• Student Careers
• Culture
• Curriculum
This issue centers on inclusion, student voice, cultural relevance, language development, and wellbeing to spotlight how education can be both equitable and empowering.
• English Language Learners
• Gifted & Talented
• Inclusion
• Modern Foreign Languages
• Student Engagement
• Student Wellbeing
November 2025
2 Volume 2
As we publish the second edition of Quest –The CEAR Journal of UAE Action Research for 2025, it is remarkable to see how far our community of practitioner-researchers has grown. What began with 12 articles in our first year has developed into a movement of more than 200 educators now engaged in research across Dubai, joined this year by an expanding group of student researchers. Year 3 of CEAR is now fully under way, and we look forward to seeing the fruits of this next wave of inquiry later in the year.
The studies in this edition illustrate that growth not only in scale but in depth and ambition. They explore how holistic education can enhance post-16 outcomes, how culturally responsive teaching shapes participation, and how wellbeing supports academic achievement. Teachers investigate language learning, inclusion, curriculum design, and motivation — examining, for instance, how outdoor learning builds fluency, how gamification promotes reading, and how flexible learning spaces influence engagement. Each paper reflects an authentic commitment to understanding and improving the lived experience of learners.
What stands out across these diverse projects is the maturity of professional reflection. Our researchers are not simply asking what works, but why it works — connecting theory to practice in ways that strengthen both. This collective endeavour demonstrates what can happen when schools collaborate with openness, trust, and shared purpose.
My sincere thanks go to every teacher- and student-researcher who has contributed to this volume, and to the schools of the
Simon O’Connor
Director, Centre for Education Action Research
CEAR Research Schools Alliance for sustaining this culture of professional learning. We also remain deeply grateful to the University of Birmingham (Dubai) for their academic partnership, and to the Al Futtaim Education Foundation for its continued support, which makes this work possible.
The research presented here will have an impact well beyond our Research Schools and even beyond Dubai. At a time of uncertainty in education, these researchers are providing thoughtful, evidence-based answers to questions being asked across the educational world. Their work will shape not only pedagogy, but also the daily experience of children — enhancing their confidence, wellbeing, and chances of success.
The researchers, and the schools that support them, should take great pride in both the work they have undertaken and the difference they are making.
The Research School Alliance (RSA) is a collaborative network of schools in the UAE that have partnered with CEAR to advance educational practices through action research and innovation.
A special mention goes to the University of Birmingham Dubai’s Action Research Network for conducting insightful workshops on developing action research in schools, as well as to our industry connections for helping our researchers comprehend the broader implications of their work.
What Impact Has a Bespoke System of Holistic Education (The Hartland Diploma) on Improving Sixth Form Outcomes and University Destinations?
Eoghan Heffernan, Hartland International School
Culturally Responsive Teaching: Impact on Student Participation and Engagement
Anthonia Olayiwola, Hartland International School
How Does Integrating Tier 3 Vocabulary Into Lesson Starters Influence Students' Use of Subject-Specific Terminology in Design and Technology Assessments and Practical Work?
Iwan Alun Pritchard, Hartland International School
Amplifying Academic Achievement for Multilingual Learners
Andrea Balint, Universal American School
The Impact of the Curiosity Approach on English Language Learners in Their First Year of School
Fiona McDermott, Safa British School
Fostering Mathematical Growth: Supporting English Language Learners' Success Through Elevated Expectations
Joanna Galvin, Hartland International School
Fresh Air and Fluent Speech: Enhancing EAL & ELL Communication Skills Through Outdoor Learning
Samantha Wilkes & Kay Gibson, Kings’ School Al Barsha
High Ability, Facilitating Needs: The G&T Learning Experience
Jack Walker, Universal American School
How the Implementation of Flexible Seating Arrangements Within a Year 5 Classroom Impacts Student Engagement and Academic Progress
Aimee Barlow, South View School
Bridging Inclusion to the Mainstream Classroom: Assessing the Impact of Pull-Out Classes on Meeting IEP Goals for SEN Students
Mary Joy Magsakay, Hartland International School
Investigating the Most Effective Communicative Approaches in MFL for Recall of Vocabulary
Haya Al Mansoori & Tiziri L. Akli, Deira International School
The Use of a Paper Planner with Grade 6 Students
Julie Ouzilleau, Universal American School
The Impact of an Explicit Phonics Programme on Reading Aloud Skills and Dictation in KS3 Modern Foreign Languages
Louise O’Sullivan, South View School
Fostering Cognitive Growth: Effective Foreign Language in the Middle East
Luz Adhalessa Rios Vargas, Kings' Al Barsha
Visual Tools for Formative Assessment in KS3 German: A Classroom Study of Coloured Cups and Mini Whiteboards
Maria Banshchikova, Hartland International School
The Impact of Multilingual Education on Student Engagement and Achievement in a Multicultural Setting
Menat Essawy, Safa British School
Talk for Writing: Enhancing Arabic Writing Confidence in Non-Arabic Speakers
Niveen Hassan, Hartland International School
The Power of Inquiry: The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning and Project-Based Learning on Student Engagement and Achievement in Science and Moral, Social and Cultural Studies
Amara A. Adkins & Bronach O’Brien, Safa British School
Exploring the Role of Gamification in Fostering Reading Enthusiasm and Promoting Literacy
Ashmi Chirag Bhansali, The Arbor School
Motivating IB Psychology Students Through Structured Autonomy Support
Emma McCombie, Universal American School
Student Engagement and Motivation in Lower Set Classes When a Competitive Element is Introduced
Susan Blomley, Deira International School
The Impact of Non-Academic Activities on Student Mental Health
Cristina Mejia-Acevedo & Lee-Ella Browne, Universal American School
The Impact of Well-Being on Academic Achievement: The Role of Direct and Passive Teacher Support
Omayma Hashim, Hartland International School
Eoghan Heffernan, Hartland International School
Holisitc education “focuses on “wholeness” and it attempts to avoid excluding any significant aspects of the human experience.” (Mahmoudi et al., 2012) In addition, Noddings (2005) argues that education which nurtures the whole child is more likely to develop resilient, engaged and effective learners. Whilst these ideas are largely unchallenged and actively supported throughout primary and secondary settings, this action esearch project aims to provide a more focused insight into the effects of a bespoke holisitic education initiative, The Hartland Diploma, specifically on post-16 students. Sixth Form students today, in an international landscape, face increasingly intense academic pressure and highly competitive university entry standards.
This research study aims to identify whether the implementation of a system of holisitc education, with key foci on personal development and community service components, can have a positive impact on student motivation, improved academic performance and increase student success in competitive university admissions processes.
The Hartland Diploma was introduced to ensure our sixth form student body were actively encourgaed to lead by example, give back to the school community and further their personal development whilst doing so. The diverse, high-achieving student body at Hartland International School (HIS) prepare rigorously for A-Level examinations and international university applications; evidence by student alumni spread across the globe as far west as California and east as Australia.
The Hartland Diploma was designed to ensure that alongside the strive for academic excellence, that a culture of holistic growth and development would also be embedded and further support students to develop a distinct personal narative to enhance university applications. The Hartland Diploma is now in its third year and student numbers in the Sixth Form continue to grow, making this a good juncture to assess the barriers that continue to exist and identify areas for refinement and enhancement to continue to drive the effectiveness of the framework.
A wide range of academic research documents the benefits of holisitic education. Seligman (2011) argues that well-being and engagement are vital for success, especially in adolescent learners. The VESPA (Vision, Effect, System, Practice, and Attitude) model which forms a key element of the Hartland Diploma is a trusted and well respected framework for improving student habits and motivation (Fanthorpe & Staunton, 2016). Furthermore, studies have shown that extracurricular engagement as well as community service learning have strong positive correlations with academic attainment and successful university applications (Kuh, 2008).
However, there remains a lack of evidence evaluating the impact of bespoke, school-specific programs such as the Hartland Diploma, particularly those specific to post-16 education and the impact on A-Level results as well as university admissions. While, for example, Durlak et al. (2011) found a positive link between social-emotional learning programs and improved student outcomes, fewer studies assess the effect of such programs on both academic achievement and univeristy admissions. This action research project seeks to address that gap.
Action research allowed for a practical and flexible approach to exploring the impact of the Hartland Diploma within a school setting. This enabled the research to be context specific and explored through direct engagement with the students and the school environment.
This research sought to explore the following key questions:
• Does participation in the Hartland Diploma improve value-added A-Level outcomes?
• Does it increase access to top-tier universities and competitive courses?
• Does it positively influence student motivation, particularly at the start of Sixth Form?
This research followed as part of an implementation project to launch and successfully establish the Hartland Diploma as an integral part of sixth form life at Hartland. Therefore, research has been conducted across multiple cycles. Two cohorts were used for comparison:
• Class of 2024: This student group have completed the Hartland Diploma in full and are enrolled in university, allowing for retrospective data to be assessed on both A-Level outcomes and university destinations and correlated against engagement with the diploma.
• Class of 2026: Currently in Year 12 and at the beginning of the Hartland Diploma cycle, allowing the opportunity to assess the impact of the diploma award on student motivation and engagement.
Following the launch of the Hartland Diploma, research has focussed on data collection (including participation levels), ongoing monitoring, students’ surveys and reflections, as well as detailed analysis of data to draw conclusions.
As identified above, two cohorts were used as the baseline samples to assess the different research questions. The Class of 2024 was a cohort of 32 students, whilst the Class of 2026 has a currently active participating group of 65 students.
Quantitative data included:
• Hartland Diploma tracking document, where credits are awarded to students for elements of the diploma they have completed.
• A-Level grades and value-added scores.
• University destination data (e.g., offers and acceptances).
Qualitative data included:
• Student reflections and logs.
• Anonymous surveys capturing motivation, understanding of the diploma, and perceptions of impact.
As noted earlier, two sample groups were used to evaluate the impact of the diploma structure. The outcomes for the Class of 2024 were utilised to assess the impact on A-Level outcomes and university admissions data. Whilst the Class of 2026, whose outcomes are as yet unknown, provided insights into the impact of Hartland Diploma on student motivation to engage in the broader school community and develop further skills beyond the classroom (see Figure 3).
Table 1
Graduating Class of 2024 Key Data
% of cohort engaging with Hartland Diploma 95%
A-Level Grades (D or above) 98.73%
First Choice University Placements 100%
A-Level grades of students not engaging/with minimal engagement in the Hartland Diploma (2 students)
75% grade E or below
Notable Success Gold Award winner received full scholarship to University of San Francisco (studying Neuroscience) with CCB grades
Figure 1
Sample Section of Hartland Diploma Tracker Document
what is evident is the clear disparity in grades for participants in the diploma versus non-participants, as highlighted in the above table. The stark contrast in grades at a D or better for
Figure 2
Class of 2026 Responses on the Hartland Diploma as a Motivator for Activities, Community Contribution, and Skill Development
Figure 3
Percentage of Year 12 (Class of 2026 Cohort Engaging with Elements of the Hartland Diploma by Term 2
Results
Findings suggest a positive correlation between diploma engagement and outcomes. While overall value add on a student-by-student basis demonstrated some mixed results,
the entire cohort (see Table 1) suggests that engagement with the Hartland Diploma can positively impact students A-Level grades. Similarly, students not engaging in the elements of the Hartland Diploma (VESPA, enrichment or community service and the Duke of Edinburgh), suffered significantly less satisfactory outcomes in A-Level grades, with 75% of these students grades at an E or below.
Furthermore, to the question of university outcomes, all diploma participants from the Class of 2024 who applied to universities, secured their first-choice university. The most compelling support for engaging with the diploma program is that of a student with CCB grades earning a full scholarship to a top US institution. This student’s strong engagement with the enrichment aspect of the Hartland Diploma is evidenced in Figure 1. This would appear to provide a strong demonstration that holistic profiles can stand out.
Additionally, 95% of students in the class of 2024 engaged to some meaningful extent with the Hartland Diploma, and 100% of those students who applied to universities, gained access to their 1st choice university. In this cohort, those top tier Universities included: Stanford, UCL, McMasters, University of Bath, and University of San Francisco. One student who engaged fully with the Diploma also received an offer from Cambridge.
Finally, quantitative data from the class of 2026 indicates that for the majority (94% in Figure 2), the existence of the Hartland Diploma increases motivation to engage in a holistic education and contribute to the whole school community.
Discussion and Reflections
The research appears to demonstrate that a bespoke or specific system of holisitic education in a sixth form setting can contribute meaningfully to student development, particularly in respect of shaping well-rounded university applicants.
The study also provided valuable insights into the students perception of the diploma framework and enabled an evaluation of the potential changes to the framework moving forward.
While the question of A-Level grade improvements are not uniformly consistent, there is a clear indication that students actively disengaging with the diploma’s core principals suffered less satisfactory grades. This will be further assessed as additional cohorts complete the Hartland Diploma and A-Level grades are accordingly analysed.
Additionally, from the initial two cohorts observed, tracked and monitored, university access and student motivation metrics are promising. Student reflections support the idea that the diploma builds resilience, leadership, and self-awareness, traits valued by top universities (Universities UK, 2021). Outstanding university offers and placements achieved by Hartland students support the importance of the Hartland Diploma in creating a holistic system of education which can be tracked and montiored to enhance our students university applications.
This research has, therefore, identified that the Hartland Diploma framework has a tangible impact beyond the classroom in the development of the whole individual as well positive impacts on grades and university admissions.However, qualitative feedback suggests that clearer communication and an earlier established cultural embedding of the diploma’s value are needed (according to 50% of students surveyed). Reflecting upon the feedback received, changes are required in terms of the launch and timeframes for completion of the Hartland Diploma with incoming Year 12 cohorts. It is estimated that the model will be fully imbeded as an integral part of sixth form life and culture at Hartland International School by the completion time for the Class of 2028.
Once sufficiently established in the Sixth Form, a more detailed evaluation of its impacts will again be completed. Aditionally, a key focus moving forward is to determine how best to measure impact in a more tangible way.
Future cycles of research will focus on refining delivery and improved methods of gathering and analysing data, which will be particularly important as cohort numbers, and hence participant numbers, increase. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research study. A limited number of student cohorts have engaged with the Hartland Diploma since its introduction and hence, A-Level attainment and university destinations are being measured against one graduating cohort only.
Further analysis of future graduating classes will be required to support the findings reached (beginning with the Class of 2025 this August).
Additionally, qualitative research conducted focussed on the responses of just 25 students (approx. 40% of the class of 2026 cohort). The study, therefore, may lack the dept of statistical data required to draw meaningful, long-term conclusions.
The effect of a bespoke designed, holistic system of education for sixth form students was explored thoroughly. The data analysed and the responses from students overall suggest evidence of a hugely positive impact on outcomes, university destinations and motivation for post-16 students. This research has offered practical and evidence-based insights into the positive impact of such a framework, whilst acknowledging that it will benefit from further cycles of research and reflection moving forward. Based on this research, a continued implementation of the Hartland Diploma will be beneficial to sixth form students at Hartland International School, however, some adaptations will be required that will be heavily influenced by student voice to encourage further buy-in, whilst also, there is an ongoing need to raise the profile of the Hartland Diploma through clarity of purpose and demonstration of impact. Finally, once embedded succesfully in the sixth form setting, it is worth exploring whether the model could benefit from further integration into Key Stage 4 to instil values and skills development earlier. This would likely require adaptations to the existing framework in order to ensure suitability to a younger cohort of students.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., et al. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
Fanthorpe, R., & Staunton, T. (2016). The VESPA mindset: A student’s guide to academic success. Crown House Publishing.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. AAC&U.
Mahmoudi, S., Jafari, E., Nasrabadi, H. A., & Liaghatdar, M. J. (2012). Holistic education: An approach for 21st century. International Education Studies, 5(3), 178–186. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1066819 (Accessed: 1 June 2025).
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools. Teachers College Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
Universities UK. (2021). Skills for jobs: Lifelong learning for opportunity and growth. Department for Education.
Anthonia Olayiwola, Hartland International School
One of the issues faced by educators in multicultural classrooms is making sure every student feels visible, represented, respected and engaged in their learning. Research indicates that schools still deliver content that adequately represents the cultural background or life experiences of their pupils. (Banks, 2001; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This gap can lead to lower levels of engagement and participation, particularly among students from underrepresented backgrounds.
Research suggests that students' motivation and sense of belonging can be affected if they do not see themselves represented or their identities recognised in the curriculum (Nieto, 2010; Moll et al., 1992). Educators can make learning relevant, personalised and reflective of their students' cultural identity and experience by using a pedagogical approach known as culturally responsive teaching (CRT). This approach integrates students' viewpoints and life experiences into the classroom (Gay, 2010).
A common misconception is that CRT focuses solely on students’ national identity or ethnicity. However, this is not the case; in practice, CRT looks at a child holistically. This includes not only their cultural background, but their interests, their mode of communication, preferred way of learning values, experiences and perspectives developed from home life that students bring into the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Mehta, 2024). When applied intentionally and thoughtfully, CRT can contribute to the creation of a more equitable and responsive learning environment where students are encouraged to actively participate, share their experiences and feel confident in their identity to do so.
I teach in a Year 3 class in a multicultural British International school, with pupils from over 100 different nationalities. Over time, I observed a persistent lack of participation and engagement among some students during teacher-led activities, class discussions and tasks where they did not particularly connect with their interests or personal experiences. I was keen to address the issue as I began to see a decline in their confidence, levels of enjoyment in lessons and writing attainment.
By exploring CRT strategies through this research, I aim to develop and create a learning environment that will increase pupil participation and engagement and give students more ownership of their learning.
Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) is an approach that intentionally integrates students' lived experiences into the curriculum and lessons, as well as valuing their cultural background (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Deci and Ryan’s (1985) selfdetermination theory highlights the important role autonomy plays in improving students’ motivation. Similarly, Gay (2000) argues that culturally responsive teaching promotes students' voice and choice within a context relevant their culture, making learning and purposeful. According to Ladson-Billings (1995), students' cultural knowledge and experience are connected to their learning, it fosters intrinsic motivation and engagement in their learning.
According to Banks (2001), a multicultural curriculum fosters fairness by showcasing a range of viewpoints, which helps give students the tools they require to succeed academically. Nieto (2010) emphasises the importance of community and family involvement in fostering a culturally sensitive approach and how it improves home-school relationships while enhancing the educational experience for kids. Even with these established theories, further study is still necessary to fully understand how CRT can be practically implemented in a multicultural classroom, with a focus on how it affects the engagement and participation of younger students. This study aims to explore how CRT strategies can be successfully applied in a Year 3 multicultural classroom to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.
This study uses an action research method to find out how culturally responsive teaching strategies can impact student engagement and participation in a Year 3 multicultural classroom. According to McNiff and Whitehead (2011), action research allows for a hands-on, reflective and interactive approach, allowing the researcher to study a problem and make necessary adjustments to improve the outcome. This research is underpinned by two research questions:
• RQ1: How does connecting learning to students’ cultural backgrounds influence their engagement in lessons? How does offering students choice and ownership over learning tasks impact their participation?
To begin my research project, I surveyed the students to find out what their interests were and how they preferred to learn. The results suggested that the students preferred learning collaboratively with their peers. With this in mind, I designed a six-week geography unit around Appendix 1). The challenge I faced was how I would plan a project-based unit that would give the students the opportunity to work in groups while incorporating their cultural identity and personal interests.
Taking the diverse cultures in my class, I decided to choose a river from different continents that reflected the demographics of my class. I then put the students in mixed ability groups and asked them to choose a continent from a ‘feely bag’. The continent they chose would determine the river they would research. This meant that the students were either researching a river that was connected to their cultural background, or they were broadening their global perspective by learning about a river connected to their peers.
To further extend their learning, present them with more autonomy and promote family engagement, I introduce the ‘Challenge by Choice’ grid (see Appendix 2) as an optional home learning task. Through this, the children were able to choose a river of their choice and select from an array of activities across different areas of the curriculum, allowing them to showcase their learning in a variety of ways. At the end of the unit, the students were invited to share both their classbased and optional home learning projects with parents and the wider school community.
In addition to the geography unit on rivers, the children participated in a personal writing project, where they had the freedom and choice to write about a topic of interest to them. This task was designed to further promote autonomy and engagement.
Throughout the study, my learning assistant and I worked collaboratively to support the students with the group projects, make observations, monitor progress and reflect on the pupils’ responses. Through informal observations, discussions with the students and ongoing feedback, I was able to modify and adapt the tasks and provide appropriate scaffolding.
The participants in this study were 22 students from 13 different nationalities in my Year 3 class. Although all students in my class engaged in the study, I decided to focus on four students referred to as Student A, B, C and D to gain deeper insight into the impact of the intervention. I chose these four students because their lack of participation and engagement was an ongoing concern.
A mixed method approach through quantitative and qualitative data was used for this study. The data was collected through student surveys, observations and writing attainment grades.
The survey highlighted the students' interests and preferred ways of learning (see Figure 1). The observational data measured the students’ level of engagement, participation and reference to their cultures during both the river and the personal writing project. Writing attainment data was included at a later stage due to the progress the students made in their writing over the 6 weeks.
To determine the implications of culturally responsive teaching (CRT) on student participation, autonomy, and references made to their culture, I created a simple 5-point rating scale based on observations. Each focal student was evaluated before and after implementing CRT techniques in terms of participation, autonomy, and cultural reference. The points scale ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Table 1 shows the scores for each of the focus students before and after the integration of CRT.
Table 1
Observation Scores Before and After CRT
Implementation
A Before CRT 2 2 1
CRT 4 4 4
B Before CRT 3 2 2 After CRT 5 4 5
C Before CRT 2 1 1 After CRT 4 3 4
D Before CRT 3 2 2
After CRT 5 5 5
These quantitative scores were supported by qualitative data gathered from observations and writing samples. Below are examples illustrating each student’s progress:
• Student A (see Figure 2): Initially avoided writing and showed low confidence with limited group participation. After CRT, they actively contributed to group discussions, wrote a paragraph explaining the water cycle with diagrams, and shared personal cultural connections.
Figure 2
Student A: Engagement, Autonomy and Cultural Reference Before and After CRT
• Student B (see Figure 3): Previously silent during discussions and reluctant to write despite capability. After implementing CRT, they engaged fully with the project, completed multiple written sections, created a model of a river from their home country, and presented their work to parents.
