at the appropriate time in
the year had students been presented with such an exemplar at the years commencement, when the
UT prospect was a yet unexplored terrain, it could have had the opposite impact.
Given the success of this metacognitive activity in promoting students CE, an additional focus will be
the investigation of alternative strategies (which also fall under the metacognition umbrella) which
could be used to build on this kind of momentum. One area I would like to explore is how I might
scaffold students through self-regulatory strategies even my Year 11 students, while high-ability, are
poor at processes such as elaboration, self-questioning and self-explanation. I have noted this
particular difficulty runs right up to my Year 13 students; they typically struggle to connect identified
language features (and their general effects) with a more specific effect that relates to the authors
purpose. Having students habitualise the task of asking themselves why?, I believe, would
substantially lift their achievement at the UT task, and promote their CE with it (Lin, 2001, p. 25).
Further, in recognition of my Year 11 students difficulties in conceptualising their strengths and
weaknesses (as shown in the previous example), I would like to work at rendering students
comfortable with self-reviewing their knowledge having students regularly self-asses what they do
not know. This metacognitive skill is also touted as having the power to facilitate CE (Bielaczyc et al.,
1995, p. 224), and is an important scaffold for students as they prepare to enter the workforce or
University (in both sectors, students will be subject to increasingly less supervision than they are used
to, and will have to exercise this skill independent). I would also hope that, in self-assessing, students
would become more inclined to ask their own questions to supplement gaps that they identify in their
own knowledge: students are far more likely to be cognitively engaged in lessons which their
questions lead (Kohn, 2015, p. 19). In this sense, students would become vehicles for their own CE
and the classroom would become a site of constant, self-reinforcing CE.
1.4 The Third Occasion: Demonstrating High Expectations
In the third stage of my Inquiry Cycle, I turned my focus to another strategy for facilitating CE, which
I witnessed implemented by MT1, MT2 and AOT2 in their classes: the demonstration of high
behavioural and academic expectations. My third occasion of implementation occurred across four
Year 9 classes on 5/11 and 12/11.
10

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Concept and Implementation

This strategy was informed by my understanding of the literature, which holds that teachers
expectations play a central role in the promotion of students CE (Archambault et al., 2012, p. 320).
Self-determination theory posits that students are particularly sensitive to the way in which teachers
acknowledge their behaviour and success, and to the message that such actions send about the value
of learning (see Patrick et al., 2003; Ryan & Patrick, 2001). The explicit communication of high
expectations regarding behavioural and academic achievements has been demonstrated to make
students feel more engaged and competent about their learning, which renders them far less likely to
use avoidance strategies when facing difficulties, and to cognitively engage in their work (see Stipek
& Daniels, 1998). In my placement at the time (Onehunga High School), these expectations were
particularly important in that they were likely to serve a corrective function for some of its students
students from disadvantaged communities are particularly susceptible to negative perceptions,
beliefs and expectations from their instructors, given the preponderance of these expectations
elsewhere (Alexander, Entwisle, & Thompson, 1987). As such, my demonstration of high
expectations served not only to facilitate CE in the immediate context, but more generally,
empowering students beyond a social narrative of which generally serves to disengage them from
schooling.
To that end, I worked across the four lessons to express a series of high-expectations, built on those
implemented by the class regular teacher. In positing high behavioural expectations, I:

Lined students up outside the classroom prior to the second bell, waited for silence and
orderly arrangement, and gave instructions for silent completion of the Do Now (projected

on the whiteboard) upon entry to the class (see Exhibit 1.4.1);

Required hands to be up during questioning sessions before answers would be accepted (see

Exhibit 1.4.2);
Used a quiet tone during periods of silence, to indicate the expectation that silence ought to

continue until the activitys completion (see Exhibit 1.4.3);

Reprimanded instances of poor behaviour by prescribing better rules of conduct (making
implicit the suggestion that students were easily capable of behaving better) (see Exhibit
1.4.4). Even though these instances were directed to single students, it was intended that they
would have a broader effect demonstrating to all students they are subject to class-wide
expectations (see Wigfield et al., 2006).

