Crossing the Great Divide: The Motivation and Engagement Framework in Action [R] Geoff Munns1, Andrew J. Martin2,3, and Rhonda G. Craven2 1 School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Australia, 2SELF Research Centre, Australia, 3University of Sydney, Australia The psychology and the sociology of education often seem to face each other across a vast theoretical chasm. This paper introduces a motivation and engagement framework that works across this “great divide”. Called the MeE Framework (Munns & Martin, 2005), it offers a way of understanding the complexity of relationships that students have with school and education. The framework is based on a theoretical view that there are both sociological and psychological dimensions of students’ relationships with schools and education. It highlights the connections between appropriate pedagogies, discourses, and meaningful connections (by way of sociological foundations) to individual students’ cognitive and behavioural lives (by way of psychological foundations). Through the interconnection of these sociological and psychological foundations, it is hypothesised that students come to feel that their school has something to offer them at a cognitive, emotional, and participatory level. The paper illustrates how this framework has been used as an evaluative and planning mechanism in a primary and a secondary school. Both these schools undertook significant changes in order to improve the social and academic outcomes of their students.
Working Across the Divide: Reconciling the Psychological and the Sociological Position The Motivation and Engagement (MeE) Framework (Munns & Martin, 2005) was developed in response to paradigmatic dilemmas identified by Furlong (1991). Furlong had pointed to tensions between the sociology of education and the psychology of education, suggesting that these tensions needed to be resolved if educators were to understand better the relationships school pupils (particularly those who are disaffected) had with education, schools, and classrooms. The tensions highlighted by Furlong revolved around what he perceived to be weaknesses in both the sociological and psychological position. He argued that psychologists hardly ever get to the dimensions of social power affecting students’ responses. On the other hand, he had a view that sociologists invariably suffer from a denial that there are important psychological questions to pose and answer in any social exploration of the relationship between students and education, “particularly at an emotional level” (Furlong, 1991, p. 295). These respective weaknesses were previously highlighted in a discussion (Munns, 2004) that attempted to draw distinctions between a psychological view of student motivation (individual processes), and sociological perspectives on student engagement (social processes and relationships involving reciprocity and mutual exchange). The Motivation and Engagement (MeE) Framework The MeE Framework takes up the challenge called for by Furlong: namely a reconstruction of theoretical perspectives that would involve a reconciliation of psychological and sociological perspectives of students’ responses to their schooling. This framework situates motivation and engagement in a harmonised tension, and in so doing addresses Furlong’s dilemma (discussed above) by utilising the combined strengths of the psychological and sociological approaches. The strength of the psychological focus is in the understanding of the factors that impact on individual student responses and energies. A sociological strength is found within an examination of the connections between classroom processes and discourses and the wider dimensions of social power. The conceptualisation of the MeE has been previously described in detail (Munns & Martin, 2005) (also see figure 1). What follows is a brief summary of that process. The framework has three interconnected perspectives: M (motivation), e (small ‘e’ engagement or ‘e’ngagement), E (big ‘E’ engagement or ‘E’ngagement). The M (Motivation) Perspective The M perspective has an individual psychological focus and is informed by Martin’s Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2001, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2005). This construct delineates motivating thoughts (selfefficacy, mastery-orientation, and value of schooling) and engaging adaptations (persistence, planning, study management) from impeding thoughts (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control) and maladaptive behaviours (self-handicapping and disengagement). The M perspective provides an important way of understanding the complex individual ways that students construct their classroom relationships in positive and negative ways. The e ('e'ngagement) Perspective The e perspective has a sociological perspective and is informed by research into student engagement undertaken by the Fair Go Project (Munns, Lawson, O’Brien, & Johnson, 2006). This research defines
‘e’ngagement as multifaceted: the simultaneous coming together of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural at high levels. The research argument is that this level of student engagement is influenced by classroom messages, and makes connections between classroom practices and discourses with wider societal structures. It happens this way. While students are processing and taking up positions within the powerful school and classroom message systems (curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment) they are also negotiating with their teachers “discourses of power”: knowledge, ability, control, place, and voice. Issues such as o what counts as knowledge and who has access to really useful knowledge? o who has ability? o who controls the teaching space? o who is valued as an individual and a learner? o whose voice is given credence within the teaching space? All of these issues influence the way teachers teach and how students see themselves as learners. This perspective on student engagement builds on and complements the individual focus of the M perspective. It pays particular attention to the nature of classroom pedagogies and the interplay of classroom discourses. These pedagogies and discourses are the vehicles that carry either engaging or disengaging messages. Critically, this perspective opens up opportunities for educators to consider how students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds have historically received disengaging school and classroom messages. From this position alternative pedagogies and discourses might be developed in order to produce messages that powerfully engage learners from all social and cultural backgrounds. The E ('E'ngagement) Perspective This perspective points to a wider relationship with school and