Figure 3
Student B: Engagement, Autonomy, Cultural Reference Before and After CRT
• Student C (see Figure 4): Initially off-task and hesitant to write, with usually unfinished work. After the implementation, they took on a group researcher role, completed a home activity on the Amazon River, and wrote an information text about a personal interest (Roblox).
Figure 4
Student C: Engagement, Autonomy and Cultural Reference Before and After CRT
• Student D (see Figure 5): Although artistic, struggled with creativity and verbal contributions initially. Later, became the project illustrator, actively contributed ideas, researched, wrote information, and showed strong engagement in the personal writing project.
Student D: Engagement, Autonomy and Cultural Reference Before and After CRT
The action research results indicate the following:
RQ1: How does connecting learning to students' cultural backgrounds influence their engagement in lessons?
• Quantitative data (see Table 1 and Figures 2–5) show an increase in all four focus students’ scores for participation, autonomy, cultural reference and writing attainment grades after the implementation of CRT strategies.
• Qualitative data (see Table 2) further supported these findings. The students mentioned feeling proud to learn about rivers from their own countries or from their classmates’ cultures. For example, one pupil stated:
“I liked the river project because I could research the Murray River. This is a river from my country. I was proud to share my project with my parents and my class.”
Observational data also indicated increased participation and confidence during both the river project and the personal writing project, where pupils shared knowledge related to their own experiences or cultures.
RQ2: How does offering students choice and ownership over learning tasks impact their participation?
Observation data showed that all four focus students demonstrated higher levels of participation and independence when working on the river project and personal writing task, compared to previous writing and topic lessons.
Student comments reflected this shift in motivation and ownership. For instance, one pupil said, “ The personal writing project is fun. I can plan and write about whatever I like.”
Additionally, while academic attainment was not a focus of this study, it is worth noting that all four students made observable progress in writing, moving up one assessment band during the six-week period.
Table 2
Student Voice: Refelction on River Project and Personal Writing Project
Student Quote Emerging Theme
“I liked picking the Nile because it’s from my country.”
“The personal writing project is fun. I can plan and write about whatever I like.”
“I loved working in a group because we shared ideas about rivers. We all had jobs in the group, and I learned a lot about rivers from my friends.”
“I loved working in a group because we shared ideas about rivers. We all had jobs in the group, and I learned a lot about rivers from my friends.”
“I liked the river project because I could research the Murray River. This is a river from my country. I was proud to share my project with my parents and my class.”
Cultural Connection
Autonomy / Motivation
Identity / Emotional engagement
Collaboration / Peer learning
Cultural pride / Family engagement
Discussion and Reflections
The study revealed that culturally responsive teaching positively influences students’ engagement and participation through strategies such as collaboration, autonomy and cultural relevance. The findings support Gay's (2010) and LadsonBillings' (1995) research, which suggests integrating students’ cultural background to their learning increases motivation. As an educator, I now intentionally look for opportunities to include cultural connections and student choice in my planning. This shift has helped me create a more equitable and inclusive learning environment where pupils feel represented and involved.
Through this project, I learned that action research is a powerful tool for improving classroom practice. It helped me see how valuable and relevant this approach can be in a real classroom setting. It gave me a way to focus on a specific issue and make small, purposeful changes based on my daily observations. I found the process practical and flexible, especially as it allowed me to respond directly to what the pupils needed. For other educators, this approach offers a structured yet practical method to explore and refine inclusive strategies that directly respond to the needs of their learners.
Conclusion
In conclusions, making teachings more relevant and meaningful by relating them to students' cultural backgrounds can positively impact students’ participation and engagement. Encouraging students to take ownership of their learning increases their motivation and autonomy, enabling them to express their interests and develop confidence. Peer interaction is further supported, and understanding is deepened in a diverse classroom through collaborative learning practices. This small-scale action research showed how important it is to use student feedback and observation to identify and address challenges involving participation and engagement. However, more studies with a larger sample size, longer timeframe, and academic attainment data could give greater insight into how culturally responsive teaching affects students’ outcomes over time.
Banks, J. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. Plenum.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. SAGE.
Mehta, A. (2024). Culturally responsive teaching: Bridging the achievement gap. Global International Research Thoughts, 12(1), 49–54.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities (10th anniversary ed.). Teachers College Press.
Appendix 1
Geography Unit Around Rivers
Appendix 2
Optional Home Learning Task Flyer and Challenge by Choice Grid
Iwan Alun Pritchard, Hartland International School
This article presents an action research study investigating the impact of prioritising Tier 3 vocabulary on students’ formative assessments and practical outcomes in Design and Technology. Tier 3 vocabulary (see Figure 1) refers to subject-specific terminology that is essential for developing a deep and accurate understanding of disciplinary content (Beck et al., 2002). In the context of Design and Technology, the ability to comprehend and apply such terminology enhances students’ subject knowledge, supports technical writing, and contributes to overall academic achievement (Davies, 2022). This study explores how the intentional use of Tier 3 vocabulary can strengthen students’ technical understanding in both written and practical tasks.
Lesson starters provide a valuable opportunity to reinforce key vocabulary in a focused and low-pressure setting. Regular retrieval practice and the integration of Tier 3 terminology into these activities can help students develop a deeper understanding of subject-specific language and connect terms to their practical applications (Parenti et al., 2018). By explicitly teaching and revisiting Tier 3 vocabulary at the start of each lesson, this study aims to examine the extent to which this approach supports students’ retention and application of technical language within Design and Technology.
This action research study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to investigate the impact of explicitly teaching Tier 3 vocabulary on students’ performance in Design and Technology.
The research aimed to explore a targeted pedagogical issue—the limited understanding and use of subject-specific terminology—and implement an intervention with the potential for timely and measurable improvement in both written and practical work.
The study was guided by the following research questions:
• To what extent does a focus on Tier 3 vocabulary improve students’ written assessments?
• Does enhanced understanding of Tier 3 terminology contribute to improved practical outcomes?
A total of 124 Year 8 students across six Design and Technology classes participated in the study, comprising 57 female and 67 male students. The cohort included:
• 12 English Language Learners (ELL)
• 11 students identified as low ability
• 17 students identified as high ability
Figure 1
The Three Tiers of Vocabulary (Triggs, 2024)
Data was collected through both formative assessments and student feedback. Assessments were conducted on paper and results were recorded in Microsoft Excel, while feedback was gathered via a Microsoft Forms questionnaire, providing a combination of quantitative and qualitative data.
The assessment data was analysed compare students’ baseline performance with results obtained after a four-week intervention period focused on Tier 3 vocabulary during lesson starters. Students were grouped by ability and learning needs (high ability, low ability, ELL, and SEN) to evaluate the impact across different subgroups. The percentage change in performance between the two assessment points was calculated to measure progress.
The data gathered from the formative assessment has shown an average improvement of 34%. The greatest improvement came from low ability and ELL learners with a staggering 82% and 71% improvement (see Figure 2). Although high ability students only saw a 16% improvement, Tier 3 vocabulary still supported their practical work according to the student survey.
A surprising observation was that SEN students encountered difficulties with the formative assessment and only showed a 21% improvement therefore there is further research needed to discover better ways of teaching Tier 3 vocabulary for them. Student feedback clearly highlights the impact of Tier 3 terminology, with 97% reporting it supported them during their practical (see Figure 3).
Andrea Balint, Universal American School
classroom is multilingual by default. Yet, many educational systems operate on monolingual assumptions, often designing instruction for an "ideal" native English speaker — an increasingly rare archetype.
Multilingual learners (MLs) spend approximately 80–90% of their instructional day in content-area classrooms, typically receiving only one period of stand-alone language support. However, most content-area teachers have not received targeted training in language development or multilingual pedagogies—an understandable gap given the historic separation between language and content instruction in many systems (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2019). This lack of preparation can lead to instructional misalignment, unintentionally sidelining the needs of MLs and limiting equitable access to grade-level content and academic advancement.
Students who appear fluent due to strong Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are frequently perceived as fully proficient, masking critical gaps in Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)—the advanced language required for complex texts, academic tasks, and disciplinary discourse (Cummins, 2000). As a result, instruction is sometimes simplified rather than scaffolded, reducing opportunities to engage with rigorous vocabulary and content, and ultimately perpetuating achievement gaps. This disconnect between educator expectations and the academic needs of MLs remains a persistent barrier to equity.
This research is grounded in Cummins’ (1979, 2000) theory of BICS and CALP, which distinguishes between conversational fluency and the academic language necessary for school success—highlighting the need for intentional language scaffolding (Cummins, 1979, 2000). Marsh’s (1994) CLIL framework reinforces that language and content must be taught together, not in isolation. Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory further supports this by emphasizing the role of guided interaction and scaffolding in language development. Honigsfeld and Dove’s (2010) co-teaching model was central to this work, illustrating that shared responsibility between content and language teachers fosters equity and improves access for MLs. These theories directly informed the instructional design. CLIL shaped the integration of language and content goals, while the Instructional Core (City et al., 2009) guided how co-teaching would enhance the interaction between teacher practice, content rigor, and student learning.
This action research responds to real-time challenges in the classroom through ongoing data-driven decision-making, collaboration, and reflection. This approach is effective for exploring instructional change, as it allows educators to test and refine a co-teaching model in an authentic setting while supporting continuous improvement and directly involving both teachers and students in the process.
• How can data be used to drive instruction and differentiation for MLs?
• To what extent does explicit language and content instruction improve reading and literacy outcomes for MLs?
• How do co-planned and co-taught lessons impact MLs, SEN + MLs, and mainstream students?
This six-month action research was conducted in a Grade 9 English classroom, co-led by an EAL teacher and an English subject expert, drawing on Honigsfeld and Dove’s co-teaching models (see Figure 1). Lessons were co-planned to integrate Grade 9-level content with explicit language and literacy objectives, ensuring multilingual learners could access rigorous curriculum while developing academic English (Zwiers & Weiss, 2023).
Note. Adapted from ELLs: Co-teaching and collaboration by Honigsfeld & Dove (2015).
A wide range of literary and non-literary texts were used, supported by graphic organizers, chunked readings, and scaffolded discussions to make complex material accessible.
Instructional strategies included, but were not limited to:
• Explicit Tier 2 and Tier 3 vocabulary instruction
• Grammar taught in meaningful context
• Listening tasks with guided note-taking
• Real-world writing assignments
• Structured peer and self-assessment
• Collaborative learning protocols
• Question Formulation Technique (QFT) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011)
• Three Reads Protocol (Walqui & van Lier, 2010)
Instruction followed iterative cycles of planning, co-teaching, observation, and reflection, allowing the team to adjust supports and instruction based on ongoing student progress.
The Grade 9 English class was selected because it reflected the diverse linguistic and learning profiles commonly found in international school settings. The class included:
• Recently arrived newcomer students with limited English proficiency
• Long-term multilingual learners (MLs) who had been receiving English language support for several years
• Students dually identified as ELLs and with Special Educational Needs (SEN)
• Mainstream students (grade-level peers without additional language or learning support needs)
This range provided a rich context to explore how integrated language and content instruction can support varied learners within a mainstream academic setting (see Figure 2).
A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the impact of the co-teaching model. Quantitative data included MAP reading scores (Fall to Winter) and Lexile growth data (Winter to Winter), analyzed across three instructional models: co-teaching, traditional, and honors. These were disaggregated by student groups—Multilingual Learners (MLs), Special Educational Needs (SEN) & MLs, and mainstream students— to identify literacy growth patterns.
Qualitative data included Swivl lesson recordings (reviewed for instructional moves and student discourse), student work samples (assessed for academic language use), and observation notes documenting student engagement and scaffold usage.
Data were examined systematically across cycles to connect instructional practices with outcomes and to assess how various instructional environments supported or constrained student progress.
Integrating language and content through co-teaching gave MLs access to grade-level instruction with the scaffolding needed to succeed. At the same time, it built teacher capacity—strengthening the craft of differentiation, deepening instructional practice, and encouraging collective responsibility.
This dual impact extended beyond MLs, improving outcomes across the classroom. The data also confirmed that academic learning needs differ fundamentally from language development needs, each requiring dedicated, intentional support.
Conclusion
These insights reaffirm that language is central to curriculum planning—literacy and learning are inseparable from it. Embedding language in content-area instruction not only advances academic achievement for multilingual learners but also cultivates inclusive, high-impact teaching practices. Real transformation requires intentional collaboration, ongoing professional development, and a schoolwide shift in mindset— one that positions multilingualism as an asset and a driver of excellence. Crucially, this approach is scalable across subjects, grade levels, and entire school systems.
References
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning (6th ed.). Harvard Education Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning (pp. 1–10). Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, (19), 121–129.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
Dove, M. G., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). Co-teaching for English learners: A guide to collaborative planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection (1st ed.). Corwin Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners (1st ed.). Corwin Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2015). ELLs: Co-teaching and collaboration [Brochure]. Colorín Colorado.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2019). Co-planning: Five essential practices to integrate curriculum and instruction for English learners (1st ed.). Corwin Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2022). Portraits of collaboration: Educators working together to support multilingual learners (1st ed.). Corwin Press.
Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual education & content and language integrated learning. University of Sorbonne.
NWEA. (n.d.). MAP Growth reading assessment. Northwest Evaluation Association. https://www.nwea.org
Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Harvard Education Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd.
Zwiers, J., & Weiss, S. (2023). Fundamentals of integrated language and content learning. Understanding Language at Stanford University. https://ul.stanford.edu
Fiona McDermott, Safa British School
This study considers the impact of the Curiosity Approach on English Language Learners. Whitehead (2010) underpins the importance of language to provide the foundation for academic success, substantiating the need to focus on this area.
English Language Learners (ELL) in the Foundation Stage at Safa British School face distinct challenges in language acquisition, particularly in Literacy. With up to 30% of both Foundation Stage 1 (FS1) and Stage 2 (FS2) children identified as ELL learners, teachers face challenging scenarios in their classrooms.
Baseline data (September 2024) highlights that ELL students start school with significantly lower attainment in Literacy than their peers, with only 23% of FS1 and 39% of FS2 students attaining at or above expected levels. While progress is evident in Mathematics and Science, language proficiency remains a barrier to broader academic achievement.
Whitehead (2010) suggests that young children learn language through interaction and meaningful experiences. The Curiosity Approach, which prioritises child-led exploration, real-world experiences, and natural vocabulary development has been identified as a potential strategy to enhance language acquisition for ELL students. However, its direct impact on these learners requires further exploration to ensure its effectiveness in supporting language development within their first year of school.
Communication and Language is one of the prime areas of the seven areas of learning within the Early Years Foundation Stage framework (Department for Education, 2021). Developing language skills is proven to exponentially support raising attainment and progress across all areas of the curriculum (Department for Education, 2011).
However, ELL learners have lower starting points, largely due to their lower language proficiency, which can have a negative impact on their ability to access the curriculum and participate fully in classroom activities (Whitehead, 2010).
Samuels (2021) argues that literacy approaches often fall short in meeting the needs of ELL learners. Highlighting the importance of the immersion environment for learners, Samuel argues that a student’s self-esteem and ability to learn language is supported when the environment is positive. Teachers are realising that social and academic success are interlinked (Bell and Bogan, 2013). In light of this, there still is little evidence to support the impact of the Curiosity Approach directly on the acquisition of a second language. The Curiosity Approach (Bennett and Hellyn, 2017) emphasises active learning and fosters critical thinking in environments that support self-directed learning and the child at the centre. There have been scarce attempts to investigate the impact of the Curiosity
mainly on inquiry based or curiosity driven learning. Arguably this could largely be due to the small number of accredited schools internationally, while the official website states 4000 practitioners have been signed up there is no declaration of how many schools or educators are already accredited (The Curiosity Approach, 2024).
The research questions proposed by this author will be strengthened through the careful implementation of the Curiosity Approach;
1. To what degree does a curiosity approach setting support ELL children in their first year of school?
2. What are teachers’ perceptions of the progress of ELL children when following the curiosity approach principles?
Through focusing on embedding the Curiosity Approach in the Foundation Stage setting, the impact of the Curiosity approach on ELL learners will be addressed further.
This study alternates between inquiry and action; therefore, the multi-methods approach was chosen to highlight the improvement made due to the intervention to explore the impact of the Curiosity Approach on English Language Learners (ELLs) (Coe, Waring, Hedges and Arthur, 2017). A combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods was used to gain both breadth and depth of insight, aligning with the study’s focus on both teacher perceptions and observed student outcomes. Participants included Foundation Stage teachers, all of whom had experience working within an Early Years setting that is in the process of adopting or becoming accredited in the Curiosity Approach. The sample included both FS1 and FS2 practitioners with varying levels of experience and exposure to ELL learners.
1. The quantitative survey was distributed to EYFS practitioners to gather quantitative data on teacher perceptions and practices. The survey included both closed-ended Likert-scale questions and one open-ended response question.
2. The qualitative semi-structured interview was conducted with one experienced practitioner. The interview explored personal experiences with ELLs, the perceived impact of the Curiosity Approach, and any noted differences in language development compared to more traditional teaching methods. Questions also focused on professional confidence, strategies used, and areas where further support is needed.
3. A focus group was held with two additional Foundation Stage practitioners. The session was guided by the semistructured interview schedule but solely used as a prompt sheet to allow for open discussion. Participants reflected on environmental factors, language acquisition through play, and practical classroom strategies. The focus group provided deeper insight into collective practices and highlighted consistent themes across classrooms.
The subsequent data analysis revealed several emergent themes concerning the impact of the Curiosity Approach on the ELL learners.
1. A Safe, Home-Like Environment Supports Confidence and Engagement. Both survey and qualitative data highlighted the significance of the learning environment in supporting ELL learners. Teachers described the setting as “home-away-from-home”, stating that the familiar, cosy, and aesthetically inviting classrooms helped reduce anxiety for ELL students and encouraged exploration.
This theme aligns with Whitehead’s (2010) assertion that language develops most effectively in nurturing, interaction-rich environments.
2. Language Acquisition Through Child-Led Play and Meaningful Interactions. Practitioners overwhelmingly noted that child-led, play-based experiences in the Curiosity Approach foster natural and holistic language development. “Children come in and explore in their own language first. Then, through curiosity and social interaction, they naturally start picking up English.” – Interviewee
3. The Role of Adults in Scaffolding Language is Crucial. Although the approach is child-led, the importance of adult intervention and co-play was strongly emphasised. Teachers shared that adult questioning, modelling, and knowing when to step back were essential for supporting language acquisition. “Sometimes children don’t make the connection by themselves – they need an adult there to model or guide the interaction.” – Focus Group Participant
4. Comparison to Traditional Teaching Methods. Participants drew comparisons between the Curiosity Approach and more structured, teacher-led methods. Many noted that the traditional approach often led to disengagement, whereas the curiosity-based setting encouraged participation and spontaneous language use. Teachers reported higher levels of well-being, engagement, and sustained interest among ELLs in the curiosity-led environment. “When they’re genuinely curious, they want to talk. Traditional lessons never gave them that spark.” –Interviewee. While the data supports the effectiveness of the Curiosity Approach in fostering ELL development, teachers acknowledged the lack of formal training and empirical evidence specific to ELL outcomes.
and Conclusion
This research project sought to investigate the impact of the Curiosity Approach on ELLs in their first year of school. The research has revealed promising insights into how this pedagogy can support language acquisition in young learners.
The findings demonstrate that the Curiosity Approach fosters an enabling and inclusive learning environment in which ELL children feel safe, motivated, and confident to communicate. Teachers reported increased levels of engagement, confidence, and spontaneous language use among ELLs compared to more traditional, structured teaching methods. This study echoes global frameworks like Kōwhiti Whakapae (2024), which highlight the importance of socially rich, play-based learning for additional language acquisition. The Curiosity Approach naturally integrates these practices, supporting confident, meaningful language development for second language learners.
Adult facilitation emerged as a critical component, with co-play, questioning, and responsive scaffolding identified as essential strategies. However, although teacher observations and classroom anecdotes suggest clear benefits, there remains a lack of formal research specifically measuring the impact of the Curiosity Approach on ELL learners.
This action research also has direct relevance to the UAE’s evolving Arabic in Early Years policy (KHDA, 2023), which emphasises the importance of creating language-rich environments that nurture both Arabic and English from the earliest stages. The Curiosity Approach’s emphasis on real-life materials, storytelling, and meaningful conversation could offer an ideal framework to support bilingual language acquisition.
In conclusion, the Curiosity Approach shows significant potential to support ELLs in their foundational year of education. Further research avenues should focus on determining and validating these findings and guide best practices for scaling and sustaining its impact.
References
Bell, D. D., & Bogan, B. L. (2013). English language learners: Problems and solutions found in the research of general practitioners of early childhood. Research and Instruction, 1(2), 31–36. https://repository.lsu.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=jblri
Bennett, S., & Hellyn, S. (2017). modern-day approach to early childhood. Ltd.
Coe, R., Waring, M., Hedges, L. V., & Arthur, J. (2017).
Research methods and methodologies in education SAGE Publications Ltd.
Department for Education. (2021).
Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-yearsfoundation-stage-framework--2
Department for Education. (2011). framework for the national curriculum. A report by the expert panel for the national curriculum review.
Hawthorne, H. (2021, October 27). Curiosity approach in early years: Importance and ideas. High Speed Training. https://www. highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/curiosity-approach-in-earlyyears/
Knowledge and Human Development Authority. (2023). Policy on Arabic language provision in early childhood education settings. https://web.khda.gov.ae
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2024). Learning an additional language – Kōwhiti Whakapae. https://kowhitiwhakapae.education.govt.nz/oral-language-literacy/learningadditional-language
Samuels, S. (2021). Dismantling barriers for English language learners. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/ dismantling-barriers-english-language-learners
The Curiosity Approach. (2024). What are the benefits of adopting The Curiosity Approach? https://www. thecuriosityapproach.com/blog/what-are-the-benefits-ofadopting-curiosity-approach
Whitehead, M. (2010). Language and literacy in the early years
Joanna Galvin, Hartland International School
This action research study addresses the phenomenon of capable English language learning students who achieve passing grades whilst operating below their assessed mathematical potential. These students demonstrate what can be described as "academic coasting", completing assignments adequately but showing minimal curiosity for mathematical exploration beyond minimum requirements.
It can manifest as a disconnect between student capability and classroom engagement. In my setting, many ELL students possess strong quantitative reasoning abilities, as evidenced by their Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT4) assessment data, yet some students' classroom participation remains passive. They meet expectations without engaging in deeper mathematical thinking that would unlock their full potential.
This phenomenon raises questions about why students do not engage more deeply with mathematical concepts and how educators can better support their academic growth.