Similarly, I sought to implement high academic expectations, by:

Praising instances of academic success (see Exhibit 1.4.5);

11

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Setting goals for students completion of work that I suggested the class should universally be

able to achieve (see Exhibit 1.4.6);

Setting academic expectations that tasks delegated should always be completed (see Exhibit
1.4.7).
Reflection

In a testament to the routine implementation of such expectations by the class regular teacher, the
strategy was generally effective. While CE is notoriously difficult to measure (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2004, p. 124), students appeared behaviourally engaged (see Exhibit 1.4.8), which is an
indicator of CE (Solis, 2008). While CE was lost at some points, this does not diminish the
effectiveness of the strategy. CE is motivated by a complex set of goals which work in a web-like
network (Meece et al., 1988, p. 514) it cannot be expected that one strategy will compel CE for the
full duration of a lesson.
Upon reflection I have the following comments regarding the utilisation of the aforementioned
strategy. Regarding behavioural expectations, the strength of this strategy was in the fact that such
expectations had been persistently applied across the year prior to my picking up their mantle. The
value of routines is well-documented they provide students with a climate of safety, and provide
them with the confidence and cognitive space to cognitively engage (Campbell, 2015). The
importance of routine was also emphasised by my mentor and ULT (Exhibit 1.4.9). I note, in one
aspect, I was deficient in picking up the routines of my mentor while she regularly enforces
expectations through praise of good behaviour (see Exhibit 1.4.10), I failed to do so. The few
instances I had recorded of praise were generally contextualised within a wider censure (see Exhibit
1.4.11). While the identification of negative behaviour has its place in classroom management
(Martella et al., 2012, p. 6), the concern is that a repeated focus and emphasis on the negative could
create a classroom environment in which students feel their efforts are not given credence, and thus,
their self-worth is not taken into consideration this is the kind of environment which discourages,
rather than encourages, CE (Coe et al., 2014, p. 3).
There are several ways to remedy this tendency. The first is through employing a more silent approach
to behaviour management (for instance, the use of non-verbal cues such as hand signals), which
permits misbehaviour to be identified without publicising students engaging in non-compliance this
ensures the class is not subject to persistent negativity, and students save face with their peers (which
promotes teacher respect) (Barbetta et al., 2005, p. 12). Secondly, students positive performance
ought to be emphasised more readily as a means to promoting misbehaving students to compliance,
rather than affording them attention for misbehaviour. Positive reinforcement is significantly more
powerful than negative reinforcement in requiring students to take responsibility for their behaviour
12

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

and promoting change (Smith, 2015). Of course, such reinforcement must be well-timed I note I
have a tendency to intrude into natural behavioural sequences (see Exhibit 1.4.12). For instance,
students should not be praised while they are engaging in silent work, but upon its completion (Assor
et al., 2001, p. 264).
Regarding academic expectations, as above, I note such expectations were immediately successful in
promoting CE. However, in spite of this success, my concern is that my later actions worked to
undermine these expectations (or, did not reinforce them).
First, when posing questions, I permitted student to opt in to answer by raising their hands (see
Exhibit 1.4.13). Implicitly, I thus permitted students to opt out, suggesting that I did not expect that
the entirety of the class had been able to obtain the answer. A better strategy would have been to pose
questions to the entirety of the class (and call on students randomly) the class regular teacher noted
this as an option, adding that it had potential benefits for pulling in disengaged students (see Exhibit
1.4.14). Applying questions to the whole class is subtle enforcement of high expectations, since its
silent statement is that all students should be capable of answering (Lundy, 2008, p. 133). Of course,
this strategy has to be applied carefully the threat of embarrassment for students who are forced to
volunteer a wrong answer must always be borne in mind. However, with knowledge of the class and
its capacity, I might be sufficiently informed as to appropriate students to select. Further, prior to
questioning sessions, I could take an over-the-shoulder survey of students work, ensuring they had
the right answer before calling on them, to avoid this prospect.
Secondly, I had a tendency to ask low-level questions of students, building on answers myself rather
than questioning students further and providing them the opportunity to make inferences (see Exhibit
1.4.15). Again, the implicit presumption in not providing this opportunity is that students might not be
capable of answering higher-level questions (a silly assumption, since students with the correct
answer are typically likely to have based it on something!) A better strategy would be to request
inferences wherever possible, saving students if necessary by broadening queries to the whole class
(Rubie-Davies, 2015, p. 87). The additional benefit of this strategy is that it requires students to
articulate their thought processes in arriving at an answer a metacognitive strategy, which can also
be used as a tool to provoke CE (Schraw, 1998, p. 117)