education. ‘E’ngagement is a sense among students that “school is for me” (need to state authors, in press). This means that students have a sense that school is a place that works for them and education is a resource that they can successfully deploy in the present and the future. This E perspective comes about as a result of the joint effect of the individual and group strategies undertaken within the psychological (M) and sociological (e) frames. How the MeE Framework Works The framework has the potential to perform a dual role: both a guide to planning for student engagement and an evaluative device. It suggests that a multifaceted approach across each of its areas is most likely to encourage motivated and engaged students. Its focus is on the positive aspects of school and classroom life, but by reduction it can point to areas that are working negatively on the students. In both the Motivation and ‘e’ngagement spheres it pays attention to the positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that combine when students are displaying powerful and constructive relationships with school and education. The argument is that it is this combination that will work strongly towards enduring ‘E’ngagement. It is important to understand that while it is useful to consider issues in different spheres of the frame, in the end it is the interdependence of all the elements that is the pivotal idea. The Individual Perspective of the MeE Framework (Motivation) Within the area of motivation, attention is directed to the ways individuals are supported and encouraged at school. This may happen at a classroom level through relationships with the teacher, peers, curriculum, and pedagogy. Alternatively, it might be facilitated through special programs and individual guidance. The key points of the motivation sphere are o individual support to develop a belief and confidence in one’s own ability to succeed at school, overcome challenges, and perform at their best; o individual encouragement to focus on learning, solving problems, and developing skills; o individuals are helped to see that school is useful, important, and relevant; o individual help for students to overcome anxiety, take risks (not avoid failure). and have more control over their learning; and o practices that help students manage or minimise maladaptive behavioural dimensions such as selfhandicapping and avoidance. Positive actions from this sphere come about in two ways. First, individuals need to enact these motivating cognitions and this brings the behavioural sphere into play. There is strong connection here with the ‘e’ngagement perspective discussed below. That is, it is difficult to sustain motivation when the messages received from the classroom are disengaging (see below). Second individuals need to make positive adaptations with appropriate strategies and directions and be continually encouraged within this process. The Relational Perspective of the MeE Framework (‘e’ngagement)
The relational perspective of the framework is primarily concerned with the connections between classroom processes and discourses and the wider dimensions of social power. It concerns the relationships occurring within the teaching and learning context and relates to the primary means by which students personally connect to the pedagogy in the classroom context. Together with individual support strategies, it is another key means by which the psychological perspective is translated into the big ‘E’ ‘Engagement’ construct. This process relies on a classroom pedagogy that promotes effort and persistence and fosters key self-regulatory processes such as planning, monitoring, and study management. The relational perspective is very interested in both sides of the teacher-student relationship. It has a pedagogical focus on the nature of classroom learning experiences and interactions: classroom experiences purposely designed for all students to work towards active participation, genuine valuing, and reflective involvement in deep understanding. Hence, the sociological perspective is concerned with classroom experiences and relationships designed to send engaging messages for all students across all discourses of power: knowledge – reflectively constructed access to contextualised and powerful knowledge; ability – students are made to feel able to achieve and are encouraged to have high expectations and aspirations; o control – classroom time and space is shared, there is mutuality and shared power; o place – students are valued as individuals and learners with feelings of belonging and ownership over their learning; and o voice – there is an environment of discussion and reflection about learning with students and teachers playing reciprocal meaningful roles. Positive actions within this sphere are in the realisation of these classroom messages. Realisation carries two meanings here. The first is clarity of understanding. The second is “creating” and “making real”. It captures the idea that messages need to be realised at a conscious and practical level. For example, students should not only feel they are being successful but success should be opened up to them through the totality of classroom processes. o o
The Final Perspective of the MeE Framework: ‘E’ngagement The third perspective of the MeE Framework is big ‘E’ engagement or ‘E’ngagement. As mentioned above, this comes about as a result of the joint effect of the individual and group strategies undertaken within the psychological (M) and sociological (e) frames. That is, the proposed interrelationship of the three perspectives suggests that for students to feel that “school is for me”, they have to feel supported as an individual learner and as a member of a cohesive and culturally inclusive learning group. It also may be influenced by schools working widely on policies and practices that complement these individual and group strategies. So it is useful to think of ‘E’ngagement as both a positive social outcome, as well as a whole school focus that encourages students to feel valued, supported, and catered for across involvement, emotional, and cognitive levels. Strategies at this perspective include a positive school ethos, curricula choices that support a wide range of learning needs, a variety of extra-curricular activities catering for many different interests, peer support through mentoring, the use of rolemodels, and the design of productive post-school options. What this means is that first of all students see that their school will look after them and provide them with a wide range of educationally worthwhile and enjoyable experiences across both curricular and extra-curricular areas. Importantly also, students will believe that they will be supported if they need help when they have learning or behavioural