In our mathematics classrooms, some ELL students complete assignments adequately but show little curiosity for mathematical exploration beyond minimum requirements. These students often possess strong quantitative reasoning abilities, as evidenced by their performance on CAT4 data. However, their classroom engagement remains minimal. The initial action research study involving 29 Year 7 and 8 students revealed evidence of an engagement gap. Whilst 66% of students demonstrate growth mindset beliefs that practice leads to improvement and 45% express genuine curiosity about understanding mathematical reasoning, only 31% actively seek challenging problems when given the choice.
This progression from belief to curiosity to action reveals substantial untapped potential amongst capable but disengaged learners.
Analysis comparing CAT4 Quantitative scores with classroom performance confirmed the presence of capable but disengaged learners within the focus group. Some ELL students demonstrated high quantitative reasoning abilities that were not reflected in their classroom engagement or assignment quality. Mathematical anxiety significantly impacts performance, with 48% of students experiencing nervousness during assessments and 41% worrying about making mistakes during mathematical tasks. These anxiety levels represent substantial barriers to mathematical risk-taking and deeper engagement. Without targeted interventions, capable ELL students might miss critical mathematical growth opportunities that limit their academic potential.
This action research study drew upon three key sources that provided both theoretical understanding and practical strategies for supporting English Language Learners in mathematics education. Each source contributed essential insights that shaped my approach to identifying and addressing student disengagement.
Dweck's (2008) and Boaler's (2022) research provided the foundation for understanding why capable ELL students may disengage from mathematical learning. Their work demonstrates that students who believe their mathematical ability is fixed are more likely to avoid challenges.
This insight directly explained the "coasting" behaviour I observed in the classroom. Dweck's work guided the survey design and the growth mindset interventions, particularly her emphasis on reframing mistakes as learning opportunities. The finding that 66% of students held growth mindset beliefs but only 31% actively sought challenges validated her assertion that beliefs alone are insufficient without supportive structures. This research shaped my classroom language and feedback approaches. I implemented Dweck's concept of "yet" and process-focused praise to shift student beliefs about their mathematical capabilities through paired discussion.
Boaler's (2022) "Mathish: Finding Creativity, Diversity, and Meaning in Mathematics" provided crucial insights into mathematical creativity and inclusive practice. Her research on multiple solution pathways and mathematical discourse directly informed the intervention design. Boaler emphasises that visual mathematics and diverse mathematical perspectives create more engaging learning experiences. Her work shows that open-ended mathematical tasks increase engagement across diverse student populations, these findings on mathematical discourse proved particularly valuable.
Her research demonstrates that when students explain their thinking, languages can become assets rather than deficits. This insight guided the development of mathematical guided questions that scaffolded students' multilingual and monolingual communication whilst building their confidence.
The YouCubed (n.d.) website resources provided practical information and strategies for implementing research-based approaches in real classroom settings. YouCubed's growth mindset activities were used to design specific interventions for building mathematical resilience amongst ELL students. Their resources on mathematical discourse and collaborative problem-solving provided templates that were adapted for the classroom context.
Together, these three sources created a comprehensive framework addressing emotional, pedagogical and practical dimensions of supporting ELL students in mathematics. Dweck's research helped me understand why disengagement occurs. Boaler's work showed how mathematical instruction could be more inclusive. YouCubed provided the practical implementation tools.
The nature of action research enables continuous refinement of strategies based on observed outcomes. This makes it particularly well-suited to investigate complex, context-specific challenges faced by all students, including multilingual students in mathematics education.
The primary research objectives guiding this study were:
• How can we identify capable but disengaged students in mathematics?
• What interventions effectively promote deeper
How can we ensure ELLs access challenging mathematics
This collaborative action research study used multiple cycles of data collection, intervention implementation, and refinement with a mathematics department colleague to address student
Based on initial findings, ongoing targeted interventions were implemented with a focus group of 15 Year 8 students.
These included growth mindset exercises to build mathematical resilience and strategies to support mathematical approaches, including explicit vocabulary instruction with visual support for mathematics terminology.
The concept that mathematics problems can have multiple solution paths was introduced to engage 'coasting' students by providing appropriate challenge levels and opportunities to share in mathematics conversations. This complemented mathematical discourse strategies developed to help students articulate their thinking in pair work, whilst scaffolded problem-solving approaches supported ELL students in accessing challenging mathematics content without reducing cognitive demand.
The initial study focused on 29 Year 7 and Year 8 students representing diverse language backgrounds. Once the programme was designed, we focused on 15 students with diverse challenges and barriers. This included both multilingual and first language English speakers. This diverse sample allowed for comparative analysis and ensured that interventions were designed to benefit all students.
Data collection employed multiple methods to capture comprehensive insights into student experiences. A Mathematics Attitude Survey was completed by all 29 participants to gauge baseline attitudes and beliefs about mathematics learning. CAT4 Quantitative scores were analysed alongside internal assessments to identify any discrepancies between cognitive ability and classroom performance.
Student voice was captured through reflective pair work and structured questioning. This provided qualitative insights into student perspectives and experiences. Ongoing classroom observations monitored confidence levels and engagement patterns throughout the intervention period.
The survey data was analysed to identify patterns in student attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours related to mathematical engagement. CAT4 scores were compared with classroom performance data to identify students demonstrating high cognitive ability but low classroom engagement. Qualitative data from student voice activities were examined to understand barriers to engagement from the student perspective. Classroom observation data was used to track changes in engagement patterns throughout the intervention period.
This collaborative action research study used data collection, intervention implementation, and refinement with a mathematics department colleague,
revealing that while 55% of students feel confident in problemsolving and 66% believe practice improves ability, significant gaps exist with only 31% choosing challenging problems and 48% experiencing mathematics anxiety, indicating substantial opportunities for targeted engagement interventions.
The analysis of CAT4 scores compared to classroom performance revealed that some ELL students demonstrated high quantitative reasoning abilities that were not reflected in their classroom engagement or assignment quality. This confirmed the presence of capable but disengaged learners within the group.
Mathematical anxiety was identified as a significant barrier, with substantial numbers of students reporting nervousness and worry about mathematical tasks. This data indicates specific areas where targeted interventions could enhance both confidence and deeper mathematical engagement.
The results reveal that student disengagement stems from multiple interconnected factors rather than simply
This understanding fundamentally transformed my practice from addressing disengagement as a single issue to implementing layered interventions targeting emotional, linguistic, and cognitive barriers simultaneously.
Key insights emerged from this research that have broader implications for how to support multilingual students in classrooms. The growth mindset potential finding shows that most students believe they can improve but do not actively seek challenge. This suggests that belief alone is insufficient without supportive structures.
A significant confidence gap exists between students' belief in their ability and their willingness to take mathematical risks. An engagement paradox was identified where students value understanding concepts but often avoid deeper exploration due to various barriers. Language barriers create additional challenges specifically for English Language Learners, with mathematics terminology presenting ongoing difficulties.
As the English language teacher supporting the mathematics classroom in this collaborative research, this study transformed my understanding of how language barriers intersect with
Students may appear disengaged whilst facing multiple barriers that, when systematically addressed, can unlock significant potential for deeper learning.
The multi-method approach, including student voice, provides a transferable framework that colleagues can apply across all subjects to uncover diverse reasons behind ELL disengagement.
Conclusion
This action research study demonstrates that addressing student disengagement in mathematics requires a multifaceted approach. Although my original focus was on multilingual students, the findings suggest that capable students possess untapped mathematical potential that can be unlocked through targeted, evidence-based interventions.
Key actionable findings include the need for systematic identification of capable but disengaged students using multiple data sources. There is also a need for the implementation of challenge-providing activities and provision of specific language supports that do not diminish mathematical rigour. The research also highlights the critical importance of student voice in understanding concepts and addressing barriers to engagement.
Future research could investigate the long-term impact of these interventions on student mathematical achievement and subject pathway choices. These findings could also have implications for further study, particularly in exploring how similar approaches might be applied across different subjects.
References
Boaler, J. (2022). Mathish: Finding creativity, diversity, and meaning in mathematics. [Publisher not specified].
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. Stanford University. https://web. stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/ drupalm/system/files/Mindset_Math_ Science.pdf
youcubed. (n.d.). youcubed at Stanford University. https://www.youcubed.org
This research project will focus on the Foundation Stage (FS) department in an International British School in Dubai, which has 168 children in FS1 and 239 FS2 children enrolled. The study will specifically examine a sample of 24 English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners, aiming to explore how English language skills can be developed through outdoor play. Spending time in nature during childhood can improve mental and physical health, support academic success and cultivate pro environmental attitudes and behaviours. (Patchen et. al., 2022). Taking the time and just doing it, getting educated and inspired, embracing an outdoor pedagogical mindset, engaging in real-life experiences and reflecting on these experiences can support teachers to establish outdoor learning (Van Dijk-Wesselius et. al., 2020).
Our objective is to assess the impact of nature-based, playdriven experiences on the language acquisition, developmental progress, learning outcomes and overall well-being of our youngest learners. This research will run in parallel with ongoing enhancements to our outdoor learning environment, with a vision to create a more natural, nurturing and stimulating space. The ultimate goal is to foster a language-rich setting that supports the diverse needs of our EAL and ELL (English Language Learner) students, helping to narrow the language gap through immersive, meaningful interactions with the natural world.
This action research project was conducted over an 8-week period across three early years classrooms, focusing on children aged 3–5 who speak English as an additional language (EAL). The aim was to explore how enhanced outdoor learning environments, combined with teacher training and the use of visual communication aids (widgets), could support vocabulary development in young EAL learners. The research followed a cyclical model of planning, action, observation and reflection. Initially, baseline data was gathered through structured observations, language sampling during ChIL (Child Initiated Learning) and a vocabulary check to assess each child’s use of English.
Teachers also completed pre-intervention reflections to identify current practises and areas for development, enhancing their outdoor plans where necessary to specifically support EAL children.
The intervention phase involved three key components:
1. Enhanced Outdoor Environments – Outdoor areas were enriched with language-promoting resources such as open-ended objects, themed play areas and interactive displays.
2. Visual Widgets – Children were provided with visual aids (e.g., picture cards, symbol boards) to support word retrieval and sentence construction during play.
3. Teacher Training – All practitioners (Teachers & Learning Assistants) participated in professional development sessions focused on strategies for supporting EAL learners, including modelling language, using openended questions and integrating vocabulary-building techniques into outdoor routines.
Throughout the study data was collected through ongoing
Table 1
Language known at Baseline Vs End of Year Assessment Using Standardised Testing, Measured in Months.
The Fresh Air, Fluent Speech project demonstrated that enhancing outdoor learning environments, equipping teachers with targeted EAL training and incorporating visual communication tools significantly improved the vocabulary development of children aged 3–5. These children, many of whom are EAL learners, showed marked progress in both expressive and receptive language skills.
Results
This action research project grew into something far more impactful than initially anticipated, it became the driving force behind a comprehensive reassessment of our outdoor learning provision, extending beyond the Foundation Stage into Key Stage 1.
A key finding was the remarkable level of enjoyment and engagement children demonstrated when learning in outdoor settings. Teacher observations consistently highlighted how sensory-rich, hands-on experiences, where children can feel, see, smell and taste, create deeper, more lasting connections with new vocabulary. These multi-sensory interactions appear to strengthen neural pathways, enhancing both comprehension and long-term retention of new language.
The research also revealed that outdoor environments naturally encouraged children to observe more closely and articulate their discoveries with greater confidence. This insight led the research team to explore alternative practices, such as shinrin-yoku, the ancient Japanese art of forest bathing, which emphasises mindful immersion in nature.
Notably, the study found that nature-based play opportunities, such as engaging with the mud kitchen, planting seeds and exploring natural textures elicited significantly more spontaneous language use than structured equipment like the purpose-built climbing frame. These open-ended, sensoryrich experiences prompted children to describe, question and narrate their actions, fostering deeper language development.
Looking ahead, the team is now considering how we might reimagine our learning spaces in the school to be greener, more immersive and more aligned with nature-based pedagogies, creating environments that not only support language acquisition but also nurture curiosity, connection and wellbeing.
Observational data revealed that children engaged more confidently in peer interactions during outdoor learning, frequently using newly acquired vocabulary in context. Natural play elements, such as mud kitchens, planting areas and water areas, encouraged rich, descriptive language and storytelling, far more than the playground structures. Children were also observed independently using visual widgets to support their communication, demonstrating increased autonomy and confidence in language use.
Teachers reported a notable boost in their confidence when supporting EAL learners, attributing this to the focused professional development and practical strategies introduced during the project. These strategies became embedded in daily practice, leading to more consistent and intentional language support across the setting. Post-intervention vocabulary assessments indicated a significant increase in spontaneous English word use, highlighting the effectiveness of the integrated approach.
With a forward-looking vision to create a greener, landscaped environment and to continue investing in staff development, the project aims to fully immerse children in nature. This approach fosters a language-rich setting that not only supports vocabulary acquisition but also helps close the language gap for EAL and ELL learners, laying a strong foundation for future academic and social success.
References
Patchen, A. K., Rakow, D. A., Wells, N. M., Hillson, S., & Meredith, G. R. (2022). Barriers to children’s outdoor time: teachers’ and principals’ experiences in elementary schools. Environmental Education Research, 30(1), 16–36. https://doi. org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2099530
Van Dijk-Wesselius, J. E., van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., & Hovinga, D. (2020). Green schoolyards as outdoor learning environments: Barriers and solutions as experienced by primary school teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2919. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02919
Gifted and Talented (G&T) provision is a critical component of inclusive education that often receives less attention compared to other Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) categories. Guenther (2006, in Piske et al., 2014) found that students with needs “significantly above average” make up about 3–5% of a school’s population. While G&T students are typically high-achieving, they still face unique challenges that require tailored educational responses. This paper critically analyses G&T provision in two international schools in Dubai—School A (American curriculum) and School B (British curriculum)—while integrating feedback from G&T students themselves. The aim is to explore how policy and practice align with student needs, drawing conclusions on how to develop effective provision that supports their academic and emotional well-being.
Literature Review
Research into G&T education highlights a longstanding but often neglected need for tailored provision. Foundational models from Renzulli (1977) and Gardner (1983) have long informed definitions of giftedness, encompassing academic, creative, and intellectual abilities. However, as Chaya (2021)
Studies by Clinkenbeard (2012) and Gilson and Lee (2023) emphasize the dual challenges G&T students face: insufficient academic challenge and social-emotional stress, including perfectionism, masking disabilities and imposter syndrome. Teacher training, curriculum differentiation, and access to counselling are frequently cited as key enablers of effective G&T provision (Piske et al., 2014; Reis et al., 2021). International comparative studies (e.g., Heuser et al., 2017) stress that successful G&T provision depends not only on national policy but on successful policy implementation at the school level. In the UAE, while national inclusion frameworks exist, they lack specific directives for G&T learners, placing the onus on schools to interpret what best to do for this population, (AlGhawi, 2019; Ismail et al., 2022).
Methods
The aim of this research is explore the similarities and/or differences to the G&T provision at two schools in Dubai. In addition, the G&T student experiences in School A were studied. Action Research through a Microsoft Form questionnaire and randomly selected students for semistructured interviews allow for the assessment of the G&T student experience. 26/29 secondary students completed the
Findings from student surveys in School A—collected from
of how these learners experience education. While students generally reported high levels of enjoyment in learning (ratings
for specific, actionable feedback aligns with Gubbins et al. (2021), who emphasize the role of targeted teacher input in promoting feedback is vague or delayed, these students
• Preference for quiet, independent workspaces, with some flexibility for small group collaboration Another student emphasized, “A classroom with less distraction allows me to concentrate more.” This supports the finding that many gifted students value environments that allow deep focus and independent thought. While collaborative learning can be enriching, these students often thrive when given uninterrupted time and space to engage intellectually.
• Frustration with heavy workloads and unclear instructions, especially during test periods. Two students highlighted this theme: “When the instructions are clear, I have less questions about the work” and “End of quarter deadlines can be stressful because there is a lot to do in a short amount of time.” Both comments underscore a need for clarity in task design and more thoughtful pacing of assessments. For gifted students who often self-regulate and internalize expectations, ambiguity or overload can lead to significant stress and underperformance, despite their high capabilities.
• Ambitious personal goals and high academic expectations that contribute to stress. This theme runs through several responses, including the concern around end-of-quarter stress. It suggests that gifted students may benefit from more structured support in managing workload and navigating their own high standards. The presence of stress does not necessarily indicate disengagement but rather reflects the pressure they place on themselves to meet or exceed expectations.
These themes resonate strongly with the literature. As noted by Gubbins et al. (2021), the mismatch between curriculum pace and student ability can lead to boredom or anxiety. The students' preference for more dynamic instructional approaches, such as project-based learning, stresses the need for differentiated, student-centred pedagogies. Furthermore, their mixed responses on when and how they need support highlight the importance of responsive, emotionally intelligent teaching.
The lack of national policy specific to G&T education in the UAE compounds these inconsistencies. Without statutory direction, schools are left to interpret broad inclusive frameworks on their own. This leads to variability in the quality, depth, and creativity of provision, often resulting in cautious and conservative program development. The UAE should look to countries with already established G&T initiatives like Singapore for guidance on how future G&T provision should look.
Discussion
Comparatively, both School A and School B demonstrate formalized yet evolving G&T provision.
Each uses standardised assessments like the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT4) and the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) test for identification, with School B additionally employing the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V IQ) assessment to reinforce the data they already have. However, identification still leans heavily on academic metrics in core subjects, excluding areas such as the arts or humanities—an oversight identified in both practice and policy.
Implementation varies across the two schools. School B has developed a Primary-level enrichment programme, including an AI club, while School A has begun incorporating student voice into G&T learner passports. The learner passports are a tool to support teachers in how best to support the individual student. School B’s development of an internal G&T website shows initiative in teacher guidance, whereas School A’s cross-phase lead allows for a more unified approach. Still, both schools fall short in addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing, a critical issue raised in the literature (Glass, 2004; Alelyani, 2021).
In both contexts, professional development (PD) is recognised as essential but it is not consistently applied. School A has delivered G&T PD through whole-school sessions, while School B relies on external input from the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE). Literature stresses that without adequate PD, teachers may lack the confidence or strategies to meet G&T learners’ needs effectively (Kronborg & Cornejo-Araya, 2018; Tirri & Margrain, 2023). Ideally both settings will combine inhouse PD about G&T in their own context and with external specialist training to provide school leaders and teachers with strategies to better intigrate and support G&T students in schools academically and socially.
Efforts are made to support and accommodate for G&T students in both schools, however without there being explicit guidelines and expectations schools are left to do what they think is best for their given setting. Additional guidance from the government would support schools to know that they are doing right by their students.
It is encouraging to see that students enjoy school and learning, and it was somewhat soothing to learn that their learning experience is inline with common issues within G&T education found in the literature. That gives a firm foundation for schools to improve the G&T learning experience with academia to support change. Initial areas for improvement must ensure wellbeing for the G&T students, making sure that their needs are not forgotten amongst those with more explicit needs than theirs. In addition PD for teachers would help support the accomodation of G&T students in the classroom.
The synthesis of student voice and critical analysis of G&T provision in two international schools illustrates a pressing need for clearer policy, better training, and more holistic support strategies. Students articulated a desire for independent, quiet workspaces, teacher clarity, and manageable workloads—needs that are not always addressed in current practice. The comparative school review shows that while both settings have made strides in developing identification systems and raising awareness, there remains an implementation gap, particularly around enrichment and wellbeing.
For future development, schools should:
1. Broaden identification processes to include non-academic talents.
2. Provide consistent, ongoing PD that addresses academic and emotional needs.
3. Incorporate regular student feedback to refine programs.
4. Establish structured enrichment opportunities across all age groups.
5. Advocate for a national G&T policy in the UAE that supports consistency and innovation.
Ultimately, recognising and nurturing the complex needs of G&T students requires a systemic, compassionate, and evidence-informed approach. The insights gathered from students themselves make it clear: giftedness is not simply a privilege- it is a profile with its own unique vulnerabilities, deserving of careful, considered support.
References
Alelyani, S. O. (2021). Special educational need of the gifted and talented students in Saudi Arabia: A review paper. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 6(2), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.854926
AlGhawi, M. A. (2017). Gifted education in the United Arab Emirates. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2331186X.2017.1368891
Chaya, H. (2017). Exploring the inclusive educational practices of gifted students in a private British school in Dubai. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 5(9), 285–293.
Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Gilson, C. M., & Ellis Lee, L. (2023). Cultivating a learning environment to support diverse gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 46(4), 235–249. https://doi. org/10.1177/10762175231186454
Glass, T. F. (2004). What gift?: The reality of the student who is gifted and talented in public school classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2004-152
Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Ottone-Cross, K., McCoach, D. B., Langley, S. D., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Caughey, M. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted and talented students: Are identification and services connected? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi. org/10.1177/0016986220988308
Heuser, B. L., Wang, C. X., & Shahid, J. (2017). National policies for gifted education: A review of the literature. Gifted Education International, 33(3), 211–230. https://doi. org/10.1177/0261429417716060
Ismail, S. A. A., AlGhawi, M. A., & AlSuwaidi, K. A. (2022). Gifted education in United Arab Emirates: Analyses from a learning-resource perspective. Cogent Education, 9(1). https:// doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034247
Kronborg, L., & Cornejo-Araya, C. A. (2018). Gifted educational provisions for gifted and highly able students in Victorian schools, Australia. Universitas Psychologica, 17(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.upsy17-5.gepg
Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302720
Piske, F. H. R., Stoltz, T., & Machado, J. (2014). Creative education for gifted children. Creative Education, 5(5), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.55044
Reis, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), 615. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21(2), 227–233. https://doi. org/10.1177/001698627702100202
Tirri, K., & Margrain, V. (2023). Identifying and supporting giftedness and talent in schools—Introduction to a special collection of research. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1205. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121205
Aimee Barlow, South View School
This research project was developed after observing that a number of my students were not sitting at our traditional, neurotypical style tables and chairs, along with a wheelchair-aided student who was struggling to sit at the higher, Year 5 tables and chairs.
This prompted me to think about my own primary school experience, in which I hated sitting on a chair all day long. I began to research the ‘Starbucks classroom’ model, which led to learning about how the different academic, emotional, and physiological needs of students can be met within a classroom environment.
Differentiation by outcome and activities is a part of how teachers are assessed as educators, but why are our classrooms not differentiated?