Inquiry Cycle: Group Work

In the course of my second Inquiry Cycle, I manifested an intention to develop my capacity to
facilitate group work (of the kind which satisfies the criteria of cooperative learning). The ensuing
section documents my efforts towards this aim.
13

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

2.0 Cooperative Learning: A Brief Survey

Cooperative Learning (hereafter CL) occurs in those instances where students work in groups
towards a common goal (Killen, 2012, p. 227), which is specifically designed to maximise both
individual and group learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, pp. 1-3; Medcalf, 1995, p. 11), and in the
course of which they must: first, learn the assigned material; and secondly, ensure all members of
their group do likewise (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, p. 69). Its full manifestation requires the
enactment of five key facets:

Positive Interdependence students must realise they will sink or swim as a unit;
Individual accountability students must be obliged to contribute to the groups output, and

are precluded from freeloading;

Reflection students must engage in (lead or independent) reflection regarding their groups

performance during the activity, and conceptualise pathways to improvement;

Manifestation of taught learning strategies and interpersonal skills students must manifest

taught cooperative strategies;

Face-to-face interaction students must be physically proximate to one another, and engage
in one anothers learning by challenging one anothers ideas and providing feedback (Brown
& Thomson, 2000, pp. 38-39).

Competence in CL was sought in light of its significant benefits to student outcomes. Academically,
CL manifests in improvements to students language-competence (Mercer, 2010, p. 98), critical
thinking and problem-solving skills (McKeachie et al., 1986, p. 40) and general academic
achievement (Murdoch & Wilson, 2008, p. 5). Socially, it conditions students enactment of
promotive, caring models of interaction (Gillies, 2003, p. 37), which benefit students:

Personally: improving their relationships with peers (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, p. 13), and

thereby their psychological health, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Smith, 1996, p. 71);
Communally: fostering a caring classroom environment which lifts motivation levels and
attendance (Brophy, 2010, p. 170), and fosters academic achievement (see Marzano et al.,

2001; Marzano, 2003);

Professionally: fostering students skills in collaborative problem-solving, performance
management, and planning and task co-ordination (see Stevens and Campion, 1994), all of
which are skills prized by potential employers (ONeil, et al, 1997, p. 66).
2.1 Observing Group Work in Practice

As in the previous Inquiry Cycle, in order to buttress my understanding of how this competency is
realised in practice, I sought to observe its enactment by a range of experienced teachers in different

14

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

classroom contexts. Interestingly, across my Preliminary Practicum Experience and Practicum

Experience, formalised group work occurred rarely. The two instances observed are recorded below.
The First Instance: 7 September 2015
On 07/09, in her Year 11 class, MT2 facilitated a group activity in relation to a To Kill A Mockingbird
novel study. Students were instructed to carry out a learning together activity (an exercise in which
groups of students work collaboratively in the production of a single product, enacting its
requirements as a unit (Gokkurt et al., 2012, p. 3432). Students were presented with A3 sheets and
given oral instructions to work as a group to produce a mind map think[ing] about what [specified]
symbols in To Kill A Mockingbird might represent (see Exhibit 2.1.1)
While students completed the task, they did so by enacting a group investigation model of CL
dividing their task into pieces and completing the exercise by working on aspects independently (see
Joyce & Weil, 1972). This was notable, given learning together activities manifest substantially
better impacts than group investigations on academic outcomes (a 0.67 effect versus 0.13) (Johnson
& Johnson, 2005, p. 457). In later discussion with my mentor, she noted this may be symptomatic of
the competitive spirit of the class students, in endeavouring to exceed their classmates, are
somewhat cautious around sharing knowledge, and are particularly concerned with developing their
individual capacity as learners (for an account of how a competitive classroom impacts group work,
see Nelson-LeGall, 1992).
The Second Instance: 9 September 2015
On 09/09, in her Year 13 class, MT1 facilitated a group investigation task using Google Slides.
Students self-selected groups of four and were instructed access Google Classroom, where they were
presented with a set of four slides (each of which contained a task relating to knowledge of New
Zealand history, landscape and kiwiana culture, which sought to inform the background knowledge
with which they would approach UTs). Groups were instructed to delegate one task to each member,
and complete their set of slides by the end of the class. Positive interdependence and individual
accountability were emphasised within groups by the explicit instruction that there would be no
passivity one person in your group must do each to ensure they have information for the rest of the
group, as well as broadly across the class in the statement: The Google Slides will be uploaded on
Google Classroom for the whole class to use you need to finish it off and will be shown how you
can use it in the Unfamiliar Text section (see Exhibit 2.1.2).
Interestingly, while students worked largely independently, several students enacted the face-to-face
requirement of CL (Brown & Thomson, 2000, p. 39) without request aligning desks, working in
circles and discussing their work intermittently (see Exhibit 2.1.2). This is likely indicative of
previous explicit instruction or scaffolding regarding appropriate cooperative strategies to be
15

