Classroom Participation Chart
These students were chosen at random by an unbiased viewer to see what correlation, if any, there is between participation and engagement.Historically, participation has been one of the main evidences teachers use to gauge classroom engagement and I wanted to do some research to see what real evidence there was behind it.
Adam Fletcher writes in "Meaningful Student Engagement" that there are 8 levels of participation in a classroom. To begin with, this conceptually indicates that 2 students can simultaneously be “participating” in classroom activities but to different degrees; one of which may not be genuine engagement. Fletcher writes the 8 levels of participation are: 1. Student initiated, shared decisions with adults 2. Student initiated, student led decisions 3. Adult initiated, shared decisions with students |
|
4. Students informed and consulted 5. Students informed and assigned 6. Students tokenized 7. Students are decorations 8. Students manipulated. The first 4 levels of participation in this model reflect teacher and student working together to co-create the knowledge being learned. The last 4 reflect a teacher centric model that has little regard for student involvement or engagement.Before looking at the artifact attached it is important to be able to understand it. The first page labeled “Participation 1” shows pencil writing (the unbiased observer who selected 4 students at random) and red pen writing (me adding names over the letters A-D to identify the students the unbiased observer selected, after the class. Also you will notice in red pen numbers 1-4 counting counter-clockwise on the paper. These are locations I stand in throughout the class at different times. Running horizontally on the bottom is the number location I was present at when the plus(+) or minus (-) was registered. A plus represents good participation and the minus represents negative participation or lack of engagement. With regard to student locations in the room, if the paper itself represents the classroom, A sits by position 4, B by position 1, C by position 2 and D by position 3.
Using Adam Fletcher’s 8 level model highlighted earlier, I now analyze the participation in my own class. As noted by the observer, I walk from 1-3 often, which is up and down the main aisle of my classroom. Interestingly enough, each student picked at random for this observation maintained a different level of engagement. During the reading exercises, all the students in this study engaged. A couple of them read but in the very least, they all followed along. During discussion was a very different fact. You will notice that B rarely engaged in the lesson. He can be found following along in the reading but that may only be due to the fact that everyone was quiet. On the contrary, C paid attention through out the entire lesson, participating and engaging in all activities. D paid attention most during discussion and A paid attention intermittently when I was near him/her physically.
There are some really interesting facts that can be gleaned from this. First, participation is a GOOD determinant of active, genuine engagement but it cannot and should not be used as the ONLY determinant of engagement. I say this because, disregarding the student who didn’t actively engage at all during the lesson (B), I believe too that the student who only actively participated when I was physically near him/her (A) was not truly engaged. If participation is going to be used as a determinant of engagement it cannot only be when the teacher is physically present near a student. This is the whole premise behind why I believe participation does not always represent engagement. No matter where I was in the classroom, D always participated, including reading out loud. No matter where I was, B rarely participated or engaged in the material.
Richard Strong writes in "What do Students Want (and what really motivates them)?" that students “[…] persist in their work despite challenges and obstacles […]”. He also writes that students who don’t engage cited their work as “[…] repetitive, that required little or no thought, and that was forced on them by others.” Only participating when the teacher is near him/her physically does not represent genuine engagement but instead a means of making the teacher BELIEVE he/she is engaged so as not to get in trouble.
So what can be said about participation as it relates to engagement in this research? First off, as stated earlier, it CAN be used as a determinant of engagement (student D in this observation) but shouldn’t always be used (student A) because participation can sometimes just be seen as a means of staying out of trouble. This research produces evidence that no ONE physical element (participation, eye contact, body language, etc) can be used to SOLEY determine genuine engagement.
Using Adam Fletcher’s 8 level model highlighted earlier, I now analyze the participation in my own class. As noted by the observer, I walk from 1-3 often, which is up and down the main aisle of my classroom. Interestingly enough, each student picked at random for this observation maintained a different level of engagement. During the reading exercises, all the students in this study engaged. A couple of them read but in the very least, they all followed along. During discussion was a very different fact. You will notice that B rarely engaged in the lesson. He can be found following along in the reading but that may only be due to the fact that everyone was quiet. On the contrary, C paid attention through out the entire lesson, participating and engaging in all activities. D paid attention most during discussion and A paid attention intermittently when I was near him/her physically.
There are some really interesting facts that can be gleaned from this. First, participation is a GOOD determinant of active, genuine engagement but it cannot and should not be used as the ONLY determinant of engagement. I say this because, disregarding the student who didn’t actively engage at all during the lesson (B), I believe too that the student who only actively participated when I was physically near him/her (A) was not truly engaged. If participation is going to be used as a determinant of engagement it cannot only be when the teacher is physically present near a student. This is the whole premise behind why I believe participation does not always represent engagement. No matter where I was in the classroom, D always participated, including reading out loud. No matter where I was, B rarely participated or engaged in the material.
Richard Strong writes in "What do Students Want (and what really motivates them)?" that students “[…] persist in their work despite challenges and obstacles […]”. He also writes that students who don’t engage cited their work as “[…] repetitive, that required little or no thought, and that was forced on them by others.” Only participating when the teacher is near him/her physically does not represent genuine engagement but instead a means of making the teacher BELIEVE he/she is engaged so as not to get in trouble.
So what can be said about participation as it relates to engagement in this research? First off, as stated earlier, it CAN be used as a determinant of engagement (student D in this observation) but shouldn’t always be used (student A) because participation can sometimes just be seen as a means of staying out of trouble. This research produces evidence that no ONE physical element (participation, eye contact, body language, etc) can be used to SOLEY determine genuine engagement.