Literature Review
The two main aspects of my research were Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) and Howard Gardener's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983). Maslow discussed how people move through the five stages of needs to reach the pinnacle of selfactualization. This action research aims to demonstrate how students who feel content and happy within their classroom can access the greater hierarchy of needs, such as selfconfidence and self-actualization.
Gardener explores the idea that human intelligence comprises a variety of modalities rather than one single ability. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences explores eight different intelligences. If this is to be believed, many schools use the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT4) results to lead teaching and learning in the classroom and planning, the children who learn in a kinaesthetic mode are being forced to sit in their seats all day and are not being enabled to learn to the best of their ability.
Further research into ‘flexible classrooms’ found a plethora of blogs, videos, and pictures from educators with their own experiences, ideas, and advice. A TEDx talk, ‘Reimagining Classroom: Teachers as learners and students as leaders’ (Dezler, 2015), discusses how we must embrace the students of today, to reimagine tomorrow.
Dezler opens her episode with a teacher's example of a boy who hated school. She quickly moves on to point out how classrooms and learning environments have not changed for the past 70 years. She admits that she is seeing her classroom, students, and their learning journeys differently. To be able to reimagine tomorrow, we, as teachers, must learn how to use the power; our classrooms need to be less teacher-centred and more child-centred.
Methods
Action Research is a perfect opportunity to explore many aspects of a flexible seating classroom, from the perfect seating arrangements, students' attitudes towards school, and the progress that students can gain from learning within a flexible seating classroom. This led to three research questions -
• Question 1: What makes an effective flexible classroom setup?
• Question 2: How does a flexible seating classroom impact students' view of school?
• Question 3: Can a flexible seating classroom have an impact on academic progress?
Following an initial conversation with my class regarding the seating setup and arranging the tables into different layouts, we decided to try out an alternative seating arrangement focused on flexible seating.
The whole class of 24 students aged between 8-10 were involved in a large part of this research. I also selected 6 students who were chosen as part of a focus group. These students were identified as those who may benefit from alternative seating options (see Figure 1)
A few images of ways in which some of my students would sit on their chairs at the standard classroom tables.
Through this research, a variety of quantitative and qualitative data was collected via an Microsoft Forms Questionnaire, which focused on the students' attitude towards school, the analysis of Pre and Post-Topic Maths Assessments conducted every few weeks in term 2.A and 2.B/3.A, which was then compared to the assessments that took place during term 1.A and B, interview discussions of open conversation with 6 focus children before, during, and after the implementation of a flexible seating classroom, and finally, observations made by class teachers regarding the general class behaviour.
While analysing my quantitative data, I took the pre-topic assessment score and the post-topic assessment score and found an increase in marks between them.
I then took all increases from each test in T1. A and B and divided by the number of tests completed in the term (7). This gave me my before results. I repeated the same process with the pre- and post-topic assessment results for T2.A, T2.B, and T3.A to find the after results. This was then converted into a bar chart to show the significant difference in the scores before and after the implementation of a flexible seating environment.
What makes an effective flexible classroom setup?
There are and always will be hundreds of different options for seating that people would like to see in a classroom. Due to the different needs and learning styles that students experience throughout their learning journey, an effective classroom is based on personal opinion and is dependent on the individual (see Figure 2).
• Students suggested many different ideas about what an ideal classroom would look like to them (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
What Makes an Effective Flexible Classroom Setup?
• Students had their preferred areas to sit in the new classroom, and they also had their least favourite areas. (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2).
Figure 3.1
Favourite Seating Choice
What is your favourite seating choice?
Figure 3.2
• They also suggested what could improve the classroom environment (Figure 3.3
• 20 out of 24 students stated that ‘being comfortable in the classroom’ was within the top 3 of importance to make school a happy place.
of school?
The progress made by students showed a significant increase in students' attitudes to school. As my focus group results improved their confidence during lessons changed.
• Students reported that they felt comfortable, calm, relaxed, and focused. (see Figure 4).
• 3 out of the 6 focus children expressed a low score regarding how they felt about school, stating that they found the classroom boring before we introduced a flexible seating classroom.
• Children 2 and 6 gained great post-topic scores, showing greater learning taking place in the flexible classroom environment. (see Figure 5.2).
• Child 3 has not shown greater differences, which supported a cause for concern flag between me and our inclusion department, encouraging a more in-depth look into this child’s learning needs and an external assessment recommendation. (see Figure 5.2).
• Children 4 and 5 have made some progress between preand post-topic assessments, but not as extensive as other children. There has been an increase in their reading age since the implementation of the flexible classroom (noted from Star Reader assessment results when doing general reading progress reports) (see Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.1
Table of Results from Pre/Post Topic Assessments in T1.A/B Compared to Results from Pre/Post Topic Assessments in T2.A/B and T3.A.
Giving students are large array of sitting options in one classroom can feel overwhelming at first, but once they have found the spot, they can focus on their learning, and growth and progression will follow.
Conclusion
Teachers should take into consideration adapting their classroom environment to integrate flexible seating options along with their traditional seating options. Stakeholders should consider the positive implications of flexible seating when making decisions on creating an inclusive environment suitable for all students and their learning needs. As this research only focused on a small group of 6 students, it cannot be declared that flexible seating works for all. Using a wider group of learners at a variety of levels working at a variety of paces would create a larger source of data to compare the before and after results.
Figure 5.2
Bar Chart of Results from Pre/Post Topic Assessments in T1.A/B Compared to Results from Pre/Post Topic Assessments in T2.A/B and T3.A.
Discussion
Purposeful For Learning?
Maslow: Students expressed that it was important to feel comfortable and relaxed at school. These feelings support Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, lower down with a feeling of security and safety within the classroom. As students’ progress grew, so did their confidence and self-esteem, and this led to some self-actualisation.
Gardener: EVERY CHILD IS DIFFERENT! Children learn in so many ways; children feel comfortable in different positions.
It would be useful to collect longer-term data to analyses the effects of flexible seating, including PT’s and NGRT results, Science Pre and Post Topic Assessments, STAR Reader Assessments, and SPAG.com assessment results, to show greater patterns in progress over a full academic year. The research could focus on SEND/ELL/EAL students within one flexible seating classroom, one set up in each year group in Lower and Upper KS2, or the research could be conducted in each year group within a mixed class.
Burnside, J. (n.d.). Creating the Jafar Centre. Godwin Austen Johnson. https://www.godwinaustenjohnson.com/blog/ designing-the-jafar-centre
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0054346
McCroskey, J. C., & McVetta, R. C. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527809378299
Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. The Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1). https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ jls/article/view/1276
The Colourful Teacher. (n.d.). The Colourful Teacher. https:// thecolourfulteacher.wordpress.com
Mary Joy Magsakay, Hartland International School
Inclusion is a key part of modern educational policy. It promotes fair learning opportunities for all students, including those with special educational needs (SEN). Pull-out classes are a common method used to help SEN students with specialized instruction that matches their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals. However, concerns exist about how effective they are, especially when these interventions operate separately from the main curriculum (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).
This action research looks at how pull-out sessions affect the achievement of a student's IEP goals, specifically the reading progress of three Year 8 SEN students, with an emphasis on comprehension, vocabulary, and inferencing. Although pull-out programs provide targeted help, they often fall short due to limited connections with classroom instruction and a lack of teamwork among teachers (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015). Disjointed practices can create fragmented learning experiences and slow academic growth (Norwich, 2013).
Collaboration between mainstream and support teachers is crucial for making pull-out sessions reinforce classroom learning. However, time limits and heavy workloads often reduce chances for collaborative planning and coordination (Kennedy, 2010). Using inclusive frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can improve accessibility and clarity in instruction, making learning more effective for diverse learners (Priyadharsini and Sahaya Mary, 2024).
Using pre-assessments, post-assessments, IEP tracking, and student feedback, this study evaluates the academic impact and learning perceptions related to pull-out interventions. Future research will focus on a short-term collaborative intervention aimed at improving planning between mainstream and support teachers. This will better connect pull-out instruction with IEP goals. This study aims to contribute to more cohesive, studentcentered practices within inclusive education.
This action research took place at Hartland International School in Dubai, a British curriculum school that serves a diverse student body, including learners with special educational needs (SEN). In the Secondary Department, the Inclusion Team offers a mix of in-class support and specific interventions. One of these interventions is the pull-out program, where selected SEN students leave non-core subjects, like Arabic or modern foreign languages, to receive focused help tailored to their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals.
This study focuses on three Year 8 SEN students with reading targets for term 2 related to comprehension, vocabulary, and inference. Their needs include specific learning difficulties (SpLD), communication and interaction (C&I), and cognition and learning (C&L). Although pull-out sessions aim to meet these goals, questions have arisen about how effectively they lead to measurable progress in core literacy skills that are essential for success across subjects.
The current model shows a commitment to individual support, but there are ways to make collaboration between mainstream and inclusion staff more organized and consistent. Improving this partnership can help ensure that targeted interventions not only support IEP goals but also enhance classroom instruction, improving skill transfer and engagement.
This research is based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a framework created by Rose and Meyer (2002) that encourages inclusive instruction using various ways to represent information, express ideas, and engage students. UDL is especially important in special educational needs (SEN) contexts, such as pull-out sessions, where flexibility and accessibility are crucial for meeting different learning needs.
Related theories complement and strengthen this foundation. Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al., 2011) emphasizes the need to reduce unnecessary cognitive demands. This approach matches UDL’s focus on supportive, easy-to-access instruction. Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson, 2001) stresses the importance of adapting content and methods to fit individual student profiles. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1986) highlights the value of guided support in promoting progress.
These theories together support intervention models that are responsive and personalized, meeting learners’ developmental needs.
This study looks at how theory-based pull-out sessions can better support the Individual Educational Plan goals of SEN students, especially in reading.
The study is guided by the following research questions:
• RQ1: What is the impact of pull-out classes on meeting the IEP targets of SEN students, specifically in reading comprehension and vocabulary?
• RQ2: What teaching strategies and learning styles are most effective in supporting SEN students within pull-out sessions?
These questions aim to evaluate both the effectiveness of the intervention and identify successful instructional approaches that can be used or adapted for similar contexts.
The study focused on three Year 8 SEN students at Hartland International School, each with a reading-related IEP target. Although the students have different primary needs, they all work at Level 2 in their respective categories:
• One student with Specific Learning Difficulty (SpLD) focused on reading comprehension and inferencing
• One student with Communication and Interaction (C&I) needs, targeting reading
• One student with Cognition and Learning (C&L) difficulties, focusing on reading comprehension and vocabulary
The small, targeted sample size allowed for close tracking of individual progress and tailored instructional adjustments during the intervention.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection tools was used to measure the impact of the pull-out sessions over a 6-week period (January–February 2025). The tools included:
• IEP tracking sheets, completed by Higher Level Teaching Assistants (HLTAs), to document progress in every pull-out class.
• Teacher’s termly IEP reviews to reflect on student development and goal alignment.
• Pre- and post-tests using short, gradelevel reading passages to assess changes in comprehension and vocabulary. Student questionnaires to gather learners’ perspectives on what strategies helped them and how they felt during sessions.
Weekly pull-out sessions, delivered once per week during MFL/Arabic exemption periods, provided the structured intervention class.
Results
RQ 1: What is the impact of pull-out class instruction on the IEP targets of SEN students, specifically in reading comprehension and vocabulary?
1. Comprehension Growth: Figure 1 shows steady improvement in comprehension scores from Week 1 to Week 4 across all students.
1
3. Student Perception: 67% reported significant progress; 33% noted some improvement in reading and vocabulary skills (see Figure 3). Reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing were the most improved skills. (see Figure 4)
Figure 3
Student Perception on Progress
Figure 2
Retention and Understanding of Target Word
Student’s Improvement and Preference in
4. IEP Progress: Tracking Sheets confirm that most IEP targets were partially or fully achieved by February 2025 (Term 2) (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Teacher’s Feedback from Termly IEP Plan Review and HLTA’s Feedback from IEP Tracking Sheet
This study looked at (1) how pull-out sessions affect SEN students’ IEP reading goals and (2) which teaching strategies and learning styles were most effective. Data from pre/posttests, IEP tracking, student feedback, and teacher reflections showed that well-organized, targeted pull-out sessions can positively support progress in reading comprehension and vocabulary development.
5. Student Wellbeing: Learners expressed satisfaction with receiving additional pull-out support, while also showing openness to exploring new opportunities such as participation in foreign language classes (see Figure 4).
RQ2: What teaching strategies and learning styles are most effective in supporting SEN students within pull-out sessions?
(See Figure 6)
Figure 6
Effective Teaching Stratgies and Learning Styles for SEN Students
All three students made measurable academic progress and had a positive attitude toward learning. These results connect with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al., 2011), as smaller groups and focused teaching reduced cognitive strain, making it easier to reach learning goals. Likewise, Tomlinson’s (2001) Differentiated Instruction showed in the use of individualized materials and flexible pacing.
Key elements of Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002), including different ways of representing information and expressing understanding, helped improve accessibility and engagement. Teaching within each student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1986) also supported effective scaffolding and skill transfer. Finally, the study emphasized the importance of better alignment and communication between support and mainstream teachers. While there is some collaboration, the findings suggest it could be more organized to ensure consistency between classroom and intervention sessions.
This supports Florian and Black-Hawkins’ (2011) call for inclusive practices based on shared responsibility.
How have I changed my practice?
This research has motivated me to go beyond just providing support during pull-out sessions. I now view these lessons as important parts of classroom instruction, rather than separate activities. I am more thoughtful about how I introduce and reinforce learning targets, resources, and skills in both environments. Interventions are now carefully designed to meet each student’s needs.
How have I changed the way I think about my practice or ideas?
Before this study, I thought we could measure progress in pull-out classes just by looking at task completion or engagement.
Now, I see the importance of tracking progress with consistent and structured assessment tools like IEP trackers, pre/posttests, and student feedback. I also consider more carefully how student voice matters and how their insights influence the effectiveness of teaching.
What knowledge or practices have I created that others in my school will find of value?
This project shows the benefits of short-term, measurable actions that match students’ IEP goals and the regular curriculum. It involves sharing the pull-out session planning and tracking tools with colleagues and adapting these methods into our inclusion practices. The focus on student voice has encouraged a movement toward more reflective teaching across the school.
What knowledge or practices have I created that other education action researchers might find of value?
Other researchers may find the mixed-methods approach I used helpful. This approach balances quantitative tools, such as comprehension tests, with qualitative insights, like student questionnaires. The project also shows the importance of using Universal Design for Learning principles in small-group interventions, not only in mainstream classrooms.
What did I learn about action research that might help others?
Action research is not about waiting for perfect conditions. It’s about responding to real needs as they arise, reflecting continuously, and being open to change. I learned that smallscale research can lead to big shifts in thinking and practice when the process is intentional and reflective.
Conclusion
This study found that well-planned pull-out sessions, which meet IEP targets and follow inclusive frameworks like Universal Design for Learning, can significantly improve outcomes for SEN students. These sessions led to measurable progress in comprehension and vocabulary. They also boosted student confidence, showing the value of targeted, flexible support.
However, the research highlights the need for better cooperation between mainstream and pull-out teachers to ensure consistent instruction. Future research will explore a short-term intervention aimed at improving this cooperation. The goal is to align support more closely with individual IEP goals to achieve a greater impact.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591–598. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10390804
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2015). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. Routledge.
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. Routledge.
Priyadharsini, K., & Sahaya Mary, R. (2024). Implementing Universal Design for Learning in Indian classrooms: A pathway to inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116 .2022.2140074
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of various communicative methods in Modern Foreign Language (MFL) aids students in learning French by improving their recall their memorization of vocabulary. In this study, students practise literacy by completing tasks on Education Perfect that require reading, writing, reading with dictation, listening and writing, and writing alone. The study measures student attainment by checking the number of words they can correctly recall and use to discover which approach helps students remember vocabulary best. In this context, there are precisely 13 students, who mostly get instruction at school with a few outside lessons.
This issue focuses on designing communicative work to enhance learners’ MFL vocabulary, which is crucial for developing strong and stable language skills. Many approaches to teaching are available, but it remains uncertain which ones help students remember the most vocabulary, mainly due to the slow growth of students’ language outside of classroom work. The objective of this research is to provide helpful guidance for teachers and support improved language learning.
This investigation was conducted in a French classroom at an IB and British secondary school by intermediate-level students. It remains challenging to develop methods that enable people to remember new vocabulary over the long-term when communicating in a foreign language. Since students typically receive limited French instruction outside of school, they should strive to learn as much as possible in class. Here, learning new vocabulary is important for both current use of the language and a person’s future growth and confidence in the target language. Learners may not develop further if vocabulary teaching methods are not complementary.
Focusing on ways of speaking and writing that emphasise the proper vocabulary can support better learning, boost independent engagement and increase motivation for students and teachers. Because the course is specific and students are at intermediate levels, this research allows for personalised support and observing learner reactions to various teaching strategies which could inform similar classes and cohorts.
Many people agree that knowing and using new vocabulary matters in MFL, but there is still debate between experts regarding the best way to actualize this. Milton and Hopwood (2022) mention that effective methods for establishing the memory of new vocabulary are grounded in research and utilize activities that provide students with opportunities to share and receive information. Reading, listening, writing, and speaking all involve learning in several ways and help people remember new vocabulary more effectively. They found that teaching vocabulary using several different methods is more effective than using only one method for helping students apply the knowledge they have been taught.
Furthermore, Dareys (2021) examines the Interact method, which helps students use the target language in real-life scenarios. This technique aligns with the insights of Atkinson-Ward (2023), who analysed pupil involvement in foreign language conversations in MFL classrooms. He noted that with the increased frequency of communicating in the target language comes better confidence in their abilities and like learning more.
A weak vocabulary memory can prevent learners from participating in complex language activities, lower their motivation and affect how well they do overall in the subject.
Both researchers emphasise that reading aloud or dictating, followed by writing practice, helps learners remember words more effectively than tasks that only focus on writing. It supports the view that being involved with language, primarily through production, enhances how well people learn.
In addition, Cragg (2023) examines how collaborative learning enables MFL students to develop autonomy and boost confidence. Cragg’s emphasis on learning collaboratively in language tasks differs from the direct approaches we have examined, but it demonstrates why language activities should involve students working together. The results suggest that social and interactive ways of learning vocabulary can improve a learner’s interest and ability to memorize.
The combination of these external studies exemplifies how MFL teachers should use a variety of activities that encourage students to use and recall new words. They also indicate that teaching approaches should be tailored to actual classroom conditions, which is why this research is investigating the most effective tools for helping intermediate-level French students remember vocabulary.
In fact, there is a lack of research directly evaluating the difference between reading and writing compared to listening and writing in the memory of new vocabulary among intermediate students. Furthermore, research tends to focus on large populations or other languages, leaving little information on French classrooms in schools. To address these issues, this study employs digitalised tasks to empirically investigate various methods of communication with specific learners.
Action research will be used to investigate the best communicative approaches as it allows for instantaneous feedback and observations from students. The classroom setting will provide us with a well-rounded, varied sample of abilities and levels, as well as authentic results. Students can be asked for their personal opinions, thoughts after the testing of each communicative approach, allowing an idea of whether student engagement is in alignment with results. The goal is to identify the communicative approach(es) that allow for students to learn the vocabulary with the least number of repetitions and the most accuracy.
Research will be conducted via the online learning platform Education Perfect (EP) where assignments utilizing different communicative approaches will be completed by students. Four combinations of communicative approaches will be investigated in the form of homework assignments on EP:
• The ‘Reading’ and ‘Writing’ sections on EP - Reading the target language vocabulary then writing target language vocabulary from its English equivalent
• The ‘Reading’, ‘Dictation’, and ‘Writing’ sections on EP - Reading the target language vocabulary, listening to the target language vocabulary and responding in the target language, and then writing target language vocabulary from its English equivalent
• The ‘Listening’, and ‘Writing’ sections on EP - Listening to the target language vocabulary and responding with the English equivalent, and then writing the target language vocabulary from its English equivalent
Different vocabulary lists will be assigned for each combination to ensure students are learning vocabulary each time and that results are not affected by the repetition or prior viewing of the words.
The action research will be conducted with an IB French B class of 13 students of varying skill levels, specifically IB Grade 4 to IB Grade 7.
Data is collected from the online platform Education Perfect which offers data on the number of attempts/ questions answered and the accuracy for each student.
Results
Table 1
Average no. of Attempts Per Section for Each Communicative Approach
Note: Each approach is counted as a section on EP i.e. for the Reading and Writing results there are two sections so the average of the attempts is taken. “-” indicates when a student has not completed an assignment.
This slightly outperformed only reading and writing (85.8%) and listening and writing (85.1%). Although the variation is only slight, the consistency in the results supports the idea proposed by Milton and Hopwood (2022) that the use of a several different methods enhances vocabulary acquisition more than one method.
The number of attempts per student provides further depth to the results. Students needed more attempts on average to complete L + W tasks (225.8) compared to R + D + W (143.8) (see Table 1). This suggests that although listening and writing can produce strong results, it is more demanding. It is notable that some students showed high accuracy and efficiency across all modes, suggesting that some learners achieve higher attainment at internalizing vocabulary regardless of method, possibly due to previous exposure to the vocabulary.
The differences in student performance also shows how no single approach is superior but rather that combining approaches allows for broader learner success. Cragg’s (2023) insights into collaborative and interactive learning reinforces the significance of introducing various communicative approaches to complement the dynamic needs of learners.
The study focused on identifying which communicative methods in MFL was the most effective in vocabulary recall among intermediate French students. The data collected from digital tasks reveals that students performed with the highest accuracy on the following tasks: reading, dictation, and writing (R + D + W), with an average score of 87.8% (see Table 2).
Prior to this research, written tasks were favoured as the main method of instruction. However, after acknowledging the improvement in the accuracy of the students through integrative tasks it would be best to implement more listening and dictation exercises. Lessons should incorporate all four: approaches: reading, listening, speaking, and writing extensively. Feedback loops should be introduced to allow learners to reflect in performance which is bound to improve metacognitive engagement.
Our approach regarding vocabulary recall has shifted from individual and passive to dynamic and experimental. Vocabulary is not about repetition but should be interacted
For example, the Listening & Writing combination could be favoured if students have an upcoming listening test, allowing them to easily learn new vocabulary while practicing exam
As World Languages teachers, my department and I observed that Middle School students often fail to retain material from one lesson to the next, resulting in reteaching due to gaps in recall and mastery. To address this issue, I collaborated with my line manager at the time to introduce a paper planner for students.