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

manifested during group-work, and the significant efforts on MT1s part in facilitating a positive,
communal classroom atmosphere where students respect the contributions of their peers (Murdoch &
Wilson, 2004, p. 9).
2.2 The First Occasion: The Jigsaw
My first enactment of CL occurred on 22/09, in the context of a miniature unit on the New Zealand
Flag Change Referendum with MT1s Year 13 Academic Extension Class.
Concept and Implementation
In the first of two sessions on the Flag Change (culminating in a set of class debates on 23/09), I
engaged the class in a Jigsaw Activity (Aronson et al., 1978) designed to afford students practice at
establishing an authors purpose from a UT (and extracting evidence to support that assessment). I
selected the Jigsaw on the basis that it is designed to manifest CL by its nature (Slavin, 2011, p. 163)
as my maiden attempt at implementing CL, I hoped that the Jigsaw would serve as a self-scaffold, as a
starting point from where I could move up to more involved applications of CL.
At the start of the lesson, I permitted students to self-select groups of five (in anticipation they would
group according to peer units) (see Exhibit 2.2.1). The basis for this decision was twofold: first, to
ensure student buy-in to group-work (providing them with warm up time with their peers in expert
groups before they were disseminated randomly (Tilleston, 2011, p. 74)), and secondly, to enable
later content differentiation (since my students peer groups are largely homogenous in terms of
ability).
Each group was presented with an article which expressed a view as to the flag change (see Exhibit
2.2.2). The complexity of articles varied, and higher-level articles were provided to higher-ability
students as a means to content differentiation (Song, 2015). In recognition of the potential impact of
differentiation on student self-efficacy3, I ensured the differentiation was respectful of all students
despite their differences in complexity, all articles were equally important for the purposes of
informing ensuing debates, since all provided different arguments for or against the flag change
(Tomlinson, 1999, p. 12).
Students independently read and annotated their articles, before they discussed them as a group and
worked collaboratively to fill out a Gathering Evidence from Texts worksheet (see Exhibit 2.2.3),
which scaffolded the evidence-gathering exercise (Huggins & Edwards, 2011, p. 34). Once
worksheets were completed students were divided into heterogeneous groups (which contained one
expert per article) and given three minutes each to share their articles contents (see Exhibit 2.2.4).
3 Visible differentiation, particularly regarding content, can have a detrimental impact on students
self-esteem, self-efficacy and sense of belonging and motivation in the classroom (see Merina, 1993;
Klinger & Vaughn, 1999)
16

