Introduction – background to the area of interest; and justification for the significance of the area of research (750 words) (10)
Clearly stated research question, along with any sub-questions; addressing multi-site, multi-researcher issues (5)
-
There is a lot of discussion amongst educators on the decline in engagement among middle year students (Hill, Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1993; Campbell, Faulkner & Pridham, 2010). This research will help us and other educators to understand more fully the activities and instructional methods which may allow for greater engagement and content understanding in these years of schooling. In current research on kinaesthetic teaching, there is a focus on exclusively using it for students with a preference for this learning style, and on those students with ADHD (Anderson & Rumsey, 2002). Our research focuses on this teaching method for the classroom as a whole.
To investigate this, the following research question was created;
"What are the effects of utilizing tactual-kinesthetic instruction on short term knowledge acquisition and attitude in middle years students?"
This topic is appropriate for teacher conducted research as the methods of data collection are simple enough to allow them to be conducted within our daily teaching routine and practice and it focuses on a key issue for teachers and pre-service teachers.
Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) separate tactual learning as that which is hands-on and utilizing manipulative objects, and kinaesthetic learning as that which requires movement. Our research will involve both these learning methods.
A sub question relates to the fact that we are applying the tactual kinaesthetic teaching mode to the class as a whole rather than varying the mode according to student's preferences. This sub question is;
"Are tactual-kinesthetic teaching methods useful for all middle years students regardless of any preferred learning styles?"
This sub question is important because it will help us determine whether teaching utilizing tactile-kinaesthetic methods to all students is valid or, as per research such as Farkas (2003), we should be adapting our teaching methods given students supposed preferences.
Given that there will be three researchers undertaking this topic at three different sites, communication between the three of us will be important to ensure consistency. It will also be important for us to establish a rigid protocol of data collection methods and control for as many variables as we can.
Lit Review
Overview of key relevant literature (1500 words, 10 sources) (10)
There is a number of articles that support the popular theory that teachers need to use a variety of instructional approaches to make learning accessible for all students and therefore increase engagement and academic results. The articles that will be reviewed suggest the inclusion of tactile or kinaesthetic activities to engage students in content (Honigsfeld and Dunn 2009, Peacock 2006, Farkas 2003, Stanford 2003, Rule, Dockstader & Stewart 2006). Firstly we will review two empirical studies that investigate the link between traditional instruction and lack of motivation and academic ability, then three empirical studies that investigate the efficacy of a varied-instructional approach. Finally, moving onto the theoretical work surrounding learning styles, multiple intelligences, middle years engagement, and teaching styles.
Two empirical studies that investigated traditional schooling and a decrease or lack of motivation and academic decline are Eccles et al. (1993) and Peacock (2006). Eccles et al. (1993) found after interviewing and testing 2500 students, that a middle-years traditional school and classroom environment lead to a lack in motivation and therefore potential academic failure. Peacock (2006) reported that a mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning failure, frustration and de-motivation after interviewing and testing 206 English as a Foreign Language students in Hong Kong. He discusses the idea that mismatches (between learning styles and teaching styles) are common and that they negatively affect learning and learner motivation and attitude. He suggests that teachers should aim for a balanced teaching style that incorporates all learning styles.
The three empirical studies investigating the use of a varied-instructional approach tend to report that academic results and or levels of engagement improve are Touval and Westreich (2003), Farkas (2003) and Rule et al. (2006). Touval and Westreich (2003) reported that during a mathematical lesson that used a kinaesthetic approach students were engaged, motivated to confirm their mathematical findings, and that the students experienced long-term retention of the content. Farkas (2003) reported that 105 7th grade students responded well to a differentiated approach to the Holocaust and and that it offered more opportunities for the students to succeed. Rule et al. (2006) reported that a kinaesthetic-tactile approach to teaching phonological awareness in low-level ability primary students improved academic results to be on par with the rest of their grade.
The theoretical works that are reviewed argue the need for a varied-instructional approach to accommodate all students and specifically low-level ability students, those with learning disabilities or with diagnosed behavioural disorders. Whilst the articles differ slightly in terms of whether they are based on the multiple intelligences theory (Stanford 2003) or on the theory of learning styles (Anderson and Rumsey 2002, Honigsfeld and Dunn 2009), their arguments remain synthesised. Stanford (2003) argues that those with learning disabilities tend to be weak in the verbal/linguistic and logic/mathematical intelligence areas and that these are the areas that are predominantly emphasised in school, this is similar to the argument made by Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) that schools still favour lectures, chalk and talk, assigned readings and note taking, which is not accommodating for those students who find it difficult to learn through these approaches. Whilst based on differing theories both advocate for the need to bridge the gap in schools between the high-level ability and low-level ability students.
Anderson and Rumsey (2002) discuss the need for more kinaesthetic-tactile approaches to accommodate students diagnosed with ADHD and therefore ensure equity of opportunity. All three articles refer to other works in the field to support their arguments, include suggested activities and discuss the need for more research to take place. Yet Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) and Anderson and Rumsey (2002) do not take the view that it is important to strengthen all our learning areas or intelligences as is suggested by Stanford (2003). She sees using a varied approach as allowing all students in the classroom the opportunity to succeed.