The aim of this initiative was to encourage students to record what they had learned during lessons, along with any extended or home learning tasks. This strategy was intended to promote independent learning across all subjects, support identifying what they needed to review and foster a greater sense of responsibility for their education.
I opted for a physical planner based on the belief that it would better support the development of executive functioning skills; skills that students could carry forward throughout their educational journey. Holmes (2024), in his article Paper vs. Digital Planner? 10 Reasons to Choose Printed School Planners, highlights how the act of sight and touch of using a paper planner stimulate the brain, enhancing memory, creativity and engagement.
Similarly, the article Homework Planners: Why Students Need to Use One (Engage the Brain, 2024) outlines several benefits of using a planner, including the establishment of routines leading to higher homework completion rates, improving performance on standardized tests and the acquisition of essential life skills.
I used action research as I had to develop the planner with the needs of the school community in mind and then involve the same stakeholders: students, parents and teachers to evaluate its use. The goal was to ensure the planner was adapted and used
After liaisng with the Al-Futtaim Digital Marketing & Design team to create the paper planner, I recorded a short video explaining its use which was then sent to the community. After the October break, the planner was distributed to Grade 6 students, with the expectation that students, teachers and parents would use it daily to support organisation and home–school communication.
Data Collection
In the spring of 2024, I had sent some surveys to the community to better design the paper planner. To assess the planner’s impact during the school year, I used it in my Grade 6 French lessons and encouraged other teachers to do the same. I gathered informal feedback from students and staff from October 2024 onwards.
In February 2025, I once again distributed a specific and differentiated survey to each stakeholder: students, parents and teachers to, this time, gather insights into their use of the paper planner and to identify effective practices. However, the overall response rate was limited: only 65 students, 12 parents and a small number of teachers completed the survey (see Figure 1 and 2). This low level of engagement suggests a need for more targeted communication before the launch of any new initiative so there is a buy-in from every group involved and perhaps alternative methods for gathering feedback in future initiatives.
Results
Figure 1 Main Students’ Survey Results
Table 1
General Conclusion of the Stakeholders’ Results Surveys
-Good students => paper planner
-Majority => digital or no planner at all
-Lack of time
-School initiative
-School expectations
-Start in Grade 5 since it was only used for Grade 6 this year
-Paper planner
-Clear use of paper planner and Schoology
The results showed that high-performing students used more the paper planner consistently, while the majority either used digital tools or nothing at all (see lack of time during lessons, limited school-wide consistency and unclear expectations as barriers to proper implementation (see Table 1). Parents expressed support for the paper planner but suggested it should be introduced earlier, ideally starting in Grade 5 to bridge the gap between Elementary and Middle School (see Table 1 having a clearer explanation of both, the use of the planner and Schoology, a digital tool used by UAS to download lessons and grades for students.
The inconsistent use of the planner across classrooms underscores the need for clear and consistent communication of its purpose and intended use to all stakeholders in order to secure meaningful buy-in.
Embedding structured routines within lessons to model and reinforce its benefits is essential, while supported and reinforcement of the expectations to students, parents and teachers would have helped its sustained and effective use over time.
The paper planner is a valuable tool that supports students not only in managing their academic responsibilities and progress but also in developing essential long-term organisational skills that contribute to lifelong learning. Its structured, tactile format encourages reflection, planning and accountability; skills that extend well beyond the classroom. However, the effectiveness of such a tool depends heavily on how it is introduced to the community and embedded into daily practice. For any new initiative to succeed, it must be accompanied by a clear rollout strategy, consistent messaging and well-defined expectations to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement and buy-in.
Additionally, developing new habits; whether for students, teachers or parents, requires time, reinforcement and consistency across the school community. Despite the potential of the paper planner, UAS has chosen to pursue a different direction for the upcoming academic year. This also highlights the need for flexibility and to do what is best for the education of the students.
Holmes, B. (2024, July 4). Paper vs. digital planner? 10 reasons to choose printed school planners. The School Planner Company. https://www.schoolplanner.com/paper-vs-digital-planner/ References
Louise O’Sullivan, South View School
Working in a setting with evolving curriculum and assessments can be simultaneously challenging and exciting for educators. The recent changes to the GCSE Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) assessment, with the first cohort sitting the new specification exam in 2026, have prompted me as a middle leader, and classroom teacher, to question why the change, and why now? As professionals, I believe we have a moral duty to question and understand changes within our curriculum area, and to be able to effectively implement the changes to ensure the most impactful outcomes for our pupils.
The changes to the assessment include the addition of a read-aloud task (speaking) and dictation (listening); suggesting the importance of developing our pupils’ encoding and decoding skills by teaching phonics and Sound-SymbolCorrespondences (SSC). SSC refers to the relationship between the sounds we hear (phonemes), and the letters or combinations (known as graphemes) that are representative of those sounds in writing. This action research investigates the impact of a more systematic, explicit approach to phonics instruction on Key Stage 3 (KS3) pupils’ confidence and progress with read-aloud (decoding) and dictation (encoding) activities. Exploring this area of research will allow me to lead my department more effectively, explore different approaches to embedding phonics within the curriculum and consider the long-term implications for pupils within the languages classroom.
Ofsted signpost phonics, grammar and vocabulary as the three pillars of a successful MFL curriculum, and recognise that phonics teaching, which commonly becomes implicitly taught in language classrooms, should be explicitly delivered, particularly for novice learners (Ofsted 2021). Moreover, without explicit teaching, language learners can fall back on first language decoding strategies, leading to errors (Sparks, 2015).
“Knowledge of the sound–spelling relations is one of the building blocks of learning a language” (Ofsted, 2021), yet from personal experience, and the reflections drawn on by other language teachers, it appears that phonics has been adressed as area to cover at the start of Year 7 or only at the beginning of a students’ langauge journey (Kate Languages, 2024). This area of second-language acquisition, although not a new area of discussion, certainly holds a renewed importance with the signfiicant changes brought about with the UK MFL
There is a wealth of existing research to support the cause for phonics when learning a language, however, many of these studies predominantly look at first language acquisition, not additional or second languages (Muijselaar & de Bree, 2022). Although research into phonics and second language learning remains under-researched, there are several studies I have explored to gain a better understanding of my research question. Existing research considers the significant role of phonics teaching for improved language skills in MFL, particularly in settings where pupils are not immersed in the language, such as in the United Kingdom (UK) where exposure to the language may be low.
Existing evidence from both the FLEUR Project (Woore et al, 2018) and Ofsted (2021) emphasise how pronunciation and fluency can be supported through systematic synthetic phonics (SSP). SSP refers to explicitly and systematically “teaching pupils to identify the smallest units of sound in speech and how these sounds are represented in letters, so they can blend them to read words and segment them to spell.”
This suggests a systematic approach to teaching phonics should lead to a direct positive impact on reading aloud performance. Moreover, Marsden and Kasprosicz’s (2017a) study further emphasises that the ability for pupils to decode effectively impacts their fluency and the bridge between written and spoken forms; both of which are crucial for dictation and reading aloud activities.
Woore (2011) and Stanovich (1980) argue that a lack of phonics instruction increases cognitive load, impairing decoding and reading fluency. This aligns with findings from Hamada and Koda (2008), who report that explicit phonics instruction improves fluency in second language learners, while Woore (2018) asserts that a phonic focused approached in French specifically attributes to pronunciation improvements. In terms of encoding and spelling, dictation studies (Dherbey Chapuis & Berthele, 2024; Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017b) demonstrate that phoneme–grapheme mapping through dictation tasks significantly enhances spelling accuracy and pronunciation, supporting the place of dictation in phonics programmes.
Confidence and learner autonomy are also positively impacted by phonics-based instruction. Erler and Macaro (2011), as well as Koda (2007), found that phonics builds speaking confidence and reduces anxiety, an effect documented by Ofsted (2021), which notes increased learner autonomy through pronunciation work. This aligns with the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) which highlights the role of scaffolding and structured support as keys to learning and independence.
Although the existing research base strongly supports the role of phonics in additional language learning, much of this work is concentrated on French as the target language in UK secondary settings. For instance, the FLEUR Project (Woore et al., 2018) and Woore’s earlier work (2011, 2018) focus on beginner learners of French in English secondary schools. Marsden and Kasprowicz’s (2017) study also focus on French, exploring how decoding skills improve fluency and comprehension. While studies by Hamada and Koda (2008) and Koda (2007) investigate phonics in broader second language contexts, they are not situated in MFL classrooms nor focused on Spanish. There is a notable absence of research examining the impact of explicit phonics instruction on learners of Spanish in KS3, particularly in low-exposure environments like the UK. The inclusion of Spanish classrooms in this area of research may be understudied due to the greater difficulties faced by students learning French because of the complex range of SSC and letter combinations. However, as a Spanish specialist, and with Spanish surpassing French in popularity in UK schools (British Council. 2023), there is a clear research gap I seek to explore further.
1. Research Question 1 (RQ1): How does phonics-focused instruction impact students' confidence in reading aloud and dictation amongst KS3 learners of French and Spanish?
2. Research Question 2 (RQ2): Does explicit phonics instruction improve students' accuracy and fluency in reading the target language and dictation skills?
I was supported in my action research by my department, allowing me to carry out the research on all students in KS3 languages. The number for dictation tasks and read-aloud is different due to not all participants completing the read-aloud task (see Table 1).
All students participated in the forms survey and three staff members provided diary reflections at the end of the project.
To investigate my RQ1, I collected both qualitative and quantitaive data for all year groups (KS3) including:
• Microsoft forms survey (see Figure 1): To measure perceived confidence with reading aloud and SSC amongst pupils. Survey conducted at start and end of project.
• Teacher and pupils’ written reflections and observations at the end of the project.
In order to carry out RQ2, I measured progress through a range of quantiative measures:
• Microsoft teams, reading progress (see Figure 2): Numerical data of reading aloud scores for accuracy and fluency. Teachers calculated the % of those who improved for both fluency and accuracy from the start to the end. We used a reading-age checker to ensure that the difficulty of the text was the same-level both at the start and end of the project to make it more reliable and fair.
Figure 2
• Dictation test (see Figure 3): Ten words at the start, middle and end of the programme in which they had been explicitly taught the key sounds by their teacher by the final dictation.
Figure 3 Diction Test
Noteably, from the first data collection to the last, pupils engaged with a systematic phonics programme with a range of activities that practised carefully considered sounds. At the start of the project, staff members participated in training for delivering phonics and planned in their curriculum plans for a sound to be explicitly taught every two weeks. Teachers used a range of activities to present and practise these sounds including; Suno (AI programme producing songs), Dictation whispers, Dictation caterpillars, Back-to back, amongst other tasks all designed to present and practise the chosen sounds (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Activities and Pupils’ Work (CPD Training, Backto-Back, Phonics Caterpillars, Trabalenguas (Tongue-Twisters)
The findings in relation to RQ1 demonstrate a significant improvement in student confidence following phonics-focused instruction. Survey data revealed a 62% reduction in the number of students reporting low confidence in reading aloud and dictation, with the greatest gains seen among initially lower-confidence learners (see Figure 5). Pronunciation concerns decreased by 63% across the cohort, indicating that explicit phonics helped students feel more secure in their ability to decode spoken language.
Notably, all anxiety or socially driven concerns were eliminated by the end of the project, showing strong affective benefits. This finding was strengthened by the outcomes presented in the staff reflections collected. I undertook a thematic analysis of the teacher accounts, using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach. This included creating a coding system for a range of words and then categorising these words into key, recurring themes. Key themes of improved confidence, better pronunciation and independence all emerged, as well as the need for more practice, from both pupil and teachers’ viewpoints.
Additionally, results showed that phonics instruction had a strong positive impact on reading aloud, with 72.6% (fluency, words per minute) and 78.6% (accuracy) of pupils making improvements over the course of the project (see Figure 6). However, a surprising finding was that only 59.6% of pupils made improvements in their dictation results, primarily driven by Year 7 Spanish students where only 37% improved over the course of the project. However, this particular group made the most gains in their read aloud progress highlighting a discrepancy between decoding and encoding skills. Year 8 Spanish students performed less well across both fluency and accuracy, possibly due to first language habits already having an impact, along with other factors such as delivery of the programme, students’ efforts and engagement.
In contrast, Year 9 French students demonstrated more balanced outcomes, with high improvement scores in fluency (80%), accuracy (75%), and particularly dictation (85%) (see Figure 3). The high improvements in dictation, is something for our team to reflect on. In upcoming meetings, we will reflect on the approach taken by this teacher when supporting pupils with encoding skills and learn and share best practice.
The comparison between Spanish and French also revealed language-specific patterns. Spanish students excelled in decoding, likely due to the language’s phonological transparency, while French students showed stronger encoding ability despite the language’s more complex spelling rules. Overall, explicit phonics instruction improves reading aloud, but for spelling to improve, programmes must be sustained, age-appropriate, and adapted to the phonetic structure of the language.
Discussion and Reflections
My findings closely align with research on phonics in second language learning settings. Like Marsden & Kasprowicz (2017a) and the FLEUR Project (2018), my study showed that explicit phonics instruction improves decoding, fluency, and pronunciation. Confidence gains observed in my students reflect those in Erler & Macaro (2011) and Ofsted (2021), which highlight how systematic instruction reduces anxiety in reading aloud. However, my research revealed a gap in encoding skills (spelling/dictation), and this has prompted me to consider the type of activities we use currently and how these could be improved in the future. While much of the literature focuses on French, my focus on Spanish phonics offers fresh insight into an underrepresented area of study and highlights the importance of a systematic approach to SSC in Spanish classroom settings too.
The findings confirm that explicit phonics instruction enhances reading fluency and accuracy in MFL, particularly in early stages of learning. However, the clear gap between decoding and encoding skills, particularly from Year 7 and Year 7 Spanish, highlighted the need for greater balance in our phonics teaching and delivery. I now recognise the importance of embedding encoding tasks, such as structured dictation, to reinforce spelling and grapheme-phoneme mapping. Notably, students’ confidence improved in reading aloud across all groups, even when accuracy was not perfect, suggesting phonics gave them tools to attempt unfamiliar words with less hesitation.
This project has shifted my thinking: I now view phonics as a long-term, developmental process rather than a shortterm intervention. My approach now includes revisiting key sounds and patterns regularly, especially for older learners. This research has shown me how action research can drive meaningful, classroom-based change and as a Head of Department I now feel better informed to explain the changes required in our existing schemes of work and the rationale for doing so.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
British Council. (2023). Language Trends England 2023 [Online]. https://www.britishcouncil.org/research/languagetrends
Dherbey Chapuis, M., & Berthele, R. (2024). Dictation in foreign language learning: Implications for phonemegrapheme correspondence. Journal of Language Learning Research, 45(1), 50–68.
Erler, L., & Macaro, E. (2011). Decoding ability in French as a foreign language and language learning motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 496–518.
Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2008). Influence of phonological decoding on second language word-meaning inference. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 217–239.
Kate Languages. (2024). How to teach phonics in MFL: Tips and strategies [Online]. https://katelanguages.co.uk/phonics-mflguide
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(s1), 1–44.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. (2017a). Foreign vocabulary learning through reading and the importance of decoding skills: A study of Year 9 learners of French. Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 316–336.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. (2017b). Dictation as a classroom tool: Impacts on second language learners’ spelling and phoneme-grapheme awareness. Second Language Education Review, 32(1), 75–93.
Muijselaar, M. M. L., & de Bree, E. H. (2022). The role of phonics instruction in second language acquisition. Reading and Writing, 35(1), 155–173.
Ofsted. (2021). World Languages research review [Online]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foreignlanguages-curriculum-research-review
Sparks, R. (2015). Language aptitude and learning. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 673–695.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Woore, R. (2011). Developing reading and decoding skills in beginner learners of French. Language Learning Journal, 39(1), 5–18.
Woore, R. (2018). French phonics for Key Stage 3. Oxford Review of Education, 44(1), 68–82.
Woore, R., Graham, S., Porter, A., Courtney, L., & Bianchi, R. (2018). Foreign Language Education: Unlocking Reading (FLEUR Project). University of Oxford.
While classrooms in parts of Europe thrive with students mastering multiple languages—86.3% of primary school pupils in the EU learn at least one foreign language—the picture is different elsewhere (European Council, 2002). In the Middle East, language education varies widely: countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have made English and bilingual education national priorities, while others still face challenges in consistent implementation. Meanwhile, in the United States (US) only about 20% of K–12 students study a foreign language (Rubio, 2022).
This global contrast raises a pressing question: Are we truly unlocking children's full cognitive and academic potential?
This is not just a cultural gap—it is a cognitive one. Early exposure to foreign languages doesn’t just teach communication; it rewards young brains with greater adaptability (García Mayo, 2017)., creativity, and academic success. Language acquisition plays a fundamental role in cognitive development, yet research in this area remains insufficient. A lack of interest in language learning among children can be attributed to several factors, including the limited attention given to this subject in early education.
In 2019, Brexit posed a dual challenge in the UK: a decline in interest in languages and a shortage of high-quality Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) teachers, as the UK used to rely on EU nationals for its MFL teaching expertise. 45% of the state schools in the UK believed that the European Union would challenge some aspects of the education system majority languages, 53% of the schools reported that students were less motivated to study languages (Broady, 2020). In contrast with the motivation and importance that languages are in Middle East.
During primary school, language instruction is often approached in a less structured and rigorous manner. As a result, students may struggle to build foundational skills or develop genuine enthusiasm for language learning, leading to long-term consequences on their cognitive abilities and overall academic performance. Hence, there is a need to implement and strengthen the foreign language curriculum—especially in the Middle East, where many students already speak two, three, or even four languages.
When the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, established the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) in 2006, it marked a turning point in the UAE’s educational landscape.
The KHDA was created not only to regulate and improve the quality of education in Dubai but also to align the education sector with the country’s broader vision of global competitiveness and innovation (Al Hussein and Gitsaki,
Since then, institutions such as GEMS Education, which operates over 46 schools across the UAE have played a significant role in developing and implementing diverse and internationally recognized curricula, including British, American, International Baccalaureate, and Indian models.
In an increasingly globalized world, language fluency isn’t just an asset—it’s a necessity. In the UAE, where locals are a minority and the country has embraced globalization and modernization, the use of English as a second language is part of daily life.
This is not accidental; post-colonial language policies and a desire to align with Western models have positioned English and multilingualism as essential tools for development (World Bank, n.d.).
What can the British curriculum learn from countries like the UAE or Qatar that have embedded multilingualism into the educational framework—compared to others like Egypt or Jordan, where implementation remains fragmented?
Starting in September 2025, Arabic will become a compulsory subject in private schools and early childhood centres (ages 0 to 6), as mandated by KHDA. This initiative includes a more immersive programme, cross-curricular integration, and bilingual assistants to support language practice. This is a strong move in the right direction, prioritising Arabic in a way that fosters deeper cultural and linguistic engagement from an early age. If this policy proves successful, it could be the beginning of a stronger inclusion of other foreign languages in the future— broadening the linguistic and cultural horizons of students even further.
Foreign language learning is perhaps the most underutilised tool in early childhood education. More than vocabulary, it enhances memory, fuels curiosity, and shapes how children think (Thieme et al., 2022). So why are not more schools unlocking its full potential? A step forward would involve introducing language learning earlier in primary or Foundation Stage education adapting pedagogy, curricula, and integrating day-to-day opportunities for multilingual interaction, as the Arabic from the next academic year; Key stakeholders, educators, policymakers, and families should collaborate under a unified vision to ensure responsibilities are shared effectively and outcomes are optimized.
This collaborative approach aligns with findings from recent studies that show early language exposure significantly enhances children’s receptive and productive vocabulary therefore, grammar skills (Thieme et al., 2022). These gains are not limited to language alone; they extend across subjects, reinforcing adaptability and cognitive flexibility. In a Year 4 classroom in Dubai, a child effortlessly switches between Arabic, French, and English. His classmates do not see it as extraordinary—it is just their normal. But what if this “normal” is the missing key to cognitive growth in classrooms worldwide?
But imagine if students gained more than just linguistic skills and they could expand their capacities beyond traditional subjects, such as maths and science, developing higher-order cognitive abilities that enhance their academic and personal growth (Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller, 2006) with a more structured curriculum focusing on school performance and achievements: where languages can be a very important tool.
This investment in education has significantly advanced multilingualism across the region. Many schools now promote
Thieme et al. (2022) also point out that students without access to language learning may experience lower well-being. This highlights another reason to ensure that language programs are better structured and resourced, particularly in early primary education. Enthusiasm for language is common among young learners, if input is both high in quality and quantity.
Research was carried out in several
strong peer engagement, enthusiasm, and cognitive flexibility during language learning activities. One striking example came from a Year 6 Portuguese student who, already fluent in English and Arabic, began picking up Spanish at an accelerated pace. His rapid progress highlighted how multilingual children transfer linguistic structures easily and demonstrate a high degree of metalinguistic awareness.
Teachers also reported that structured language input, especially when high in both quality and quantity, positively influenced student motivation, collaboration, and participation across subjects.
Language education promotes social benefits, including empathy, collaboration, and cultural awareness, skills that are difficult to teach in isolation. In classroom, I see how language helps to foster peer support and positive dialogue. When students engage with other cultures, they share knowledge, exchange perspectives, and build lasting connections.
UNESCO’s recent report Languages Matter (2025) reinforces this urgency: “Linguistic diversity is becoming a global reality”. Language education is rapidly evolving across Africa and the Middle East to reflect the region’s growing role in global trade, diplomacy, and international collaboration. In the UAE especially, multilingualism is part of the sociopolitical fabric, offering a model for what could be possible elsewhere.
Although the inclusion of foreign language learning in Key Stage 2 (Years 3 to 6) within the national curriculum is a step forward, Ofsted’s annual report (2021–2022) found inconsistencies and gaps in implementation (Ofsted, 2022; Creed et al., 2024). To address this, a more structured and consistent language curriculum is needed—particularly in regions like the Middle East, where the foundation for multilingualism already exists.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that early foreign language learning offers far-reaching cognitive, academic, social, and emotional benefits—especially when embedded in structured, inclusive educational models. In the Middle East, where many students already navigate multilingual realities, integrating foreign language instruction in primary education is both necessary and strategic.