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

My hopes for the task were threefold. First, I hoped the activity would afford all students practise at
the UT task. The class given the time of year was typically apathetic, and disengagement was an
increasing problem for its members. The interdependence necessitated by the Jigsaw activity has been
shown to promote participation it requires students to actively support one anothers learning
(which, in turn, improves student motivation and attitude towards their own learning (Slavin, 1995, p.
53; Gaith & Bouzeinddine, 2003, p. 107)). I hoped then, it would engage my students in the same
way, and, to this end, I repeatedly emphasised students interdependence throughout the task, noting
they were: task interdependent (to successfully complete the task, each student in non-expert groups
had to share their article), resource interdependent (students would receive no further copies of their
article so were reliant on their peers to share information); and fate interdependent (all students
ability to complete the ensuing debates would be impacted by their peers sharing of resources)
(Miller & Davison-Podgorny, 1987). Secondly, I hoped to provide students with the opportunity to
experience CLs social benefits in particular, the opportunity to develop professional skills (given
their proximity to University and the workforce). Finally, I hoped that the second part of the task
would work to buttress student self-efficacy. As experts shared with their groups, it was intended
students would make a written record of their key points. Students open valuation of their peers
contributions (for instance, by writing them down) (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013, p. 12) can act as
powerful self-efficacy enhancing verbal encouragement (Walker & Crogan, 1998, p. 382). Since
self-efficacy can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy to achievement (Gecas, 2004, p. 382), this benefit
was incidental, but crucial.
Reflection
For many students, the task was successful in provoking engagement both on the day (see Exhibit
2.2.5) and in the ensuing debates on 23/09 (see Exhibit 2.2.6). However, I do not consider the task
was realised as well as it could have been.
First, while the second part of the Jigsaw worked well, it failed to engage all students at its
preliminary stage. Several students were passive in their expert groups, noting down the
contributions of a dominant individual rather than making their own (Exhibit 2.2.7). The issue with
this was twofold: first, in failing to participate in the first aspect, these students failed to realise the
learning outcome of the lesson (to extract evidence of an authors purpose from an Unfamiliar
Text), and to accrue the academic and social benefits of debating with peers to arrive at a shared
reading of the text (Brown & Thomson, 2000, p. 38); secondly, their non-participation risked
compromising the positive peer relations across the classroom MT1 had worked to create students
resent unequal shares in group work (Robinson, 2003, p. 246), and when they are obliged to work to
compensate for others failings, this can lead to souring of relationships and unwillingness to
participate in later tasks (see Barrett et al., 2015).

17

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

Sheehy (2004) has noted that if improperly enacted the Jigsaw can pervert student incentives by
prioritising the processing outcome of the group over individual learning (p. 183). This is what
occurred in my Jigsaw students prioritised the completion of the worksheet over universal
engagement in the key learning task. In future, to avoid this outcome, I might be more careful to
ensure student contribution is required at the first stage (see Barrett et al., 2015), by formalising each
students sharing time (as in the second part of the activity). As an alternative, students with known
passivity issues could be clumped together into one expert group, which I could supervise more
closely during the first stage to ensure participation (Jolliffe, 2007, p. 42). Since passivity can be
related to perceived lack of ability (McKeachie et al., 1986, p. 54) this approach would have the
additional benefit of providing me with the opportunity to interject in the activity strategically, and
validate students contributions by providing verbal encouragement (increasing their self-efficacy at
the participation task to encourage participation in future) (Bandura, 1977, p. 198). An alternative
strategy could also be the use of self, peer, assessment and group forms, in which students hold
themselves and others accountable for participation (Murdoch & Wilson, 2008, p. 38). While there
might be a risk of dishonesty, such forms could inform me as to problem cases to monitor more
closely in group work and compel the participation of.
The second issue with the Jigsaw was that its aspiration to provide students with a knowledge base (to
inform their debates) was not realised. While experts all shared their articles, many students were
passive during this time failing to note down key arguments. My mentor notes this was due to a
deficiency in instruction I did not specify this as a requirement (see Exhibit 2.2.8). The issues with
this were twofold: first, my students were less-than prepared for their debates the next day; and
secondly, the self-efficacy benefits of the Jigsaw task failed to materialise, since students did not
validate one anothers work.
My failure was that I failed to instruct the requirement of note-taking specifically I presumed
(wrongly) that my repeated emphasis on students interdependence (particularly in relation to
resource) that they would appreciate the need to take notes. However, the time at which they were
required to extrapolate from that emphasis was 12.19pm (44 minutes into the lesson) a time at
which Hattie and Yates (2014), for instance, note student attention has deteriorated significantly
(likely, at least 55% of students would have had wandering minds) (p. 48). The better path would have
been to formalise the second part of the Jigsaw process giving explicit verbal and written
instructions, and clarifying student understanding (to ensure these had been received) (Westergaard,
2009, p. 90).

