Issuu on Google+

A Research Proposal Understanding the Perspectives of Disruptive Students Teguh Ardianto Semarang State University Rationale Students’ engagement affects educators everywhere. To effectively teach and allow the students the best opportunity to learn, they must be engaged in the process. When students are not engaged they may lose their motivation to learn (Bogren, 2009). Many research studies students’ disruptive behavior, but surprisingly every research has its own result and way in finding the way to solve students’ disruptive problems. It demands me to do my own research, by doing so, I can really know what my students’ need and find the most suitable way to solve my students’ disruptiveness problem. If the students are not engaged in what they are learning they do not care to learn about it. I assume students will be bored and they will not produce good quality work and it may possibly lead to disruptiveness. Literature Review Student engagement is defined as the degree to which students are actively pursuing deep learning related to established standards,” (Fredricks et al., 2004 cited in Metiri, 2010). Experts in this field further describe engagement as a combination of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004 cited in Metiri. 2010). When they are engaged, they are also more likely to maintain the knowledge taught. Furthermore, students that are engaged are more likely to be motivated to learn more and to try their best. When students are motivated, their quality of work increases. Flow Mihaly Csikszentmihaly (1996) cited in Metiri (2010), described the experience learners have when there is harmony between the task the learner engages in and the current expertise/skill level of the learner with skills required to complete the task successfully. Disruptions in that balance result on the one hand boredom and on the other frustration. Just above the flow diagonal, when challenge exceeds expertise by a small margin results in creativity. Just below the flow diagonal, when skill exceeds the level of the challenge by a small margin offers opportunity for students to build automaticity through practice. In attempting to achieve flow experiences for students the following aspects of engagement should be considered.


Behavioral Engagement (Participation) Behavioral engagement focuses on participation. It is evidenced by the student’s following of school rules, in class participation (e.g., academic and social), and extracurricular participation. That participation often involves such behaviors as effort, persistence, concentration, attention, asking questions, and contributing in class. Behavior is influenced by both cognitive engagement and socio-emotional engagement. Academic success often results in increased attendance, fuller class participation, increased effort success breeds success. On the other hand, repeated academic failure often results in decreases in school participation. Similarly, pro-social or antisocial engagement has the expected results. Students engagement level Kohn (1997) cited in Bogren (2009, p.9) discusses how students should not just be working, but they should be learning. Doing mindless, routine activities is different from actively engaged learning. Students may also be working fast, but it does not necessarily mean the work is complete or the quality is high. When students are engaged, they develop the skills to work with others and know how to transfer knowledge to solve problems creatively. Dr. Schlechty identifies five forms of engagement and how individual students respond to school tasks: a) Engagement-students are immersed in work that has clear meaning immediate value to them b) Ritual Compliance-the work has little or no immediate meaning to students, but there are extrinsic outcomes of value that keep them engaged c) Passive Compliance-students see little or no meaning in the assigned work but expend effort merely to avoid negative consequences d) Retreatism-students are disengaged from assigned work and make no attempt to comply, but are not disruptive to the learning of others e) Rebellion-students refuse to do the assigned task, act disruptive, and attempt to substitute alternative activities (Schlechty, 2002). Knowing the different forms of engagement can help educators determine which students are truly engaged in classroom activities. Different learning styles When students are engaged, they develop the skills to work with others and know how to transfer knowledge to solve problems creatively (Bowen, 2002) cited in Bogren (2009, p.9). If educators only teach in one style many students may not be reached. This can account for lack of student engagement. In a dissertation by Brooks, she states, “The increasing diversity of today’s student population requires educators to use a variety of instructional methods to meet the needs of individual learners” (Brooks, Freiburger, & Grotheer, 1998, cited in Bogren, 2009, p.10).Teachers can find out more about their students and their interests by observing them.