By drawing from international best practices and aligning with frameworks from UNESCO and the European Commission, British-curriculum schools in the region can lead this change. Doing so will boost not just academic performance, but also empathy, cultural fluency, and global readiness. On this light, the recent KHDA policy mandating Arabic language instruction in private schools and early years represents a very strong move in the right direction and possibly doors to modern foreign languages. If successful, it could strength the region´s commitment to linguistic diversity and global preparedness for new generations.
I propose a framework centred on two essential pillars: Capacity and Curiosity—the "2Cs" of modern foreign language learning—to support the development of a broader, more structured curriculum. Capacity refers to the neurological readiness of young learners to absorb new sounds and grammatical structures. Curiosity captures their natural motivation to engage with different cultures and linguistic systems. These two pillars support a developmental window in which children can achieve near-native pronunciation and deep cognitive retention. And these benefits extend far beyond the classroom.
To achieve this, educators and policymakers must build what we might call a “push–pull pact”—ensuring that foreign language learning is treated not as an optional subject, but as a strategic investment in our children’s future. When we prioritize capacity and curiosity, we unlock the full potential of multilingual education—one that equips students to thrive in a more connected and more inclusive world.
References
Al Hussein, M., & Gitsaki, C. (2018). Foreign language learning policy in the United Arab Emirates: Local and global agents of change. All Works, 4525. https://zuscholars.zu.ac.ae/ all_works/4525
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guide-lines to manage cognitive load (pp. 27–40). Pfeiffer.
Creed, E., O’Leary, T., Smith, A., & Johnson, H. (2024).
Teaching bilingually: Unlocking the academic and cognitive potential – Teachers' insights. Education Sciences, 14(406), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040406
European Council. (2002). Barcelona objectives: The promotion of multilingualism. https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/ EMP-BARCELONA-2002C
García Mayo, M. del P. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research in-sights. In J. Singleton & E. Aronin (Eds.), Second language acquisition (pp. 49–66). Multilin-gual Matters.
Ofsted. (2022). Annual report 2021–2022. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ofsted-annualreport-202122
Rubio, F. (2022). The impact of early language learning. ACTFL Research Briefs. https://www.actfl.org/research/researchbriefs/the-impact-of-early-language-learning
Thieme, M. M. A.-M., Schauer, G. A., & Johnson, S. (2022). The effects of foreign language programmes in early childhood
Maria Banshchikova, Hartland International School
This article explores the use of two visual tools to enhance real-time formative assessment in Key Stage 3 (KS3) German lessons. The need for this research emerged from a formal lesson observation in Year 8, where, despite high student engagement, follow-up questioning revealed that students had varying levels of understanding. This highlighted a key
As I joined Hartland International School this academic year, and following a formal observation in September, feedback revealed that although students were participating well, their understanding of the content varied greatly. Some could follow the lesson in German, while others struggled to translate key sentences or engaged with the material without fully grasping it. The observer recommended exploring strategies to assess comprehension in real-time. This project aimed to address that
Formative assessment has been widely studied as a method for improving teaching and learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Wiliam (2011) notes that Assessment for Learning (AfL) is most effective when it includes strategies to make student thinking visible. Hattie and Clarke (2019) emphasise that feedback should lead to action and that formative assessment fosters learner autonomy. Hansen (2024) similarly highlights that AfL is not just a means to improve instruction but also a way to encourage reflective learners. This research aligns well with these principles, being focusing on specific tools that make student understanding visible, foster active engagement, and enable quick pedagogical
This action research used classroom-based strategies to explore how coloured cups and mini whiteboards can support AfL in KS3 German. The guiding questions were: How do these tools help students to show what they understand?
Which tool is more practical and informative for the teacher?
Do students feel more confident and involved when using these tools?
This project followed a cycle of observation, tool selection, implementation, adjustment, and reflection. After identifying the need, I choose to introduce two tools in German lessons: coloured cups (red, yellow, and green) and mini whiteboards. Students used whiteboards for sentence construction, grammar practice, and quick checks. Cups allowed them to indicate their level of understanding without speaking.
Participants
The study was conducted with a Year 8 German group at Hartland International School. Students had two 50-minute lessons per week. Seven students participated in the feedback phase.
Data was collected through student questionnaires, teacher reflection notes, and informal tracking of student engagement and responses.
Feedback was categorised into three main areas: comprehension, usefulness for the teacher, and confidence. Key findings included:
• Most students found lessons easier to follow.
• Whiteboards improved spelling and sentence construction.
• Cups helped the teacher identify confusion silently.
• Students became more confident and participative over time.
Quotes such as, "It helps with our concentration and confidence," and "The teacher knows when I do not understand" reflected these insights.
Results
• RQ1: Students said the tools helped them understand better and receive help more quickly. (see Figure 1)
• RQ2: Cups clearly showed who was confused, even those who did not usually ask for help. (see Figure 2)
• RQ3: Confidence improved, and participation became more consistent across the group. (see Figure 3)
As I learned, introducing these tools required some patience. Initially, students misused whiteboards for doodling or off-task writing. I initially lost hope that I could teach students to use the whiteboards properly due to early misuse. However, a brief PD session led by a math colleague helped me recognise the value of investing time in teaching clear routines, which made a significant difference.
From a teacher's perspective, both whiteboards and cups were helpful tools in the teaching process. Whiteboards gave everyone a voice and a chance to make low-risk mistakes. Cups were quieter but very informative when checking general comprehension, especially for for shy students. One boy who had never asked a question before placed a red cup in front of him in the first lesson using them—silently letting me know he needed help.
At that moment, I gained insight into how valuable this tool is. After that, he continues to use the cups to demonstrate his level of understanding consistently. Several students were genuinely surprised that I cared whether they understood or needed help. This simple visual system shifted their perceptions and helped create a more open, supportive classroom environment.
These tools supported metacognitive thinking, making students more aware of their own learning needs. They also limited avoidant behaviour; students who usually pretended to work but avoided engaging with the task were forced to think and decide early whether they needed support. There was less room to disengage silently.
This project changed how I think about feedback—I now see AfL not only as a teaching strategy but also as a way to build student self-reflection and autonomy.
Conclusion
1. Visual tools, such as mini whiteboards and coloured cups, can significantly enhance formative assessment in MFL.
2. They empower both teachers and students to act in the moment.
3. With modelling and routine, the tools can transform classroom dynamics and support inclusive, differentiated learning.
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. Hansen, C. T. (2024). Assessment for learning: A summary of concepts, tactics, and strategies. ResearchEd.
Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Multilingual education is an essential component of modern education systems, especially in multicultural settings where students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Research suggests that exposure to multiple languages enhances cognitive flexibility, improves academic achievement, and fosters cultural awareness (Bialystok, 2017; Cummins, 2000). However, despite its potential benefits, multilingual education presents challenges such as language interference, increased cognitive load, and resource allocation issues. This essay explores the impact of multilingual education on student engagement and achievement, using qualitative survey-based research conducted in an international school in Dubai. The study examines students' participation levels, academic performance, and perceptions of multilingual learning, contributing to existing literature on language education in diverse classrooms.
Cognitive and Academic Benefits of Multilingual Education
Studies have shown that multilingualism enhances cognitive flexibility, problem-solving skills, and metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok, 2017). Students who learn multiple languages tend to have stronger memory retention and better analytical abilities, which positively influence their academic performance (Baker, 2021).
Cummins (2000) argues that language acquisition plays a crucial role in shaping students' cognitive and literacy development, emphasizing the importance of bilingual and multilingual programs in educational institutions.
Engagement is a key predictor of academic success, and multilingual education has been linked to increased student participation and motivation in classroom activities (García & Lin, 2016). Research indicates that students who learn multiple languages exhibit greater enthusiasm in their studies, as multilingualism fosters inclusivity and a sense of identity (Baker, 2021). However, challenges such as language anxiety and fear of making mistakes can hinder engagement, particularly in the early stages of language learning (Grosjean, 2010).
Despite its advantages, multilingual education presents challenges, including difficulties in language switching, disparities in language proficiency, and resistance from students who struggle with multiple linguistic demands (García & Lin, 2016). Teachers also face obstacles in creating inclusive lesson plans that accommodate students with varying levels of language proficiency (Baker, 2021). Understanding these challenges is crucial for developing effective multilingual education strategies.
This study employed a qualitative research approach to explore the effects of multilingual education on student engagement and academic achievement. The research focused on a Year 3 class (25 students) at an international school in Dubai, where students were learning French as a third language alongside English and Arabic.
Data were collected through:
1. Student Surveys: Pre- and postintervention surveys assessed students' confidence, participation, and attitudes toward multilingual learning.
2. Classroom Observations: Teachers observed student interactions, noting changes in participation and engagement levels.
3. Student Interviews: Semistructured interviews provided insights into students' perceptions of multilingual learning and the challenges they encountered.
The data were analyzed using comparative analysis, focusing on changes in student engagement and academic performance before and after the multilingual intervention. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring themes from student responses and classroom observations.
The pre-survey results indicated that 40% of students felt hesitant to participate in class due to a lack of confidence in their multilingual abilities. Many students expressed anxiety about making mistakes when speaking French, which negatively impacted their engagement.
However, after six months of multilingual instruction, the post-survey results showed a significant shift: 85% of students reported feeling confident speaking French in class. Classroom observations confirmed this improvement, as students became more willing to answer questions, participate in discussions, and engage in group activities.
A student remarked, scared to speak French, but now I love answering questions and even helping my friends.” This quote highlights the positive impact of multilingual education on students’ self-confidence and willingness to participate in class.
• Sentence Formation: The average accuracy of students' sentence structures improved by 25% over six months.
• Oral Participation: Students showed increased willingness to speak in class, with a 50% rise in voluntary responses during
However, over time, students developed strategies to overcome these challenges, such as practicing with peers and using language support resources. The findings suggest that gradual exposure and teacher support are key to overcoming initial barriers in multilingual education.
enhances literacy development and cognitive adaptability.
Academic performance was assessed through vocabulary retention tests, sentence formation exercises, and oral participation. The results showed an overall improvement in students’ language skills after multilingual instruction:
• Vocabulary Retention: The number of correctly recalled French words increased by 30% between pre- and post-tests.
Despite the positive outcomes, students faced initial difficulties adapting to multilingual learning. The primary challenges included:
• Language Interference: Some students struggled with distinguishing between languages, leading to code-switching errors.
• Cognitive Load: Managing three languages simultaneously was initially overwhelming for some students.
• Pronunciation Anxiety: A few students hesitated to speak due to fear of mispronunciation.
Teachers observed a notable increase in peer collaboration and classroom discussions. The use of multilingual group activities fostered an inclusive learning environment where students supported each other.
One teacher noted, “Students are more engaged when working together in multiple languages. They help each other and build confidence through collaboration.”
This supports García & Lin's (2016) argument that multilingual education enhances classroom interactions and fosters a sense of belonging among students.
The findings of this study highlight the positive impact of multilingual education on student engagement and academic achievement. The key takeaways are:
• Students exhibited higher engagement levels after multilingual instruction, demonstrating increased participation in classroom activities.
• Academic performance improved, particularly in vocabulary retention, sentence formation, and oral communication.
• Despite initial challenges, students adapted to multilingual learning and developed confidence in using multiple languages.
To maximize the benefits of multilingual education, schools should:
1. Provide Structured Language Support: Offering additional language resources and peer mentoring can help students navigate the challenges of multilingual learning.
2. Train Teachers in Multilingual Strategies: Professional development programs should equip educators with techniques for managing multilingual classrooms effectively.
3. Encourage a Collaborative Learning Approach: Pairing students with different language proficiencies can foster peer learning and boost confidence.
4. Monitor Long-Term Effects: Future research should
Baker, C. (2021). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2017). Bilingualism and Cognitive Development: Implications for Education. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. Routledge.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Harvard University Press.
Niveen Hassan, Hartland International School
Learning to write in a foreign language can be challenging—especially when that language uses a completely different script, like Arabic. For many non-native speakers, the obstacles go beyond vocabulary and grammar to include confidence and anxiety around writing. This research looks at how the Talk for Writing (TFW) approach—built on the power of oral rehearsal—can help students feel more confident and capable in their Arabic writing. Inspired by Vygotsky’s (1978) theory that learning happens through social interaction, TFW uses talk as a bridge to writing, aiming to reduce fear and build a stronger foundation for expression.
At Hartland International School, many Year 8 non-Arabic students speak the language with ease but struggle when it comes to writing. Their limited written output and visible frustration point to a gap between oral fluency and writing skills. Left unaddressed, this can lead to disengagement from Arabic studies. Yet, writing confidently in Arabic is not only key to full language proficiency but also opens educational and career opportunities, especially in the Middle East. This research aims to bridge the gap between speaking and writing, supporting both learner confidence and broader teaching practices for non-native Arabic writers.
Speaking and writing are naturally connected in first language learning, but this link is less understood in second language settings—especially with complex scripts like Arabic. Talk for Writing (Corbett, 2007) uses oral rehearsal through imitation and creativity to build writing skills. Studies show this boosts confidence and quality. The approach is backed by educational theories, like Vygotsky’s view on learning through social interaction and Swain’s (2005) idea that speaking helps deepen language understanding. For Arabic learners, the unfamiliar script and structure make writing especially tough. This research explores how Talk for Writing can make that journey easier by starting with spoken language.
The research aimed to adapt the Talk for Writing approach to support non-native Arabic learners in developing their writing skills. It focused on three key areas: increasing student confidence, enhancing vocabulary and sentence structure through oral rehearsal, and exploring learners’ perceptions of the approach. These objectives shaped the research questions, which examined the impact of TFW on writing confidence, linguistic accuracy, and student attitudes. The study followed a cycle of identifying classroom challenges, implementing the strategy, collecting qualitative feedback through observation and student input, and reflecting on the outcomes to inform and adjust future practice.
The action research intervention involved implementing the Talk for Writing approach in Arabic lessons for Year 8 non-Arab students over six weeks, following Corbett's three stage process: imitate, innovate, and invent. Eight key strategies were integrated: oral rehearsal, text chunking, symbol prompts, model texts/shared writing, topic mapping, the TFW process (imitate, innovate, invent), vocabulary building, and feedback/peer support. Collaboration with the Arabic department head and classroom teachers was crucial for adaptation and effectiveness. The single cycle allowed for continuous adjustments based on observations and student feedback, progressing from scaffolding to independent application.
The study included 10 Year 8 non-native Arabic speakers (6 female, 4 male, aged 12-13) from Hartland International School, representing diverse linguistic backgrounds. Selected from a developing class due to low confidence and limited Arabic writing output, their oral proficiency ranged from basic to intermediate. None had prior TFW experience. The small sample size was appropriate for in-depth observation and personalized intervention within the action research methodology, facilitating detailed analysis of individual progress.
Multiple methods gathered comprehensive evidence: preand post-writing assessments measured changes in output, vocabulary, structure, and quality; classroom observations focused on engagement, speaking-to-writing transition, time on task, confidence, and use of practiced language; student surveys assessed self-reported confidence, challenges, and strategy effectiveness; regular writing samples tracked progressive changes; and audio recordings analyzed oral rehearsal and fluency improvements. These diverse sources allowed for triangulation, providing a robust understanding of TFW's impact on writing outcomes and subjective experiences.
The data analysis employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative measures. For writing assessments, quantitative analysis focused on word count, vocabulary range, sentence complexity, and error frequency, comparing pre- and post-intervention samples. Qualitative data from observations and surveys were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) Thematic Analysis framework, identifying recurring themes and patterns in student attitudes, challenges, and perceived improvements. This systematic approach allowed for a rich interpretation of the intervention's impact.
Average Writing Score Per Term and Term 3 Writing Assessment
Findings indicate several positive outcomes: enhanced confidence, with students more willing to write and fewer complaints; improved sentence structure and vocabulary, especially after oral rehearsal (see Figures 1 and 2); and positive student perceptions, reporting oral practice helped them "think before writing" and made it "less scary." These results align with existing research on TFW and oracy in literacy development.
This study affirms the power of structured oral rehearsal in building writing confidence among non-native Arabic speakers, aligning with Vygotsky’s belief in socially constructed learning and Mercer’s (2000) claim that spoken language aids internalization of written structures. This research has reshaped my teaching approach, viewing writing as a collaborative journey. Students became co-constructors of meaning. For language instructors, especially in less common languages, adapting TFW offers value. Further research is needed on its long-term effects and integration with explicit grammar teaching.
Implementing the Talk for Writing approach significantly improved confidence and written output in non-Arabic speaking students. Its scaffolded, oracy-driven structure prepared students for Arabic writing tasks. Despite study limitations, the research highlights the potential of oracy-based methods in language acquisition, supporting the integration of oral rehearsal into foreign language pedagogy, especially for structurally challenging languages.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Corbett, P. (2007). Talk for writing: Raising achievement across the curriculum. UKLA.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Amara A. Adkins & Bronach O’Brien, Safa British School
In Upper Key Stage 2, student achievement depends heavily on the acquistion of complex knowledge. Although the UK National Curriculum for Science highlights the importance of embedding ‘working scientifically’ skills throughout the teaching of content, this is not always prioritised in practice. Likewise, the UAE Ministry of Education’s Moral, Social and Cultural Studies (MSCS) framework's clear knowledge expectations are content-heavy. In an effort to ensure curriculum content coverage, lessons can often be teacher-led and focus on the delivery of factual objectives, leaving little space for students to question, explore or apply what they have learned. This can result in surface-level understanding and limited retention.
Traditional teaching methods, that continue to prioritise content coverage over understanding, can lead to disengagement and lower levels of attainment (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) offers an effective alternative, with students being active participants in the learning process.
With IBL, the students’ curiosity and questions are at the centre of their learning journey, with teachers facilitating the process of discovering relevant answers to their questions. One widely used form of IBL is Project-Based Learning (PBL), where students ultimately demonstrate their understanding of the information they have gathered through IBL, by creating and presenting student-led projects.
IBL and PBL allows students to develop both the curriculum knowledge and the essential skills required for meaningful application to real-life experiences. Studies show that this in turn, leads to greater engagement and improved academic outcomes by giving learning relevance and purpose (Bell, 2010; Thomas, 2000).
With expectations from the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) for schools to demonstrate high attainment and progress, teachers can feel pressure to ‘cover’ all curriculum material quickly.
This often leads to teacher-led lessons that are rich in subject content, but may lack opportunities for mastery, exploration and real-life application. This limits deeper understanding; children are passive recipients of information.
At Safa British School, this appeared to create a disconnect between KHDA performance metrics, curriculum requirements and our school’s vision to provide engaging, dynamic and inclusive lessons. As a result, we began to explore how IBL and PBL, could bridge this gap by providing more learner-centred learning opportunities.
Dubai’s ‘Education 33' strategy highlights the importance of nuturing lifelong learners who shape the future. We felt that Science and MSCS both offered great potential for students to not only build subject-specific knowledge, but also develop the essential learning skills needed for them to become critical thinkers, innovators and responsible citizens.
By implementing IBL approaches and PBL in Upper Key Stage 2, this action research aimed to develop these skill whilst exploring the impact on student engagement, motivation and attainment in Science and MSCS.
Literature Review
Classroom engagement is vital for supporting student participation and attainment. As Blumenfeld et al. (1991) state, “Pupils are more likely to persist with and succeed with tasks that they find meaningful and that offer a sense of ownership.” IBL allows students to drive their own learning by posing questions, conducting research and investigations based on their own interests and curiosities. PBL focuses on fostering student voice, with students applying their knowledge in purposeful contexts such as collaborative projects and presentations.
Research has shown that IBL and PBL improve engagement and achievement by creating meaningful, student-centred experiences that integrate both knowledge and essential skills (Bell, 2010). Thomas (2000) argues that PBL allows teachers to meet curricular objectives whilst also fostering communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills, elements that are often neglected in teacher-led content-driven lessons.
Methods
This research topic was selected to investigate the impact of IBL on student engagement, understanding, and enjoyment in Year 6 Science and MSCS lessons. We used the action research approach due to its reflective nature and its ability to inform and improve teaching practice in real time.
Research Questions:
1. How does IBL and PBL influence pupil engagement in Science and MSCS?
2. In what ways does IBL and PBL support pupils' understanding and academic progress?
3. What effect does IBL and PBL have on pupils’ enjoyment of learning and motivation?
The sample for this research study consisted of 70 Year 6 pupils who engaged in three terms of PBL across both Science and MSCS. These lessons were delivered through an inquirybased, child-led approach that prioritised student voice, agency, and collaborative learning. Pupils developed their own questions, conducted independent research, and took ownership of their learning by actively sharing their findings. Data was subsequently gathered through pre- and post-topic assessment scores, a post-PBL implementation survey, teacher observations, and pupil reflections.
70 Year 6 pupils (26 boys, 44 girls) from six classes across the year group at Safa British School, with all pupils from mixedability groupings. Three Year 6 teachers also participated in a post-implementation IBL and PBL survey.
A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining:
• Pre- and post-topic assessments
• Online pupil surveys
• Teacher interviews and observations
• Pupil reflections
Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative insights were drawn from pupil voice and teacher feedback. This triangulation provided a robust view of the outcomes.
Pupil surveys revealed that 77% enjoyed project-based lessons (see Figure 1), while 86% felt they learnt more through IBL and PBL than through traditional teaching methods (see Figure 2).
One student reflected: “I really enjoy it because you get more freedom to learn and it allows you to discover things yourself, instead of doing everything the teacher tells you to.”
Another said, “I love how projects bring out our best creativity, communication and teamwork skills.”
Figure 1
Student Enjoyment of Project-Based Learning Lessons
Figure 2
Student Perception of Knowledge Gained Through Project-Based Learning
An analysis of the internal summative MSCS baseline and end-of-year (EOY) data (see Figure 3), alongside the pre- and post-topic Science assessment scores (see Figure 4), indicates a substantial and sustained improvement in pupils' academic achievement from the beginning to the end of the year, as well as across individual topics.
Figure 3
Internal MSCS Data for Year 6 (Baseline to End of Year)
4
The significant improvement in results suggests that the implementation of IBL and PBL had a positive impact on pupil outcomes. The increase in 'exceeding' scores indicates that enhanced student enjoyment, engagement, and agency contributed to improved knowledge retention and a deeper understanding, enabling pupils to approach content-rich assessment questions with greater confidence.