2.3 The Second Occasion: Learning Together

18

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

The second enactment of a CL practice occurred in the context of a session on language features Texts
in MT1s Year 13 Academic Extension Class.
Concept and Implementation
In light of difficulties with the Jigsaw, I opted to enact an alternative CL strategy: learning together
(in which students are obliged to work collaboratively, preparing one output as a collective unit (Eilks
et al., 2010, p. 107)). Students were divided into ability-based groups of four, and instructed to
allocate (amongst themselves) a set of group roles (see Exhibit 2.3.1). Each group was allocated a
language feature to focus on, and were instructed to access Google Classroom, where they were
provided a document with an example of their language feature. Students were instructed to prepare a
PowerPoint presentation: (a) defining their language feature, (b) identifying where their language
feature occurred in their assigned text; and (c) analysing the effect of the language feature as it
presented in their selected text (see Exhibit 2.3.2). The task was modelled for students in my own
brief presentation on simile (Exhibit 2.3.3). Students were provided with 15 minutes to prepare their
PowerPoints, before presenting to the class (see Exhibit 2.3.4 for student work).
The task was conceptualised on several bases. First, I hoped to resolve the non-participation difficulty
of the Jigsaw by creating incentives for student participation in the task. The roles were designed to
allow students uncertain in their comprehension skills (and therefore unlikely to participate in textual
interpretation) to make a meaningful contribution to the task in other ways (Attle & Baker, 2007, p.
79) I hoped, if students received positive peer feedback for their contribution in any aspect, they
would be more likely to participate in any future group work more constructively (Gaith &
Bouzeineddine, 2003, p. 107). Further, the prospect of public reward or censure (in the requirement of
presentation) was designed to incentivise all members participation, to ensure both personal and
group success (see Morgan, 2003). Secondly, I hoped that in learning together students textanalysis skills would be improved in their exposure to peers alternative interpretations of UTs
(diversifying the lenses or perspectives with which students might approach their UT exam (see
Osborne, 2005; Tjosvold, Sun & Wan, 2005). Finally, I hoped the learning together model would
promote students ongoing, habitualised collaboration in the lead-up to the exam students had
informed me in an earlier class that they never studied together, or collaborated in exam preparation,
in spite of its demonstrated academic and social benefits (Johnson & Johnson, 2005, p. 457).
Reflection
A number of difficulties emerged in the implementation of the task, which threatened its integrity as a
robust manifestation of the CL.
The first was that some students utilised the opportunity of presentation to engage in silliness, which
undermined the integrity of the task (see Exhibit 2.3.5). While the class silence at the attempted joke
19

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

was censure enough that I made no other act to correct the behaviour and my mentor barely
registered the matter as a disruption (see Exhibit 2.3.6) it did expose the risk of students
presentation of less-than-desirable work in front of the class. To avoid this risk arising in the future, I
might require such projects to be submitted for overnight review. This spot-check would have the
additional benefit of buttressing student confidence in presenting, since it would provide students with
the assurance that such work was relevant to their classmates learning and a fair representation of
their own capacity (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013, p. 12).
The second issue was a weakness in my implementation of the activity once again, I failed to clarify
the need for students to note down their peers contributions (see Exhibit 2.3.7). As such, many
students only passively accepted the information conveyed to them (and were thus unlikely to retain
any learning from their peers presentations (see Schoen, 2012)). Part of this issue, however, was also
pace students were liable to hurry through presentations, and any students who might have made
notes of their own volition would have been perturbed by the impossibility of keeping notes at such
speed. A better option might have been to compel students to engage in a longer presentation
allowing presentations to occur across a whole lesson where, rather than merely reciting findings,
students lead teaching of their text. Presenting students could have required the class to complete an
analysis of their section (annotating the example and giving a bullet-pointed analysis of its impact),
and then reviewed class answers in line with their own analysis. The academic benefit for all students
would have been significant, since peer teaching is challenging for students (see Ogawa, 1997) and
assists in the development of their deeper levels of understanding of the task or knowledge at hand
(see Anderson, Simon & Reder, 1996). The public-speaking aspect would also be to students
advantage Stevick (1976) notes this kind of forced discomfort, where students must personally
invest in the enactment of their learning results in far better retention and understanding of difficult
concepts.
The third, and most significant issue, was once again that of participation. While the first student
groups were quick to volunteer to present, the final three engaged in a long-drawn out argument as to
their order, and presented as minimally as possible when called upon. My concern is that this
reluctance was of my making, rather than their general disdain for public speaking. Following each
groups presentation, I provided them with feedback. In providing some with minimal feedback (like
that was great, thanks) and others with more extensive feedback, I unwittingly established a
hierarchy of performance (Pianta et al., 2006). There was potential for students to lose or win
(depending on my feedback), and thus, I established a competitive environment.
While learning by losing (or rather, learning in a competitive environment) promotes some benefits
(such as increased student effort (Dettmer, 2004, p. 36)), the harms of such environments are more
numerous: they heighten student anxiety, shift focus from means to ends, promote a mentality defined