problems. Students are not left to “fall through the cracks”. Second, it means that students see that their school as a place will help them gain the educational resources that will be important for their future lives. The MeE Framework in Action: Case Studies of Two Schools The next section of the paper shows how the MeE Framework has been used as an evaluative device. It was first employed in research conducted for the Australian Government’s Department of Education, Science, and Training by a team of researchers from the University of Western Sydney into the motivation and engagement of boys (Munns, Arthur, Downes, Gregson, Power, Sawyer, Singh, Thistleton-Martin, & Steele [in press]). The case studies are taken from this research. The first is of a primary school and has a focus on Indigenous students. The second highlights the work of a secondary school with students living in poverty. Case Study 1: Sunfield Primary School Sunfield Primary School is located in an urban area of a geographically remote Australian town. It has an enrolment of 243 students, with 162 (66%) of these students from Indigenous backgrounds. Of these Indigenous students there is a high ratio of males (104) to females (58). The school is located in a low to medium SES area. Sunfield students not only come from this local area but also are brought in by school and local bus services from other parts of the town. A substantial number (40%) of the Indigenous students come from remote communities or
live in fringe-dwelling “town camps”. Most of the remote community students and some from the camps speak an Indigenous language and are classified as English as a Second Language speakers. All of the Indigenous students, but especially those living in the camps are in communities that are dealing with social problems associated with a number of other low SES Indigenous communities throughout Australia (damaging personal relationships, domestic violence, alcoholism, petrol sniffing). Sunfield is committed to working with the most disadvantaged Indigenous students, and has active outreach programs to encourage these kinds of students to become successfully engaged with school and education (see below). The Issues Sunfield’s issues are typical of a school serving a sizeable number of Indigenous students (low attendance rates, disengaged students in classrooms, low academic outcomes, playground tensions). The large number of males among this group perhaps heightens these issues. However, these issues need to be viewed within the school’s historical context. The current school Principal arrived in 1997 and found what he termed a “harsh and controlling environment” and believed this was an approach that needed to be altered. It was then a much larger school with its 180 Indigenous students “lost” in a predominantly white school. However, the opening of a school in a nearby more advantaged suburb in the late 1990s changed Sunfield’s composition. The Indigenous student population stayed about the same but the non-Indigenous numbers steadily dropped to the point that it became much easier to identify Sunfield as an Indigenous school. So at the same time as the Principal and the teachers were redefining their ethos from tight school and classroom control (including the use of corporal punishment), towards a more encouraging and inclusive environment, there was an emerging student imperative among the now majority Indigenous students. Previously lost in the school, their social and academic difficulties were becoming more apparent. In the classroom these students were over-identified as behaviour “problems”, and were not achieving the same results in literacy and numeracy as their non-Indigenous peers. In the playground, they were often involved in violence and bullying. Changes were needed across the whole-school environment. As the Principal puts it, “We had to turn our school around to suit our kids … settling the place down and then seeing how we were going to work with these kids.” How is the School Addressing Its Issues? Sunfield School has a multi-layered approach to “working with these kids”. There is a strong social justice orientation, with major decisions being made for its most educationally disadvantaged Indigenous students. The multi-layered approach works across all three perspectives of the MeE Framework. 'E'ngagement At a whole school level there is an ethos of inclusion and social and academic support for all students. While the specific Indigenous programs are central, there is a strong sense that regardless of cultural background or individual need, “no-one is ever left to fall through the cracks” (parent). o Sunfield School has a number of Indigenous staff members who work in concert to support and encourage the Indigenous students. Their presence and work also has an importance for the nonIndigenous students in relation to their understanding and appreciation of Indigenous culture and issues. o There is an Aboriginal and Islander Education Worker (AIEW) who offers individual support to students and liaises with the community. While this role is not unique in schools with large Indigenous student populations, it is important to acknowledge that this is a critical position that needs to be sensitively handled for productive school-community relations. The AIEW works from a demountable building a short distance away from the main buildings of the school. It is painted outside and decorated inside in a way that makes it clearly identifiable as an Indigenous place. While there may an argument that the building’s physical situation in the school might afford it and its programs an “annexe” status, the school’s Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff recognize that many parents would feel more comfortable in a less formal and culturally sympathetic half-way space. This is especially important when a school is working with people who have not historically had productive relationships with schools, teachers, and education. o As well as the AIEW the school has three Indigenous teachers and an Aboriginal Regional Officer. All of these staff members provide important role models for the Indigenous students and their families. Sunfield also regularly brings in other male Indigenous role models to speak to the children. These include men working in the local community and the wider town as well as community-based Elders and storytellers. o There is an Arunta Indigenous language program available to all students taught by grandmothers from the community. Arunta is one of the local Indigenous languages spoken by people in the town and the program has an emphasis on cultural understandings. o The school places a central importance on the annual celebration of National Aboriginal and Islander Day of Celebration (NAIDOC).