Teachers have echoed this sentiment in their professional reflections:
“The motivation levels have been incredible — I have pupils asking to work on their projects during snack and lunch time and even first thing in the morning.” – Teacher B
“Several of my students have continued their learning at home without being prompted — they’re genuinely excited to explore their topics further.” - Teacher C
“We’ve seen a real improvement in their confidence when presenting, along with noticeable growth in their teamwork, time management and overall communication skills.”- Teacher D
Together, these observations paint a compelling picture of the far-reaching benefits of embedding inquiry and project-based approaches into the curriculum.
The implementation of inquiry-based and projectbased learning has initiated a meaningful pedagogical shift at Safa British School.
Following the success of this approach in Science and MSCS, teachers have shown a growing interest in embedding similar strategies across other curriculum areas. Professional development sessions have enabled staff to share practice and reflect collaboratively on how to integrate more student-led learning, particularly within traditionally content-heavy subjects.
Pupil feedback further supports this shift, with 63% of students stating they would ‘definitely’ like to experience project-based learning in other subjects (see Figure 5). This enthusiasm highlights the potential for broader application of IBL and PBL across the curriculum.
Teachers also observed that pupils worked more effectively in groups, particularly when paired with peers they felt comfortable with. This improved collaboration helped build stronger communication, teamwork, and interpersonal skills. From a professional standpoint, staff now feel more confident in releasing control of learning and allowing pupils to take greater ownership of their progress.
Looking ahead, future research should include a larger sample across year groups and subjects, as well as structured teacher interviews and parental feedback, to evaluate the sustained impact of IBL and PBL on academic outcomes and lifelong learning skills.
Student Desire for More Project-Based Learning Lessons
Conclusion
This action research reinforces that IBL and PBL are powerful tools for improving engagement, understanding, and attainment.
By promoting autonomy, creativity, and purposeful learning, these strategies prepare pupils not only for academic success but for broader life skills. Future research could explore the impact of these approaches across different subjects and year groups.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating projectbased learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. The Autodesk Foundation. https://doi.org/10.4236/ oalib.1110139
Ashmi Chirag Bhansali, The Arbor School
Reading is a foundational skill critical to both academic success and cognitive growth; yet we rarely stop to consider the role of reading for pleasure in shaping this developmental journey. When young learners associate reading with enjoyment through engaging activities, opportunities for choice and autonomy, and supportive learning environments, they are significantly more likely to engage in sustained, self-directed literacy practices. This voluntary engagement not only enhances vocabulary acquisition and strengthens comprehension skills but also promotes creative thinking, boosts emotional intelligence, and fosters a lifelong passion for learning. Therefore, understanding how to effectively spark and sustain a love of reading is vital.
With this in mind, I decided to investigate how gamification could enhance reading enthusiasm and promote literacy within my Year 2 class at The Arbor School, Dubai. To assess its effectiveness, I employed a combination of online and offline activities to evaluate the impact of gamification on student engagement, reading habits and academic progress in reading proficiency.
"Reading is often viewed as an individual activity, but when students engage in dialogic practices about their reading, they can enhance their understanding of the text, as well as their engagement and enjoyment. Talking about texts can stimulate social experiences, empathy and perspective-taking" (Kucirkova & Cremin, 2020).
The study aimed to understand how gamification influenced academic performance, reading-related attitudes and behaviors, and the long-term sustainability of these effects.
A reader needs to be within the reciprocal sphere of motivation and engagement; one influences the other; whichever comes first is no less important than the other as they are in one loop or a cyclical grandiose of reading exaltation (Afflerbach, 2022).
“Children are not passive observers of stories; they actively engage with material manifestations of story worlds, whether this manifestation happens on paper or on screen (or another surface)” (Kucirkova & Kümmerling-Meibauer, 2021).
Li and Chu (2020) the study published in the British Journal of Educational Technology explored the impact of gamification pedagogy on children's reading using a mixed-methods approach.
I chose to use action research for my study due to its adaptive and responsive nature, particularly suited to exploring the impact of gamification on reading engagement and literacy development. This approach provided me with the opportunity to observe student interactions and engagement in real time, implement gamified strategies, and make ongoing adjustments to my teaching based on immediate feedback and measurable progress. By incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data collection, I was able to get a clearer and deeper understanding of the diverse factors influencing classroom learning. Additionally, actively involving students in the process promoted a sense of autonomy and ownership, which is vital in nurturing intrinsic motivation to read.
The key research questions guiding my inquiry were:
1. How does gamification influence student engagement and motivation for reading?
2. What impact does gamification have on students’ reading habits both in and out of class?
3. What effect, if any, does increased reading motivation have on reading comprehension and overall literacy skills?
I adopted a two-cycle action research approach within my Year 2 classroom. This structure allowed me to trial both digital and offline strategies, observe their effects, and adapt my approach in response to student engagement and outcomes.
During the first cycle, I introduced a digital reading platform featuring gamified elements such as interactive games, quizzes, badges, virtual rewards, and progress tracking tools. Each student received a personal login, allowing them to access the platform both at school and at home. They engaged with age-appropriate texts, completed related tasks, and earned digital incentives for their progress. Over several weeks, I monitored their engagement through platform data and collected feedback through informal interviews and in-class discussions.
In the second cycle, I implemented an offline, classroom-based gamified system called the Reading Race Track. Students chose books from the school library or home, read them independently, and discussed them with me and their peers. After answering simple questions about the book, they moved their character forward on the racetrack. This visual tracker sparked excitement and motivation, as students watched their progress and aimed for the finish line. A small reward awaited them at the end, fostering healthy competition and peer interaction and reinforcing comprehension skills and reading stamina.
The sample comprised 23 mixed-ability Year 2 students (aged 6–7) from a British curriculum school in Dubai. The cohort included 12 boys and 11 girls, representing a range of diverse cultural and national backgrounds. The study involved the entire class to evaluate the impact of the intervention across a broad spectrum of learners.
The data collection process involved a combination of observational techniques, analysis of data from an online reading platform, and offline reading monitored via the Reading Race Track. Additionally, ongoing assessments of students’ academic progress, measured through standardized tests, offered key insights during the intervention period.
The research demonstrates that gamification significantly enhanced student engagement and motivation for reading, as evidenced by sustained participation and a substantial increase in online reading minutes from 371 to 3,132 over four weeks. Progress on the Reading Race Track also reflects this rise, with students advancing through multiple steps each week, showing clear growth in their reading activities.
This heightened engagement corresponded with noticeable improvements in independent reading habits. Moreover, 82% of students showed progress in New Group Reading Test (NGRT) stanine scores, with an average gain of +1.55 points. Significant advancements were also observed in decoding, fluency, and comprehension, highlighting the effectiveness of gamified reading interventions.
“I love the reading challenges because I get to choose books I enjoy. It makes me happy and helps me get better at reading tricky words.” - Student
“The Reading Race Track is fun! I can bring in new books from home, and sometimes my friends haven’t seen them before, so I get to tell them about it.”- Student
“I love the reading challenges; it helps me learn and get better at reading.”- Student
"My child is really excited about reading books lately. The reading challenge has been a great motivator—she’s eager to keep climbing the reading chart! We’re so pleased to see her reading improving.”Parent
"When my daughter finished the first round of the reading challenge, I asked if she was done. She smiled and said, 'Ms Ashmi said we never stop reading — now we’re starting round two!' I really appreciate how this challenge encourages a love of reading and continuous learning." - Parent
Figure 2
3
Reflection and Conclusion
Embedding gamified elements into daily classroom routines proved effective in sustaining student motivation. By adjusting challenges based on student progress, tasks remained engaging and appropriately challenging, preventing disengagement and promoting consistent effort.
The research highlighted a clear shift toward motivationdriven learning. When students experienced enjoyment and autonomy, their engagement deepened. Providing choice and recognising effort not only boosted academic interest but also improved classroom behaviour and collaboration.
Expanding gamification across multiple curriculum areas shows great potential. Whether in literacy, maths, or science, gamified strategies can make learning more dynamic and meaningful. When used thoughtfully, they transform the classroom into a space where students are active participants in their learning journey. In summary, gamification supports both emotional and academic growth, making learning enjoyable, purposeful, and enduring.
References
Afflerbach, P. (2022). Teaching readers (not reading). The Guilford Press.
Kucirkova, N., & Cremin, T. (2020). Children reading for pleasure in the digital age: Mapping reader engagement. SAGE Publications.
Kucirkova, N., & Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (2021). Children’s reading for pleasure with digital books. Routledge.
Li, X., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children’s reading: A mixed‐method study on academic performance, reading‐related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2138–2158. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12957
Emma McCombie, Universal American School
This action research investigates how teacher support for autonomy affects intrinsic motivation and academic engagement among high school
IB Psychology students. The problem identified is that while autonomy-supportive teaching generally enhances motivation, its effectiveness varies across students, especially in demanding academic settings like the IB program. This issue is important because motivation directly
Research shows that autonomy support fosters student engagement and persistence (Reeve, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000), but excessive freedom without structure may overwhelm some learners (Stefanou et al., 2004). Addressing this problem can help educators tailor instruction that balances choice and guidance, improving outcomes in rigorous curricula.
At Universal American School, the IB Psychology class consists of students with mixed academic abilities, students have zero prior knowledge of Psychology before they enter the IB Psychology classroom. The challenge is that although autonomy-supportive practices are encouraged, some students struggle with open-ended tasks and research requirements intrinsic to the IB curriculum. This problem is ongoing and urgent because without proper scaffolding, students risk disengagement and reduced motivation, which could lower achievement and satisfaction. If no changes are made, less confident students may continue to feel overwhelmed, while more capable students may thrive but without inclusive strategies for all. Enhancing structured autonomy will benefit all students by fostering motivation while providing necessary support.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) identifies autonomy as a key psychological need for intrinsic motivation. Studies confirm that autonomy-supportive teaching, such as offering choices and acknowledging student perspectives, boosts engagement and learning (Patall et al., 2008). However, research by Katz and Assor (2007) highlights that autonomy must be paired with scaffolding, especially for lower-achieving students, to avoid confusion and disengagement. Jang et al. (2010) emphasize balancing autonomy with instructional structure, a concept termed “structured autonomy.” This study fills a gap by focusing on autonomy support within the high-stakes, cognitively demanding IB Psychology context, where motivation is critical but little specific research exists.
Methods
Action research was chosen to actively investigate and improve teaching practices in a real classroom setting. This approach allows constant cycles of reflection and adjustment tailored to student needs. The research aimed to explore how autonomy support influences motivation and engagement, and how it can be optimized for a diverse classroom.
Students were asked questions before intervention and after. The intervention involved providing students with opportunities for choice in their revision topics and assignments, within a structured framework that included clear guidelines and teacher support. Collaboration occurred with IB Psychology students and the classroom teacher. Data collection included a Likert-scale questionnaire measuring perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement, alongside open-ended questions capturing student experiences. One research cycle was completed involving 10 students of varied academic levels.
Participants
The sample included 10 IB Psychology students (grades 4–7), representing a range of academic abilities and confidence levels.
Data was gathered via a 12-item Likert-scale questionnaire and open-ended reflection prompts before and after tasks that revolved around autonomy. The questionnaire targeted perceptions of autonomy support, motivation, and engagement. Open responses explored subjective experiences with autonomy before and after the intervention.
Quantitative data was analyzed by calculating mean scores for autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement. Qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis following Braun & Clarke’s approach to identify recurring themes related to motivation and challenges with autonomy. This mixedmethods analysis allows replication and comparison by others.
Quantitative findings show that students reported moderate levels of autonomy support (mean = 3.5) and slightly lower intrinsic motivation and academic engagement (both mean = 3.25) (see Figure 1). Highest-rated items included feeling that their opinions are valued in class discussions, enjoying class even when it’s challenging, and feeling supported—all scoring 4.0. Conversely, the lowest scores were for independently researching psychology topics outside of class (1.0) and having choices in how to complete assignments (2.0), indicating limited self-directed learning.
students' scores regarding intrinsic motivation and engagement did improve, suggesting motivation can be significantly enhanced when learners feel a sense of control and ownership over their educational experience. This aligns with research emphasizing that autonomy supports deeper engagement and fosters a more meaningful connection to the material, ultimately promoting sustained motivation and better learning outcomes.
Figure 1
Students’ Feelings Before and After Given Autonomy During Lesson
I am given choices about how I complete my psychology assignments.
I feel like my opinions are valued in class discussions.
I have the freedom to explore topics that interest me in psychology.
My teacher explains why we are learning certain topics.
I learn psychology because I find it interesting.
I enjoy class even when it's challenging.
I would still want to learn psychology even if there were no grades.
I often look up psychology topics outside of class.
I try my best in psychology even when no one is watching.
I participate actively in class discussions.
I stay focused during psychology lessons.
I complete all my assignments on time.
Qualitative analysis revealed two primary themes (see Table 2):
• Motivational Benefits of Autonomy – Students expressed increased motivation and curiosity when given meaningful choices related to their interests, such as exploring current social trends like TikTok or applying psychological studies to real-world examples such as serial killers.
• Pitfalls of Excessive Freedom – Some students, particularly those with lower academic confidence, reported feeling overwhelmed by excessive freedom without clear guidance, leading to stress and disengagement. These findings underscore the need for structured autonomy that balances choice with support.
The findings highlight the tension between autonomy and structure. Autonomy-supportive strategies enhanced motivation and engagement but were most effective when paired with clear scaffolding, supporting the concept of structured autonomy (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). Lowerachieving or less confident students struggled more with open-ended tasks, confirming research that autonomy without competence support can reduce engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Stefanou et al., 2004). Personally, this research has encouraged me to provide clearer guidance alongside choice, adapting autonomy to student readiness. The insights gained will help colleagues differentiate autonomy support and emphasize scaffolding in demanding curricula. Action research proved valuable for reflective practice and iterative improvement.
Teacher support for autonomy positively influences intrinsic motivation and engagement in IB Psychology, when students feel the work is relevant and their choice they are more engaged. However, benefits are not straightforward, higherachieving students thrive with choice, while lower-achieving students require structured autonomy with guidance to avoid confusion and stress. Effective autonomy support involves balancing freedom with competence-building scaffolding, particularly in challenging academic programs. Future practice should focus on differentiated autonomy to foster motivation and success for all learners.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15326985ep3902_2
Positive Effects of Autonomy Challenges of Excessive Freedom
• Increased curiosity & motivation
"Yeah, I remember when we did that project on social influence, and our teacher let us pick our own case studies. I went with TikTok trends and how they influence behavior. It was super interesting because it felt relevant to me. It wasn’t some old study, and I felt like I was actually learning something that mattered. When I have choices like that, I feel more motivated to work harder and contribute more in class."
• Meaningful choices linked to interests
"In our SIT lesson I connected it to influencers and how people just follow trends without really thinking about it. Being able to choose our own examples made everything feel more real. IB Psych can get pretty intense with all the theory and studies, but this way I could actually see how it connected to the real world. I ended up doing extra research because I was worried about it happening to me."
• Feeling overwhelmed
"When we had to pick our own theory for the abnormal psychology unit, it was just too overwhelming. IB Psych already has so much content, and making a choice on top of that just felt like extra work. I kept second-guessing myself, and it didn’t do anything in the end.”
• Real-world connections enhance engagement
"When we learned about neuroplasticity, we got to pick which study to focus on for our presentation. I chose Draganski and since I’m into sports, it made sense. Being able to choose what I was looking at made me care more, instead of just memorizing some random study."
"In the abnormal unit, we could pick which disorder to research. I chose PTSD after watching a documentary about it. I didn’t get bored or confused, and having that choice made me feel more in control sometimes I hate being told how to revise."
• Stress and confusion without guidance
"When we started cognitive theories of emotion, I kind of wished we were just told which study to focus on. The freedom to choose seemed nice at first, but I ended up spending way too much time trying to decide, and I got confused about what you would expect.”
"Honestly, there were times when I’d rather have just been told exactly what to do. There’s already so much going on in IB with all the deadlines and assessments, and too much freedom just stressed me out more."
• Lower-confidence students struggle more
"When we got to choose our own studies for the biological approach, it felt like I was just guessing what was important. I spent way more time looking for studies than actually learning them. It would’ve been so much easier if the teacher just told us which ones were most useful for the exams."
Supporting students to actively engage and participate in lessons with high levels of intrinsic motivation and enjoyment is the aim of teachers globally. But the true challenge is achieving this when faced with students who need relentless encouragement to do so, or who demonstrate ‘amotivation’, a state whereby students see no clear reason to pursue school activities (Vallerand et al., 1992).
At Deira International School, Dubai, I teach the lowest GCSE Science sets, each of which comprises many students who are not intrinsically motivated (or are unmotivated) to learn science and are thus not achieving their potential. Actively participating in their learning will be critical to satisfactory progress as they move through the GCSE courses.
This study explores how competitive classroom tasks impact upon the motivation and engagement of these often passive or ‘switched off’ learners.
Literature Review
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a well-established framework for understanding types of motivation and their impact on achievement and other school outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Bureau, 2021). The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) proposes 7 subscales of motivation ranging from varying levels of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, to amotivation – it is believed students can move through these subscales (Vallerand et al., 1992). Ryan and Deci (2000) emphasise the importance of satisfying three basic psychological needs - autonomy, competence, and relatedness - in order to foster intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being. If students are more likely to engage meaningfully in learning when these needs are met, could a collaborative, competitive element to learning have a positive impact on motivation to engage?
Although the use of competition to motivate students is considered a contentious practice (Neubert, 2016; Goegan & Daniels, 2022), others also view competition as an important motivator for students (Goegan & Daniels, 2022, Ryan & Reeve, 2024) with many stating that it supports deeper engagement with the learning materials (Learning Lab, 2024).
However, competition involves a comparison process between students, and this can affect students’ confidence, attitudes, and belief in success (Mussweiler, 2003). In a survey conducted by Goegan & Daniels (2022), 82% of the teachers surveyed reported to intentionally attempt to minimise the focus on competition and social comparison in their classrooms and preferred to emphasise individual competence and learning.
Although the American Psychological Association (APA) defines competition as ‘any performance situation structured in such a way that success depends on performing better than others’, the advice suggested by Neubert (2016) emphasises the importance of rewarding participation and effort, rather than outcomes. Findings by Chen (2014) suggest that competitive task design should consider the social aspect of competition for lower ability students; in their study, these students preferred social competition over self-competition, whereas middle or higher ability students felt similarly towards both.
Ryan & Reeve (2024) analysed studies focused on competitive situations in which people were working to outperform opponents on some mental or physical task, and how this effected intrinsic motivation. Summarising a range of studies, they reported that it ‘is possible to present the competitive experience as an informational, needs-supportive, and intrinsicmotivation-friendly way’.
Although many studies focus on competition whereby winning is key, or participation is part of a team, there is less evidence for the impact of competition on students with different levels of extrinsic motivation (and amotivation) when individuals are working co-operatively but ‘competing’ solo. If competitive tasks were designed to foster cooperation with others, autonomy in terms of type of contributions, and participation rather than winning, per se, would this impact positively on levels of engagement and motivation for this cohort of students? This will be the focus of this study.
The study involved 31 Year 9 students (9 girls and 22 boys) from the lowest Y9 GCSE Science sets, many of whom were on the SEN / ELL register, have low or erratic attendance, and difficulties self-regulating emotions and behaviour.
Intervention
Six competition tasks were given to students in selected lessons over a period of 2 months with the aim of improving student motivation and engagement in lessons.
The aims of the competitive tasks were as follows:
1. To improve active participation by increasing student autonomy, competency and relatedness
2. To increase engagement through deeper and more critical thinking
3. To increase motivation to think more and achieve their potential during regular class tasks
During written paired tasks, each student used a different colour of pencil so that responses to the question or problem could be clearly identified for accountability and reward purposes. Points were awarded to each student based on their engagement / thinking, evidenced by responses on the sheet –these responses could be answers, questions about the task or associated concepts, diagrams, or annotations. Design of tasks, outcomes and rewards were devised based on a set of questions posed by Harris II (2023) regarding effectively bringing competition into practice.
Students completed a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire (see Table 2) which asked them to rate motivation, enjoyment, participation etc., thus collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. I also recorded my observations of students during each competitive tasks.
Points (see Table 1)
Many positive comments were recorded on the postintervention questionnaire, such as, “Doing this can earn house points, which motivates me to study hard” and, “I like the competition tasks we have been doing because I can earn house points”.
Students who… Number of students Comments
Collected > 10 points 11
Collected < 4 points 7
Collected 0 points once 10
5 students considered as having higher levels of motivation before intervention. 4 students considered ‘switched off’ / amotivated learners prior to intervention.
All absent for 35-50% of tasks
Students who achieved both low and high total score
How confident do you feel about the science you are learning in lessons?
Did the competition tasks help you think about the science more than the usual lesson tasks, and did you enjoy the competitive tasks?
How much do you feel you took part in the competition tasks?
Would you like the competition tasks to continue?
Which of these options do you prefer when doing the competition tasks?
What did you like about the competitive tasks? ‘fun and helps me learn’, ‘leads to searching for answers’, ‘you try to remember things’, ‘makes me think’, ‘we work together’, ‘makes me remember more science’, ‘most are easy and the rest give you a challenge’, ‘makes me learn better, ‘fun way to learn with new people’, ‘working with my friends’, ‘it’s competitive’, ‘drawing diagrams’
What did you not like about the competitive tasks? ‘needs more time’, ‘people cheat and get free points which ruins the competition’, ‘sometimes the people I worked with’, ‘when the competition tasks feel challenging or repetitive’, ‘not choosing our own partners’, ‘too much writing’, ‘when your partner is soloing and not giving you a chance to write’, ‘competing with others and worrying about losing’
Observations supported house point and questionnaire data. Success in pairings seemed complex, not consistent and unpredictable in some cases. Initial tasks highlighted hesitancy in many students to record their thinking when they were unsure or not confident; after this was explicitly addressed though reminders that points were awarded for evidence of thinking about the task rather than correct answers, written participation generally increased. Kowing that lesson content could become part of competitive tasks seemed to have no impact on engagement or motivation outside of the competitive tasks themselves.
While this study provides evidence that there is complexity around the factors of motivation and competition in the classroom, it also suggests that for most students, competitive tasks foster a sense of collaboration, enjoyment and deeper thinking. Whilst it may not be surprising that less students reported lack of confidence, the reduction in the percentage of students who were very confident about their learning postintervention was not expected; by thinking more deeply, were they more reflective and honest about their level of knowledge and understanding? Our confidence will often increase if deeper thinking immediately leads to increased understanding, but we can also feel less confident initially if our deeper thinking leads to confusion before mastery; this was supported by written comments on task sheets such as, ‘I need to study this’.