20

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

by fear of failure, decrease student incentives to think reflectively or divergently, accentuate the
effects of existing ability hierarchies (Shindler, 2009), and detriment student participation (see Kohn,
1986, p. 264) all of which lower student achievement. The competitive environment I established, I
believed, enacted the last of those concerns low-ability students became reluctant to participate
after witnessing higher-ability students failing (receiving lesser feedback), which impacted their
belief in their competence to succeed (Schunk & Pajares, 2002, p. 21).
If competition is to be effective, it must be enabled constructively (Sharan, 1976, p. 22). To enact this
task more effectively in future, I might implement a number of changes, to ensure the competitive
spirit does not eclipse students will to participate. First, students must be reminded that their primary
aim in the classroom is to grow and learn, rather than protect a self-image (Shindler, 2009). Secondly,
praise must be evenly distributed across students, and they must be assured that their teacher wants
them do well (they must be aware that their teacher is acting as a teacher, not a judge) (Shindler,
2009). Finally, the cooperative context of the task should be emphasised students should be
reminded that their education of one another is the primary goal of the task and its purpose will be
realised if they achieve this (the superiority of their presentation to another groups is thereby
irrelevant) (Sharan, 1976, p. 22).
2.4 The Third Occasion: Think-Pair-Share
On the final occasion of this Inquiry Cycle, on 28/10, I attempted to facilitate a Think-Pair-Share
activity (hereafter TPS) with my Year 13 class as a means to developing their competence and
confidence at the task of annotating UTs.
Concept and Implementation
I selected TPS as the CL to enact for a number of reasons. First, recognising that my students were
inclined to enact informal TPS models during the course of my classes, I attempted to pull on their
interest to establish engagement in the activity. TPS is the most effective CL strategy for engaging
passive students (Wingert & Molitor, 2009, p. 9) given the previous passivity in the Jigsaw, I hoped
TPS would compel all students to participation. Secondly, I enacted TPS as a means to realising CL
effectively by its nature, TPS is designed to enact CL principles and thereby propagate its benefits
(Li & Lam, 2013, p. 15).
Early in the lesson, I distributed students a poetry text (Exhibit 2.4.1) and instructed them (Exhibit
2.4.2) to engage in its silent annotation. After five minutes, students were numbered off to create
pairs, and instructed to work together to compare annotations, noting down peers annotations where
they diverged (Exhibit 2.4.3). While numbering-off was designed to appear random, it was
constructed in order to pair high-ability with low-ability students (and break up peer groups), in order
to: first, ensure that students would be exposed to different perspectives on texts than those they were
21