The Curriculum Echevarria and Graves (2003) cited in Bogren (2009) “suggest that a teacher can “use routine questioning, small-group and cooperative-group activities, partner and individualized sharing opportunities, and role playing to keep students physically active and involved in their learning” (p. 12). Ruth H. Yopp and Hallie K. Yopp (2001) cited in Bogren (2009) emphasize this point by saying “it is important that teachers know their students and make instructional decisions based upon students’ interests and needs. Activities that are appropriate for some individuals may be less valuable for others” (p. 12). Teachers can meet different student interests by having students choose from a variety of activities from the lessons. Students’ Choices If students have a say or a choice in what they will be learning and doing, they may be more motivated to learn. Ruddell (2000) cited in Bogren (2009, p.13) researched implementing project-based learning in the classroom. It began with what the students already knew and encouraging multiple responses. This enables students to help shape the curriculum. The students work on the part of the topic that interests them. Voke (2002) cited in Bogren (2009, p.14) insists that when students are given the opportunity to choose, they show ownership and accountability. Students that have ownership and accountability should produce higher quality work and show all the qualities of being engaged. Parent Involvement and Motivation A child’s environment can help shape them. What they learn at home can develop their attitude toward learning and school. Parents have the opportunity to nurture their child’s sense of worth and competence. When a child has this sense, they are able to engage in academically challenging pursuits. But, conversely, when a child's home environment discourages the child's natural curiosity and undermines his sense of competency and self-worth, he may, over time, form attitudes that inhibit engagement (Voke, 2002) cited in Bogren (2009, p.14). Parent involvement could have an effect on whether or not a student is motivated and engaged in school. Linda Jacobson (2003) cited in Bogren (2009, p.15), states, family involvement in education can improve student performance. Research Questions 1. What factors contribute to the students’ high or low levels of engagement? 2. What factors show some students are more engaged than others? Research Design In this research, I will use case study research design to explore the degrees of students’ engagement to gain a better understanding of their perspectives that contribute to high education engagement. Eventhough it is case study but it is the part of Action research. The data for this research will be collected in a span of three weeks. Further this analysis will be used to plan learning activities in my Action Research.


Participants: The Participants will be the junior high school eighth grader students. Data Sources The data will include: observations, questionnaires, students’ work samples, field notes, and interviews. Questionnaires. Baseline questionnaires will be used in the first week only to create baseline data. Daily questionnaires will be used in the second week to get information about their feeling. Main questionnaires will be used in the third week, to get the information about learning style, curriculum, students’ choice and parent involvement. Observations. Initial observations will be used in the first week to support baseline questionnaire in obtaining baseline data the format is as in the Emio’s Observation Form (2003). Main observations will be used on the second week to ensure the consistency of my case study students’ engagement level the format will be based on Woodcock observation form. Interviews. Interviews will be used to get information of their feeling about the lesson, home and school, the answer they wrote in the questionnaires and work samples. Field notes. Field notes will support my data of observations. First Week: In the first week, I will create the baseline data by giving them initial questionnaires and initial observations. The baseline data is important for me, since with this baseline data, I can recognize and differentiate students with high and low engagement level. The entire class will be given questionnaires. After questionnaires are reviewed and sorted by possible high and low engaged students, observations will take place. The first observation will use simple checklists the check list format as in . Observation data will be collected during the classroom activities. I will observe them three times in a lesson; at the beginning, while they are doing their assignment, and at almost at the end of the lesson. After observation, the observations’ result will be matched with the questionnaires’ result to get the disruptive students and non-disruptive students. In this first week, I will also use field notes. I will take notes everything happens in classroom during teaching and learning process. Field notes will support my data of observation. I will write what I see and hear in classroom activities. Second Week: The disruptive students and non-disruptive students will be further observed to ensure consistency of the sample. The students I choose have to be consistently engaged for the engaged and consistently less engaged for the less engaged. The form of the observations in the second week will be more detail than the first week the observation. I will also use simple questionnaires about their feeling. These questionnaires will be addressed every day for the disruptive students and non-disruptive students. The observation and the questionnaires then are matched to get the case study students.


Third Week: The case study students will be given the first questionnaires. The questionnaires will be about their learning style preferences, teacher strategy, and parents’ involvement. Students’ work samples will also be collected from each of the case study students. I will interview each of consistent convenience sample regarding their work sample (for example if it is writing lesson, then the interview will ask why they write about this, do you try your best? Why, etc.), and also their feeling about the lesson, home and school. References Bogren, M. (2009). A case study: Why do some students stay engaged in classroom Activities and some students do not?. Retrieved June 10, from http://www.sierranevada.edu/UserFiles/File/MAT_THESES_09/spring/Michele %20Bogren.pdf Ennio, C. (2003). Disruptive Behavior: Three Techniques to Use in Your Classroom. Retrieved June 11, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED361974.pdf Metiri

Group. (2010). Student Engagement. Retrieved June http://www.metiri.com/ALBERTA-PDFS/Booklet-Engagement.doc

13,

from

Schlechty, P. (2002). New Mexico Symposium: Working on the Work. Retrieved June 10, from http://www.ped.state.nm.us/CTWEB/dl09/August%20NM%20WOW.pdf Woodcock. (----). Classroom Behavior Observation Form. Retrieved June 10, from http://cornbeltcoop.k12.sd.us/PRINTABLE%20PDF/Classroom%20Observations %5B1%5D.pdf


Research Proposal Teguh