There also appears to be debate on whether a person possesses more than one learning style or the ability to develop other learning styles, as Anderson and Rumsey (2002) and Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) focus on the need to include more types of instructional approaches rather than the need to develop and strengthen all learning areas as advocated by Pirie (1995) and Stanford (2003).
Pirie (1995) holds the view that it is important to strengthen all of our learning areas not just those that we are already good at. That by varying teaching styles at the very least learners will develop a deeper understanding of the content if not strengthen their various learning areas. Stanford (2003) also believes in the need to vary assessment methods so that students can demonstrate learning content in a variety of ways, and that we are assessing skills and strategies in addition to knowledge given that we live in a fast changing technological world.
Peacock (2006) also advocates for the need to learners to take responsibility in ensuring that their needs are met, either by adapting in the classroom or by using their preferred learning style in consolidation study. This idea of choice is also held by Anderson and Rumsey (2002) who discuss the need for students with disabilities need to identify and draw on how they learn best as well as manage their learning and behavioural issues in order to succeed. Both agree that by giving students responsibility for their learning, they are more likely to find avenues that suit them and therefore improve their motivation, engagement and academic abilities.
This idea of choice is not chorused in the other articles, implying that it is completely in the control of the school and teachers to ensure all learning needs are met. The idea of giving students the responsibility of identified and taking advantage of their preferred learning styles has two sides; either the student may be biased against other types of teaching styles, or this may improve the effectiveness of trying different approaches in the classroom.
Whilst all of these works argue for the importance of equity of opportunity by using non-traditional approaches in the classroom, Pirie (1995) is the only one who acknowledges the limitations of using a varied approach, underlining that we must not lose focus of the content when using a non-traditional approach giving the example of spending class time on costume design for a Shakespeare role-play in an English class. Other limitations include a lack of confidence and training in using a tactile-kinaesthetic approach as well as the preparatory time and resources needed to conduct the lesson. The fact that these limitations are not mentioned in the majority of articles makes them less balanced in terms of their argument and therefore questions their reliability. Yet because of their similarities in argument, together they make a persuasive case, that there is a need to use non-traditional teaching to ensure equity of opportunity.
Which is the focus of our research, to discover whether non-traditional methods are effective at increasing engagement and improving attitudes resulting in higher academic results. The research conducted by Rhonda Farkas (2003) is similar to our proposal yet we will not compare results using a traditionally taught control group. However we do hope to find similar results, as Farkas (2003) found significant increases in both student attitudes and student achievement levels when using learning style teaching methods. These results are also supported by the findings of both Touval and Westreich (2003) and Rule et al. (2006). Another point in which our research will contrast all three of these research studies is in terms of a lack of content focus. Rather, we will take an instructional approach focus through tactile-kinaesthetic learning tasks, and assess their effect on attitudes and achievement in the middle years. Much of the research conducted in the field is limited either by being content specific or student-ability specific. We intend on bridging this gap developing a study that can be conducted in a variety of subject areas to test the effectiveness of tactile-kinaesthetic learning tasks to engage and increase academic results in the middle years.
We also plan on taking a holistic approach to the study, in terms of assessing all students on the whole, rather than one single group. Our question is also relatively open to allow for potential variables as well as tangents or questions that may arise. Such as: whether it is beneficial for students to take more responsibility in terms of their preferred learning? Or whether it is beneficial for all or only those who are currently marginalised in their learning? By keeping our question open in terms of content and learner types, we can research how effective tactile-kinaesthetic approaches are as a whole, as well as bridge the gap in terms of critiques on planning, implementing and assessing the approach.
Description and justification of the research approach, theoretical framework, methodology (750 words) (10)
NEED TO INCLUDE PROS AND CONS OF ACTION RESEARCH
We will use an action-research approach to try and answer our question:
‘What are the effects of tactual-kinaesthetic instruction on short term knowledge acquisition and attitude in middle years students?’
This is because action-research is flexible – it can be modified during the research process, reflective – it informs our teaching practice, relevant – it meets the needs of the classroom/school and it is focused on a particular issue. It will enable us to change our methods as we understand more about our question in the research phase and can be conducted within our normal daily classroom practice. It also lessens the potential of adverse effects on our students. It will enable us to learn more about ourselves and our own teaching practices as a whole. Action research is a very useful tool, especially for beginning teachers. It allows us to develop solutions for our own problems, and test their efficacy for ourselves – without relying on outside experts. According to Carr and Kemmis (1986, p.162, as cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 298), action research is a form of 'self-reflective enquiry' , which is undertaken to improve understanding of practices in context, with the general aim of improving social justice.
One ‘con’, as it were, of action research, is that findings are generally not applicable to a wide range of situations. The research findings cannot be used to generalise about the population at large, or even similar classroom settings. The findings of the research can only be used to speak about that particular classroom, on those particular days that were studied. Because we are the teachers and researchers, and we are the ones implementing the change in the classroom, we cannot say that our implementation of a new teaching strategy had any effect – any change in results may have been due to any number of factors, especially that it may have just been a ‘new face’ that afforded this change. We can only analyse the data that we gather and use our research findings to inform our own teaching.