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

likely to have (given students in peer groups are likely to be homogenised in terms of perspective
(Schunk & Pajares, 2002, p. 22); secondly, to provide the option for an informal kind of peer tutoring.
If enacted, the latter would serve to improve the motivation, self-concept and achievement of lowability students (Nguyen, 2013, p. 3; Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson, 1996), as well as improve
the academic outcomes of high-ability students by encouraging their flexible use of language and use
of metacognitive strategy (in which they must consider how their partner learns, and accommodate
that) (Briggs, 2013).
Following completion of pair annotation. I instructed pairs to find another set of students and repeat
the exercise (Exhibit 2.4.4). The requirement that students annotate their own work with insights
from their peers was emphasised. This was done deliberately, seeking to utilise the activity as a means
of lifting all students self-efficacy at the UT task (as discussed above). Following the completion of
that team annotation, the task was repeated with a second text (Exhibit 2.4.5).
Reflection
The lesson generally proceeded well. I note students were engaged in the task (see Exhibit 2.4.6) and
produced well-annotated texts (Exhibit 2.4.7). However, during the course of the lesson, a difficulty
arose which threw light onto a key deficiency I had implemented across all occasions of my Inquiry
Cycle.
During the course of the lesson, one group of students persistently failed to engage in the task. They
were a group of three, comprised of: one high-ability student (M), one average-ability student (H)
and one low-ability student (K). I endeavoured to coax the students into action, noting K had
completed some work and suggesting that he could start the groups discussion with M and H
following. M looked at me, and responded as follows: I dont think so Miss, its not like K knows
what hes doing.
I was devastated, given K is a student I have been keeping a close eye on, with obviously low selfesteem and self-efficacy. The remark, I believe, was dangerous for his academic prospects. First, it
had likely lowered Ks self-efficacy significantly, as an instance of verbal discouragement (Bandura,
1977, p. 198) made more powerful by the fact it came through a peer (see Tomlinson & Moon, 2013).
This reduction is significant, given ones self-efficacy beliers are an important predictor of ones
capacity for success in any task (Gecas, 2004, p. 382). Furthermore, the incident could have reduced
Ks ability to cognitively engage in the classroom relational engagement (the extent to which
students feel connected to their peers) is a significant predictor of cognitive engagement (Levitt,
Guacci-Franco & Levitt, 1994, p. 207; Wills, 1985, p. 69), which, in turn, is a predictor of academic
success (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008, p. 48).

22

Charlotte Forster (4893416)

My failing was that I presupposed my students capacity to routinely and effectively enact promotive
models of interaction by virtue of their age. However, there is no guarantee this is the case no CL
activity, on its own, is sufficient to promote positive social skills (see Bratt, 2008), and social
interactions, like any other skill, must be guided and taught in some way (Gillies, 2004, p. 259). While
most of my students act with the utmost decorum and respect towards one another (indicating they
have been taught these skills already), I was at fault in being so careless so as to presume this was a
universal capacity.
Reflecting on the incident, one matter which I can consider positively is that the disciplinary moment
that followed Ms comment did not disturb the class otherwise positive rhythm (see Exhibit 2.4.8 for
a recording of this period, where the class continues uninterrupted, and my reprimand is scarcely
audible). However, my hope for the future is that I can be more proactive in ensuring such incidents
are avoided. The first step might be to survey the relational engagement of my students generally
students that have positive social relationships tend to care about others in such a way that predicts
further positive interactions (see Ford, 1996). If students are evidently not feeling relational
belonging my task as an instructor will be to lead from the top by modelling relational engagement
with students (Crosnoe, 2000; Dornbusch et al., 1996), by demonstrating personal care for them
(Pianta et al., 2012, p. 370), and according them respect with the provision of real-world and
meaningful subject matter (Allen et al., 1997). Secondly, I might focus on how I convey the
importance of social skills to my students. Hargreaves (1980) notes there can be a tendency for social
skills to be conveyed to students as necessary professional and academic skills only (p. 197), which
reduces their immediate relevance. If they are rendered less important, then students are less likely to
implement them in the classroom, or see their establishment and ongoing manifestation as a priority.
My own tendency to talk of such skills in mechanical terms is evident in my analysis above I must
be cautious in future, particularly in my own classroom (in which I establish the culture) to ensure
that the personal value of social skills, and the requirement that they be enacted persistently and
universally is emphasised. Thirdly, I might obviously focus on explicitly teaching or requiring the
demonstration of certain social skills in group work while my own knowledge of how this might
occur is limited, I might be able to seek information from school RTLBs trained in cooperative
practices, and commit to experimenting with cooperative learning methods with colleagues in order to
establish a knowledge base in this regard, which I can use to inform my practice (Thomson & Brown,
2000, p. 41).

23