Reaching the ‘hard to reach’:Inclusive responses to diversity through child-teacher dialogue

Guidance document for monitoring students’ engagement

With the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union

1The ideas presented in this document are a result of the collaboration of the following organisations and people:

Lead partner for this document: Aarhus University – Lotte Hedegaard-Sørensen and Hilde Ulvseth

Austria:University of Graz- Barbara Gasteiger-Klicpera, Edvina Bešić and Lisa PaleczekVolksschule Schönau - Angela Kaltenböck Luef, Veronika Scher, Martin Zanini, Elisabeth Hofmann-WellenhofDenmark:Aarhus University - Lotte Hedegaard-Sørensen and Hilde Ulvseth Nivå Skole – Thomas Holberg Wied, Lola Nielsen, Charlotte Koch-Nielsen, Maria Wolfsberg, Johansen Pernille Bernsen

Many teachers, students and other members of staff in each of the above schools contributed to the project. Whilst it is not possible to name them all individually, we would like to acknowledge their contributions and thank them.

In addition, during the second cycle of this project, the following schools were also involved and we would like to acknowledge their contributions:

Austria Denmark England Portugal Spain VS Bertha von Suttner Kokkedal Skole Beechwood Junior School Escola EB1/JI da Lejana Ceip Antonio Osuna

VS Gabelsberger Høsterkøb Skole Hollybrook Infant School Escola EB1/JI da Conceição

Ceip Federico García Lorca

VS Kalsdorf Hørsholm Skole Hollybrook Junior School Escola EB1/JI de Estoi Ceip Ciudad de Nejapa

VS Leopoldinum Humlebæk Skole Shirley Infant School Escola EB1/JI da Bordeira

Ceip de las Acacias

VS Viktor Kaplan Flakkebjerg Skole Shirley Junior School Escola EB1/JI de Santa Bárbara de Nexe

Ceip Carlos Sainz De Los Terreros

“ This project has been funded with support from the European Commission, under the Erasmus+ programme, 2017-1-UK01-KA201-036665. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

Monitoring students’ engagement: A guidance document

ContentsIntroduction 2Part 1 3Part 2 4Children’s questionnaire 6

Portugal: University of Algarve – Teresa Vitorino and Jorge SantosAEPROSA - Bruno Miguel Vaz Fernandes, Dilar Maria Rodrigues Martins, Daniela Pereira, Patrícia Palma Spain:Autonoma University of Madrid – Cecilia Simon, Marta Sandoval, Gerardo EcheitaAldebarán School - Sonia Gonzalez-Lopez, Ana Díaz García, Isabel Villamor Pérez, María Antonia Cruz Mínguez

England:University of Southampton (co-ordinator) – Kyriaki (Kiki) Messiou and Lien BuiWordsworth Primary School – Rick Page, Becky Hinton, Leanne Galbally, Vicki Smith, Emma Harvey

Methodological Consultant: Mel Ainscow, University of Manchester, UK

Southampton, University of Southampton - The Print Centre, May 2020Design: Gianni Grando

2 REACHING THE ‘HARD TO REACH’:INCLUSIVE RESPONSES TO DIVERSITY THROUGH CHILD-TEACHER DIALOGUE

Introduction‘Reaching the hard to reach: inclusive responses to diversity through child-teacher dialogue’, a three-year project (2017-2020) funded by the European Union, involved primary schools and universities in five countries: Austria, Denmark, England, Portugal and Spain.

The focus of the project was on what is one of the biggest challenges facing teachers across Europe, that of including all children in lessons, particularly those who might be seen as ‘hard to reach’. These might be, for example, migrants, refugees or students with disabilities, as well as others who might be overlooked. The project involved the use of collaborative action research. This required teachers and students to participate actively as research partners alongside colleagues from universities, with the aim of improving classroom practices.

With support from their university partners, five primary schools became ‘hubs’: that is, centres for developing and disseminating the work of the project. During the first year they trialled a new way of working and helped in refining the processes involved within their own schools. Then, during the second year, they each led the training of trios of teachers from five more primary schools to develop a local network. In the final year of the project, all 30 schools expanded the approach in their schools.

The guidance manualThe notes provided here offer advice and guidance to teachers on how group interviews and questionnaires can be used to monitor the impact that the Inclusive Inquiry process has on students’ engagement. In this way, schools will be able to determine the extent of the impact of such approaches on children - both those taking part in the lessons and the student researchers.

3

Part 1: Group interviewsGroup interviews after each lesson with students that participated: Group interviews with children that take part in the research lessons should be conducted, either by teachers who observed the lessons, or by the student researchers. The following questions should be asked of groups of no more than four selected students from each class (teachers can nominate these), including some children that are seen as ‘hard to reach’, at the end of each of the three research lessons.

