Motivating Student Learning

Abstract

After more than 20 years in various sales and marketing roles, I have recently changed careers to lecturing business studies subjects within the HETAC framework. I decided to use the opportunity to conduct an action research project to address student engagement and explore strategies to encourage the students to take ownership of the learning by engaging in classroom activities. My concern therefore resulted in the following action research question: ‘If students are encouraged to engage in open discussions regarding the course content, will this motivate them to take ownership of their own learning?’ The methodology applied in this research uses the five phases of Susmans action research model (1983). The five stages includes: diagnosing, action planning, taking action, evaluating, specifying learning and then repeating the process multiple times. I undertook two action research cycles to explore and respond to this question during a six week period which began in March 2011. My students were a small group (9 students) studying their 1st year of a higher certificate course in business studies. Having gathered data from cycle 1 and reflecting upon it, I commenced my second action research cycle responding to the learning and further needs which emerged during cycle 1. During this research I uncovered unexpected issues which are outlined in my findings: for example, differing learning cultures between second and third level education. I expect that the issues uncovered are not unique to my small group of students and other lecturers have had similar experiences and I hope that the recommendations provided in this report will be of use to the reader. Introduction Having worked in various management roles in sales and marketing for the past 15 years, I changed careers and have recently been appointed a teaching position at Griffith College Dublin. My students are studying for a higher certificate in business, stage 1 level 6 within the HETAC framework. Although I have provided many presentations in the course of my career, this is my first professional teaching role. My area of concern has arisen as a direct result of my experience as a mature student having returned to full-time education to complete my studies. I recently undertook a masters’ degree with the intention of gaining the necessary qualifications which would allow me to teach in higher education. During the course of my studies, my learning experience was very positive and I thoroughly enjoyed the process. However, I noted that in the majority of cases, the principle teaching approach adopted by my lecturers was one of knowledge transmission to the students, who in turn must absorb the information. Crucially, this approach was applied to the communication of expected learning outcomes and associated benefits for students, which were briefly mentioned but rarely reinforced. In my experience, this one directional knowledge transmission approach by teachers creates an authoritative environment and can leave students feeling insecure about revealing their lack of understanding of the subject. At best, this approach has little impact or at worse a negative impact, on student learning. In light of this, I would like to involve the students in the learning process and therefore my research question is, ‘If students are encouraged to engage in open discussions regarding the course content, will this motivate them to take ownership of their own learning?’ I anticipate that this approach will help students improve their questioning and answering skills which I feel are very important learning tools. Many different activities can be conducted within the learning environment to motivate students and facilitate learning. Elton (2001) argues that for ‘deep learning’ to take place the students must be actively involved in the learning process. The various different teaching methods used must therefore actively involve the students. Gibbs et al. suggest improving students’ notes using handouts and articles to minimise note taking in class and encourage attention and participation instead. Sustained and unchanging low level activity lowers concentration, according to Biggs and Tang (2007), and as a result the learning activity should change every fifteen minutes or so to restore student attention and learning. Many alternative activities suggested as particularly successful include: a paired activity in which students explain the subject matter to each other with unanswered queries passed to the lecturer, mid-lecture buzz break for discussions in small groups, individual problem solving, short quiz breaks, multiple choice questions, quiet time etc. Andersen (1996). My current class: Demographic Profile My students are in their first year of a higher certificate course in business studies. Upon completion of the certificate they have the option to continue their education to degree level. It is a small group with a total of 9 members. Of these, 5 students are Irish nationals and 4 are non-nationals. For the non-national students where English is not their first language, their English language skills are of a reasonable standard. I have not been made aware of any students with specific learning disabilities. As such, I feel it is important to set the stage for effective teaching and learning. My intention is to involve students by getting them to agree to participate in specific tasks that will encourage them to interact and facilitate discussion. The following report describes my action research project. Methodology Susman’s Action Research Model The methodology applied in this research used the five phases of Susman’s action research model (1983). Susman’s model provided structure from which a plan of action emerged and was implemented. Throughout the process questionnaires, interviews, feedback quizzes, reflective journal and conversations with my critical friend aided the collection and analysis of data in terms of how successful each action had been with a view to re-evaluate before moving on to the second cycle. During the second cycle, additional data were collected and upon completion of the second cycle, all data were interpreted and findings reported. Figure 1: Detailed Action Research Model (Adapted from Gerald Susman, 1983) Analysis of the qualitative data Common themes in responses were sorted into different categories as outlined in the ‘findings’ section. These were interpreted to find meaningful patterns in terms of this research question. Analysis of the qualitative data involved measuring words in both written and verbal form in order to find these meanings. It should be noted that the sample used was quite small and therefore it is recognised that the qualitative findings are limited. DIAGNOSING Identifying or defining a problem ACTION PLANNING Consider alternative courses of action SPECIFYING LEARNING Identifying general findings TAKING ACTION Selecting a course of action EVALUATING Studying the consequences of an action Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) One of the data gathering tools used was Biggs Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ). The SPQ Questionnaire has been designed to help teachers evaluate the learning approaches of their students Biggs et al (2001). The questionnaire has two main scales Deep Approach (DA) and Surface Approach (SA) with four sub-scales, Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS), Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). This questionnaire was completed by the students at the beginning of this research. Scores for both Deep and Surface Approaches to learning were calculated from an accumulation of the sub-scales scores. For the purpose of this report I have focused on scores for the two main scales i.e. Deep and Surface Approaches. Scores were calculated using the methodology outlined by Biggs which were then compared to ‘typical’ norms also provided by Biggs. In order to explore this research question, I undertook two action research cycles. These are described below. Action Research Cycle 1 Week 1 The students were hesitant to contribute to my invitations to discuss the content. I initiated the discussion by inviting student observations but due to the poor response I felt it was necessary to re-frame this in the form of questions. The answers provided were brief with little elaboration. As such, it is necessary to provide continuous encouragement alongside activities that are of interest to the students. (Appendix 3, Journal 1st March) Week 2 I introduced alternative activities as I felt the activity of the previous session was a little unstructured for the students. This time I felt that a case study and the problem based scenario would provide a good point of focus to discuss the theories. The students reacted well to both activities which suggest that the activities provided a good learning platform. This is evidenced by the students’ responses to the instant feedback questionnaire I provided them with at the end of class. All of the students responded favourably to question 3 i.e. ‘Today’s class activities helped me with my understanding of the topic’. (Appendix 4, Instant Feedback Questionnaire # 2)8 Week 3 In week three I provided a short recap lecture using power point with a short review of what was covered in the previous session. I then introduced a case study exercise to be read in pairs for 10-15 minutes and then questions and answers involving the class as a whole. I decided to use this activity because I had been encouraged by the students’ reaction to the case study exercise during the previous week. I explained the learning outcomes which were displayed on the overhead projector. I also articulated what I expected the students to do and how this would be of benefit to them. At the end of the class I gave a short quiz i.e. two questions relating to the learning outcomes. I had also purchased a power point ‘clicker’ which allowed me to roam around the classroom and sit with students d