Greater thinking alongside shared enjoyment suggests that the students developed greater competency and relatedness during the competitive tasks which are both drivers of selfdetermining behaviour. It may have been that the task design and the feedback promoted success and feelings of efficacy, a finding also reported by Talib & DeRoock (2018), and Ryan & Reeve (2024). Students could comprehend and master (in some sense) the competitive task regardless of scientific knowledge and understanding because the rewards were given for ‘thinking’ rather than correct answers – competency was somewhat scaffolded. The students for whom the competitive tasks increased engagement showed evidence of valuing the activity, and therefore they put the effort into it, an observation also noted by Talib & DeRoock (2018). This was not the case during normal lesson activities suggesting that the task design directly enhanced motivation and participation due to student needs of relatedness and autonomy being met; with connection to another, students could choose what to share in writing.
However, the data also suggests that not all students demonstrated significantly increased participating or thinking. As noted by Johnson & Johnson (2009), individuals perceive that success can only be achieved when the other individuals
with whom they are cooperatively linked also attain their goals. This may partly explain why students worked better on some of the competitive tasks than others, as it was dependent on whether the person they were working with was aligned in terms of approach and diligence but also had the interpersonal skills to work in such a manner. We know that some students felt frustrated when working with specific partners, providing evidence that their basic need for relatedness was not being met. It seems that it is not as simple, however, as allowing students to select their own partners; some would prefer to have a partner assigned by the teacher.
Although most students did engage and participate in the tasks, 10 students showed very little participation on at least one occasion. Johnson & Johnson (2009) cite several studies which discuss how, in competitive environments, some learners engage in self-protective strategies, whereby failure in the competitive task can be attributed to not trying rather than to incompetency. For some, their low attendance has resulted in many gaps in their knowledge which will likely have contributed to low self-esteem and a fear of failure. Time may also have been a contributing factor to lack of written responses for these students on these occasions; increasing the time allocated may give the increased processing and thinking time that these students need. Although the task design promoted and rewarded a ‘share anything you know’ approach, this clearly needs further exploration for this small group of students.
Individualistic efforts were noted for 4 students who preferred working alone. They were highly motivated to win which meant that collaboration felt frustrating for them, and their partners –their need for relatedness was not met. As discussed by several researchers (cited in Johnson & Johnson, 2009), cooperation can feel too costly or difficult for some students because of the unavailability of skilled potential cooperators, or in a task that feels worthwhile and in which they will be successful. The notably high extrinsic motivation level of these students is a factor that also needs careful consideration when setting up groups and competitive tasks.
Limitations, such as erratic attendance, and unpredictability of student mood or behaviour, had an impact on the quality of data. More than one data collection point pre- and postintervention would increase reliability.
Competitive, co-operative tasks do have a place in classrooms if the focus is thinking, but there seems to be a fine balance between engaging ‘amotivated’ learners and no impact. Further explorations of context specific ‘needs-supportive’ tasks through the lens of Relational Motivational Theory (Bureau et al., 2021) would be interesting next steps, alongside the impact of explicitly teaching interpersonal and small group skills to help students meet each other’s relatedness needs (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009).
Based on the work of Paulmann & Weinstein (2023), the impact of the teacher’s tone of voice on autonomy and relatedness needs satisfaction with this cohort would be fascinating to investigate within the context of competitive tasks.
References
Brooks, M., & Young, K. (2011). Are choice-making opportunities needed in the classroom? Using SelfDetermination Theory to consider student motivation and learner empowerment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23 48–59.
Bureau, J. S., Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Guay, F. (2021). Pathways to student motivation: A metaanalysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92 46–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426
Chen, Z. (2014). Learning preferences and motivation of different ability students for social-competition or self-competition. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 283–293. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ jeductechsoci.17.1.283
Goegan, L. D., & Daniels, L. M. (2022). Just a little healthy competition: Teacher perceptions of competition and social comparison in the classroom. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 394–405. https://doi. org/10.1177/08295735221101223
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Review, 110(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.110.3.472
Neubert, J. (2016). 10 ways competitions enhance learning. Institute of Competition Sciences. https://www. competitionsciences.org/2016/08/15/10-ways-competitionsenhance-learning/
Paulmann, S., & Weinstein, N. (2023). Teachers' motivational prosody: A pre-registered experimental test of children's reactions to tone of voice used by teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjep.12567
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Reeve, J. (2024). Intrinsic motivation, psychological needs, and competition: A self-determined theory analysis. In S. M. Garcia, A. Tor, & A. J. Elliot (Eds.),
"Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself." — John Dewey
We have become so conditioned by expectations of success that students often believe their sole purpose is to study—forgetting that life is meant to be lived, not just measured by grades. If education is truly life, then learning should reach beyond textbooks, embracing joy, new experiences, challenges, and social connections.
Acceptance into top universities and future employment has become increasingly competitive pushing students to put life aside and focus on endless studying. However, this lifestyle guarantees neither a healthy mind and life nor professional success. Learning how to balance life is a crucial skill students must learn, and adult guidance in the process is necessary to prevent becoming overwhelmed.
The purpose of this research is to examine how participation in non-academic activities may influence students’ mental health and well-being. By analyzing survey responses and case study interviews, it aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the role that these experiences play in student development. This study was conducted with students of the Universal American School in Dubai, as participants.
Involvement in non-academic activities has been shown to have a positive impact on students’ personal development and academic growth. Studies indicate that participation in these programs promotes critical thinking and improves problemsolving while offering practical applications of classroom concepts (Ginosyan et al., 2020). Additionally, extracurricular engagement develops character by building discipline, teamwork, social responsibility, and independence (Sosiden and Viraek, 2021). Students involved in these activities developed leadership and communication skills crucial for both academic performance and future careers. Mental health benefits are also noted, as afterschool programs can foster safe and supportive environments, reduce stress and anxiety, as well as enhance interpersonal skills, self-confidence, and emotional stability (Afterschool Alliance, 2024; National Center for Education Statistics, 1995).
However, research warns about the risk of burnout due to overcommitment and difficulty balancing academic responsibilities with extracurricular activities (Caetano, 2021; University of Georgia Study). Overscheduling could lead to anxiety and mental health struggles. Support from teachers and parents is crucial to the success of these activities and to guide students to gain the full benefit while preventing burnout.
Overall, literature suggests that participation in non-academic activities contributes significantly to students’ personal growth and well-being and that proper adult guidance and support can help maintain balance and prevent the risk of burnout.
Participants in this study included 152 students from grades 10-12, 15 to 18 years old, equal number of boys and girls, at the Universal American School in Dubai, 70 girls and 82 boys. Participants were informed about the research goals during the morning announcements and were given the option to
Two case study students (one senior male and one female graduate) were selected based on their extensive engagement in extracurricular activities. This case study approach was chosen to provide deeper qualitative insights that complement the quantitative survey data. Their experiences provided deeper insights into the mental and emotional impacts of non-academic participation.
This section presents the key findings of the surveys and key quotes from the interviewed students in four categories: Participation in Non-Academic Activities; Emotional WellBeing and Mental Health Benefits; Skills Developed Through Non-Academic Activities; and Risks of Overwhelm and Stress from Imbalance.
1. Participation in Non-Academic Activities
The survey revealed that 74% of students actively participate in non-academic activities, (see Figure 1), sports and arts being the most frequent ones (see Figure 2), and enjoyment and skill development being the most important reasons for participation.
"When I'm acting or helping out, I feel like I actually matter—not just my test scores."
"I’ve always been a part of theatre. It’s not just about acting, it’s about feeling connected… It wasn’t just a play; it was a community."
"I got into basketball because I loved the competition and the feeling of the team… It’s knowing that every game, people are counting on me”
Figure 1
Student Participation in Non-Academic Activities
Figure 2
Types of Student Participation in Non-Academic Activities
2. Emotional Well-Being and Mental Health Benefits
The survey showed that non-academic activities can enhance students’ mental health and emotional well-being (see Figure 3 and 4). The results revealed that through these activities they relieved stress, found emotional balance, learned resilience, and found a purpose beyond academic work (see Figure 5).
Figure 3
Influence on Mood and Emotional Well-Being
Figure 4
"When I'm involved in activities, I feel less stressed. It's like an escape where I can just be myself."
"Theatre gave me a place to express myself without judgment. It’s freedom."
"Theatre is my escape…I forget about the stress of school. It’s just about the moment, the people, and the experience."
"Basketball is my therapy… (it) lets me burn off the stress and just be in the moment."
3. Skills Developed Through Non-Academic Activities
Of the students who participated in the research project, 86% reported having gained life skills due to their involvement in non-academic activities (see Figure 5), being high on the list: teamwork and time management (see Figure 6).
Figure 5
Do Skills Benefit Beyond School?
"When I'm busy with soccer or volunteering, I actually plan my time better for school too."
"I can now juggle more than I thought I could because of the practice I got through these activities."
"Running productions taught me communication and organization. I had to work with different people, call vendors, and make sure things were on time. It’s more than just theatre; it’s learning how to manage real projects."
"Basketball taught me discipline. If I miss a practice, I feel it in the game. It’s helped me learn to be accountable and stay committed."
4. Risks of Overwhelm and Stress from Imbalance
While the benefits of non-academic activities were clear in most of the responses in both the survey and interview, they also revealed that students might be at risk of feeling overwhelmed and struggling to balance their academic responsibilities with their non-academic activities. Over 11% of the respondents felt an increase in stress (see Figure 7), 3.5% were influenced negatively by their involvement in non-academic activities (see Figure 8), and 73% of them felt overwhelmed when balancing their different activities (see Figure 9).
Figure 7
Impact of Activities on Stress Levels
Figure 8
Influence on Mood and Emotional Well-Being
"Sometimes it gets overwhelming — like I’m doing everything at once. School, football, volunteering… I don’t even have time to breathe."
"I love being part of everything, but there are days when it just feels like too much."
"In my final year, I tried to juggle too many responsibilities—…I loved it, but I also felt burnt out by the end."
"There were times when basketball and school deadlines would clash. I remember staying up late after practice, trying to finish assignments, barely getting any sleep. It catches up to you."
The Positive Impact of Non-Academic Engagement on Mental Health
Evidence from both the literature and the data collected confirm that non-academic activities support mental health and emotional well-being. These activities help develop the essential soft skills necessary for life and personal growth such as teamwork, collaboration, resilience, risk-taking, time management, and many more (Ginosyan et al., 2020; Sosiden and Viraek, 2021). However, when not well balanced, it can lead to burn-out, stress and a feeling of being overwhelmed (Caetano, 2021).
Consistent with the findings of the Afterschool Alliance (2024) and the National Center for Education Statistics (1995), who highlighted the stress-reducing and identitypromoting aspects of structured activities, students reported that the non-academic activities served as an outlet for stress, emotional expression, and mental balance. They felt that belonging to a sports team, a drama group or a club provided them with a safe space and gave them a rest from academic pressure.
This aligns with the literature that states that structured activities can reduce anxiety and promote positive identity (Afterschool Alliance, 2024) and highlights how engagement leads to stronger mental health (National Center for Education Statistics, 1995). Given the clear benefits of non-academic activities for youth’s mental health, should schools view them as part of mental health support within the well-being programs, not just "extras"?
Ginosyan et al. (2020) found that extracurricular activities develop critical thinking and problem solving. Sosiden and Viraek (2021) argued that structured experiences promote teamwork and self-discipline. The development of crucial life skills through extracurricular engagement, as reported by 86% of students in this study (including time management, leadership, and teamwork), directly supports the research by Ginosyan et al. (2020) on the development of critical thinking and problem-solving. Sosiden and Viraek’s (2021) argument regarding the promotion of teamwork and self-discipline. Students also expressed that emotional resilience was a result of working in groups, overcoming challenges, and persevering in long-term projects.
Adult support and guidance are crucial to ensure an enjoyable and productive participation in non-academic activities because students do not always know how to prioritize and balance their school responsibilities, family and social commitments and their non-academic activities, leading to anxiety and burn-out. Caetano (2021) argued that overscheduling without proper support leads to burnout and mental exhaustion, and the University of Georgia Study showed how overcommitting can heighten anxiety. The significant percentage of students (73%) reporting feelings of being overwhelmed underscores the concerns raised by Caetano (2021) and the University of Georgia Study regarding the risks of overscheduling and burnout. The question that arises is how do schools and parents, support young people in prioritizing? Should schools provide mentorship or time-management workshops to help students balance?
The findings of this study, combined with existing literature, emphasize the crucial role of both schools and parents in guiding students towards a balanced involvement in non-academic activities. Without proper support, the very activities intended to enhance well-being can become sources of stress.
26% of the students responded that they did not participate in non-academic activities. Upon informal follow-up questions with students, some expressed having assumed the activities were the ones offered by the school only. Further research could explore in more detail the reasons why students gave these responses to properly determine their involvement, and to determine solutions or opportunities for them, as some expressed not having parent permission, not being interested in any of the activities the school offered, or not having time due to the academic demands.
The initial intention of the study was to include the impact participation in non-academic activities had on academic performance. However, the data to support this was incomplete, and long-term research would be needed to compare it before and after involvement, as well as including a control group. It could be interesting to investigate the results of these students further on in their college studies and to see if the impact remains solid.
When conducting the study, the hypothesis was that in fact non-academic activities do have a positive impact on wellbeing. However, in the process of reading both the literature and the student responses, more negative impact than expected was found, because of burnout and anxiety. This raised the question if there were more reasons to study the potential effects of not making the team, not getting the role in the school play, letting team members down, etc.
Structured and balanced extracurricular activities benefit students in many ways. In our findings, students wanted more options, further support (particularly in sports and arts) as well as volunteer and real-world experiences. They even suggested that more activities could be student led. Their concerns with the activities are a lack of variety, accessibility, and scheduling. Schools should provide spaces to address the concerns of students who felt that there was a lack of choice in activities or on how they could be assisted in balancing their time. Parents should also encourage open communication with their children about their commitments and help them prioritize more effectively.
The literature review and the finding of the research both conclude that student participation in non-academic activities can improve mental health and emotional well-being, as they can relieve stress, develop skills, and promote a sense of purpose and belonging. Participation in these activities also provides an opportunity for the development of soft skills essential in their future careers and lives, such as time management, resilience, teamwork and leadership.
However, even though the research shows an undeniable benefit of these activities, stress, anxiety, and burnout may also result due to young people not knowing how to balance their lives, prioritize their activities and deal with the emotions linked to success and failure in these activities. To alleviate these negative outcomes of non-academic activities, it is crucial that students have the support of adults in their lives, parents, teachers, coaches, and mentors, to guide them in these processes.
Schools should integrate activities of this nature in their wellbeing programs, and not see them as “extra”, but as a necessary component of the school culture. Ultimately, for education to truly embody "life itself," as Dewey expressed, this study emphasizes the necessity of a balanced approach that integrates meaningful non-academic engagement alongside academic pursuits, ensuring students live and enjoy the present and develop into well-rounded individuals.
Afterschool Alliance. (2024). Evaluating afterschool: The latest research on the impact of afterschool and summer programs. Afterschool Alliance. https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/
Caetano, C. (2021). Study: Too many enrichment activities harm mental health. University of Georgia.
Ginosyan, H., Tuzlukova, V., & Ahmed, F. (2020). An investigation into the role of extracurricular activities in supporting and enhancing students' academic performance in tertiary foundation programs in Oman. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(12), 1431–1439. https://www. academypublication.com/issues2/tpls/vol10/12/03.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Extracurricular participation and student engagement. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95741.asp
Sosiden, S., & Viraek, P. (2021). Character development of students through extracurricular activities. Panha Chiet University & Dewey International University, Cambodia.
Starbuck Gerson, E. (2023). After-school activities: The pros and cons of filling your kids’ schedule. CHOC.org. org/news/after-school-activities-the-pros-and-cons-of-fillingyour-kids-schedule/
Omayma Hashim, Hartland
In education, the academic success of students is no longer viewed in isolation from their emotional and social well-being. This study addresses how the overall classroom environment could affect a student’s academic performance and classroom productivity. It has been previously discovered that the wellbeing plays a large role in the academic progress of any learner (Durlak et. al., 2011). This research explores how varying types of classroom support, both direct teacher involvement and passive support mechanisms such as scaffolding and peer-based learning, affect students' well-being, and consequently, their academic outcomes.
This study draws upon foundational educational theories and studies by Vygotsky (1978), Hattie (2009), Deci and Ryan (2000), Gillies (2004), and Durlak et al. (2011), which consistently highlight the importance of balancing learning autonomy, structured support, and positive social interactions within the classroom to promote a more motivating learning environment around the student.
Educational settings often emphasise academic achievement without sufficiently considering the well-being factors that underpin those outcomes. Traditional models of direct teacher instruction, where teachers act as the sole source of knowledge and authority, can lead to reduced motivation and feelings of isolation among students (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Conversely, approaches that provide scaffolding, encourage peer collaboration, and foster classroom autonomy have been shown to enhance both academic outcomes limitingly and emotional well-being to a high degree. Yet, educators often lack clarity on which balance of these methods is most effective for fostering both elements together.
but achievable with temporary structured support (scaffolding).
• Hattie (2009) emphasised the significant influence of teacher-student relationships and structured guidance on academic outcomes, while also cautioning against overreliance on teacher-led instruction without promoting student autonomy.
This research seeks to contribute to the achievement of the golden balance point between the enrichment of students’ classroom comfortability and their ability to perform at the highest productivity rate, in order to get the most out of their subject lessons. The study has done this via comparing the effects of three distinct classroom support strategies on students’ academic achievement and observed well-being within a Year 7 Arabic developing class.
• Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory argued that student motivation thrives when autonomy and competence are supported, suggesting that overly direct instruction can limit intrinsic motivation.
• Gillies (2004) demonstrated that collaborative groupbased learning enhances social skills, peer learning, and engagement, though it can risk uneven participation and knowledge distribution.
• Durlak et al. (2011) found that interventions supporting student social-emotional learning positively impact academic performance and well-being.
This research positions itself within these frameworks to explore which combination of support mechanisms most effectively promotes well-being and academic achievement.
Research Method
The study was conducted within a single Year 7 developing class comprising of 15 students, including a focused subgroup of 5 students (3 boys, 2 girls). The research was structured over three terms, each featuring a different teaching approach:
• Term 1: Direct teacher contact - students primarily received direct instructional support as needed, with optional lunchtime support sessions.
• Term 2: Group-based learning - students worked collaboratively in groups of 3–4, using collective strengths and peer support to navigate tasks.
• Term 3: Independent learning with scaffolding and selective direct teacher support - students worked independently with structured resources (scaffolds) and received teacher support only when essential, alongside regular praise and encouragement.
Data Collection
Two primary types of data were collected:
• Quantitative: Termly student test scores were recorded over 3 academic terms and compared to measure academic progress.
• Qualitative: Observations of classroom behaviour, participation, and focus levels were noted. Additionally, student interviews provided insight into personal preferences, motivation, and perceptions of support methods.
Results
Quantitative Results
The academic test score improvements by teaching method were:
• Direct Support: 30% improvement
• Group Assignments: 33% improvement
• Scaffolding with Some Teacher Support: 41% improvement
This data suggests that scaffolding combined with selective teacher involvement produced the highest academic gains.
Qualitative Results
Out of the 15 students, 5 were chosen as a focus subgroup. They were chosen due to their varying abilities and classroom participation levels. These students were interviewed using the same 6 questions that asked them a variety of questions spanning from the number of years they have been studying Arabic for, all the way to the type of learning method they personally preferred the moat and why.
The student interviews and observations revealed nuanced findings:
• Social Well-Being in Group Work: Students like Student 2 preferred group work due to the collaborative environment, stating, “working with my friends helps me learn from them new words.” This highlights the role of peer support and social well-being in learning.
• Autonomy and Teacher Praise: Student 5 thrived in the scaffolding environment, valuing independence paired with teacher encouragement: “I like when I work things out by myself and I get it correct.” This underscores the motivational power of self-directed success reinforced by positive feedback.
The findings align closely with Vygotsky’s ZPD and Hattie’s theories, affirming that scaffolded tasks with occasional teacher intervention promote both autonomy and academic growth. As well as Gillies (2004) and Durlak et al (2011), who observed benefits in group learning for social engagement and peer-driven academic support. Finally, the study also heavily supports Deci & Ryan (2000) and Zimmerman (2002), highlighting the limitations of exclusive direct teacher instruction, which risks undermining student motivation and learning autonomy.
This study highlighted the value of combining scaffolding with occasional teacher support, which not only improved academic outcomes but also boosted student confidence and motivation. Group work enhanced social well-being and peer learning, though uneven participation was a challenge. I recognised that relying too heavily on direct instruction can reduce learning autonomy and engagement. Moving forward, I am encouraged to adopt more scaffolded, independent tasks, use group roles to balance collaboration, and introduce simple well-being check-ins to better monitor student experiences in class.
This study concludes that scaffolding with occasional direct teacher support provides the most effective approach for enhancing both academic performance and classroom wellbeing in a Year 7 developing class. Group-based learning offered moderate benefits, especially for social engagement, while teacher-only instruction was least effective, supporting the literature’s emphasis on autonomy-supportive and collaborative learning environments.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions.
Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
AFEF’s Centre for Education Action Research is committed to creating and sustaining a platform for education action research for schools in the UAE.
We are not merely observers of the educational landscape, rather, we are active participants and architects of change in the classroom.
In our world, teachers and school leaders are not just educators but also researchers, equipped with the tools and the passion to delve into the depths of educational challenges. By empowering educators to engage in action research, we unlock a treasure trove of insights and solutions tailored to the unique demands of UAE’s ever-evolving educational landscape.
• Address specific challenges to improve educational practices for your school.
• Take ownership of your professional development.
• Cultivate a culture of reflection and continuous improvement in your school.
• Connect with fellow educators passionate about improving student success in the UAE.
• Access resources and support to enhance your research and teaching.
cear@disdubai.ae
www linkedin com/company/centre-for-education-action-research/
www disdubai ae/our-school/cear/
The CEAR Quest Journal is a publication of the Centre for Education Action Research, Al Futtaim Education Foundation.
Samantha Fernandes –Administrator, Centre for Education Action Research
Johan Wasserman – Digital Marketing & Graphic Design Manager
Noura Al Ali – Graphic Designer
We extend our gratitude to all contributing educators and researchers whose work and insights make this journal possible.
Journal of Education Action Research in the UAE