• What did you think about the idea of your teachers getting your views in order to design their lessons?

• Was there anything different in these lessons? Please give specific examples.

• In which ways did you participate in these lessons?

• Would you like to have your views listened to more often about learning and teaching? If so, why?

Additional questions may be asked depending on the specific lessons that will be taught.

Group interviews with student researchers:The Inclusive Inquiry approach is particularly concerned with the engagement of the student researchers. They should be interviewed at the end of the process in the three classes. The following questions should be asked:

• How did you feel when you were chosen to be a researcher?

• What do you think you have learnt through being a researcher?

• What was good about being a researcher?• Were there any difficulties? • Do you think your role as a researcher was

important? If so, why?

Additional questions can be asked depending on the conversations that will emerge with each group of student researchers.

4 5

Part 2: Questionnaires

The goal of the children’s questionnaire in the Appendix is to determine the level of their engagement. The questionnaire was developed based on theoretical and empirical work of Appleton (2006) and Ulvseth (2020) and is focusing on children’s’ engagement in learning activities, feelings of autonomy and belonging as well as experience of participation opportunities.

InstructionsThe questionnaire should be given to students who took part in the research lessons, after the lessons, to determine the impact that the approach had on them. The instructions are as follows:

• You remember that we had a lesson that the student researchers helped to design. We want to find out how you feel about that lesson.

• On this form you can give your ideas. You need not write your name on the form. This means that nobody will know what you decide.

• At the top of the form you need to say a few things about you. Please write your answers now.

• There are then 15 statements about the lesson. There are also faces at the top that will help you to decide what you think. For each statement put a tick in the box that is what you think.

• Please ask me if this is not clear.

In order to analyse the data, it is important to note that it is particularly important for children to respond to all items and to tick only one response per item.

Note: In various situations (e.g. young children, second language learners), the teachers will certainly be required to support the children (or an individual child). It is highly recommended that the teacher reads the individual questions loud for the children. The teacher will for every question read “In this lesson…”, then read the specific statement, and then give time for the children to tick off in the questionnaire and at the same time ask questions.

While the children fill out the questionnaire, it is a good idea to make sure they cannot copy from each other as we are interested in individual student’s opinion on the specific lesson.

AnalysisTo each response option a value is assigned. These values must be added up. This sum value must then be divided by 15 which is the number of the items. This will provide the mean of the items and the level of the childrens’ engagement.

If one or more items of a certain scale have not been answered, the sum should only be divided by the number of items that were actually answered. For example, if only 11 items were answered, divide the summed value of the items by 11.

The following values are used for the different responses (illustrated in figure 1):

• If ‘NO’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 1

• If ‘no’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 2

• If ‘yes’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 3

• If ‘YES’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 4

Figure 1: illustration of response values

It should be noted that three items (number 3, 8 and 14), is formulated negatively. For these three items, the following values must be assigned (illustrated in figure 2) before they can be added up with the other values of the scale:

• If ‘NO’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 4

• If ‘no’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 3

• If ‘yes’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 2

• If ‘YES’ is selected, then you need to calculate the value 1

Figure 2: illustration of response values for negatively formulated items

Interpretation The mean values allow you to draw conclusions about the childrens’ level of engagement. The total average value can be between 1 and 4.A value between 3.0 – 4.0 means that the child is strongly engaged in the teaching. Values between 2.0 and 2.9 are considered mediocre. Values below 1.9 means the child has a low level of engagement.ReferencesAppleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445.Ulvseth, H. (2020). Engaging teaching – from a student perspective. Copenhagen: Aarhus University, Danish School of Education.

REACHING THE ‘HARD TO REACH’:INCLUSIVE RESPONSES TO DIVERSITY THROUGH CHILD-TEACHER DIALOGUE

6 7Children’s questionnaire

I am ___________________________________ years old

I am:

a boy: a girl:

THANK YOU!

Notes

Children’s questionnaire

I am _______ years old. 1.

I am:

a boy: a girl:

In this lesson:

NO No yes YES

I participated in class activities.

The other children liked what I said

I felt uncomfortable about being in class

I was interested in learning

I worked as hard as I could

The teacher liked what I said

After finishing my work, I checked it over to see if it was correct I had a hard time understanding everything the teacher explained My classmates listened to me

I had a say about what we were doing

I understood the things I learned

I exchanged opinions with my classmates

My teacher listened to me

I just pretended I was working

I felt safe among my classmates

THANK YOU!

8 REACHING THE ‘HARD TO REACH’:INCLUSIVE RESPONSES TO DIVERSITY THROUGH CHILD-TEACHER DIALOGUE

Notes

With the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union www.reachingthehardtoreach.eu