o
Sunfield School implements a number of other programs aimed at providing a varied, contextually relevant and interesting curriculum for all their students. Physical Education and sport hold a pre-eminent place in the school’s life. Students take part in daily fitness sessions and are encouraged to join sporting teams both at school and on the weekends. Sport is especially seen to be important physically and culturally for the Indigenous boys. The Assistant Principal believes that “it plays a role in holding the school together”. The AIEW agrees, noting that “sport plays an important role at school and in the community … it’s a sporting kind of town.” The school also places importance on values education, identifying that students need to cooperate and get along with each other. An anti-bullying curriculum reinforces this across both classroom and playground (see also below).
'e'ngagement Underneath this ethos and support, there is a Transition (Kindergarten) to Year 6 literacy syllabus that is the hub of the school’s curriculum work. This program, the Accelerated Literacy Program (ALP) simultaneously addresses social and academic issues. Although designed specifically for Indigenous students, ALP is implemented for all students in all classrooms for a significant part of each school day. This whole-school literacy program is the pivotal component of Sunfield’s work. While the whole-school initiatives described above arguably provide a supportive climate that shores up its implementation, ALP is widely viewed in the school to be the key plank in addressing social and academic outcomes. So there is a critical dialectic thought to be in play at Sunfield, through which ALP is not only supported by the school ethos but in turn plays a decisive role in the building and maintenance of that ethos. This illustrates the strong relationship between 'e'ngagement and 'E'ngagement. ALP is a systematic and intensive approach to literacy that in many ways challenges accepted literacy practices in primary schools while maintaining links to seminal theory (Freebody & Luke, 1990). What is important for this case study is a consideration of the principles of student engagement that it promotes. In essence ALP has all students in each class involved in concentrated reading experiences (90 minutes daily) of the same fictional texts. These texts are “real” literature as opposed to schemed readers. Since the structure of each ALP lesson is explicit and predictable (for example, whole class unison reading and text deconstruction), it is claimed that all children are catered for and that all children can participate in the lesson. This participation relies heavily on the teacher’s scaffolding through modeling and providing vital information for the learners. Classrooms stay with each text for extended periods (up to 8 weeks) and this helps with children who are not regular attenders as they can “pick up” when they next return to the classroom. The structure also allows individual children to “tune in and out” of each lesson without overt teacher sanction. Indeed the ALP philosophy asks teachers to primarily ignore minor student disengagement and “roll on” with the content of the lesson: the idea being that these students will be drawn eventually back. There is a double benefit here. The teacher maintains a concentration on learning and students are not constantly subjected to minor reprimands. It is part of the day when very few cannot “achieve”. It thus targets the time of the day when research has shown that Indigenous students feel most threatened (Munns, 2005) and aims to lessen student disengagement. It provides a heavily scaffolded environment that gives them an opportunity to experience success in reading, particularly in its wholeclass orientation that means individual students are rarely singled out for their behaviour or their learning. In this way the program simultaneously addresses learning and behavioural issues. Motivation The motivation perspective comprises programs purposely adopted to give individual support for students at the school. This support specifically targets at-risk students both inside and outside the school. o
Two of Sunfield’s Indigenous teachers, staff a special unit for at risk and disengaged students. In 2002 the school recognized that were large numbers of children coming from remote community backgrounds or from the town’s fringe camps who were either having major problems integrating into classrooms or not attending school at all. Not only were these students who did come to school experiencing serious social and academic difficulties themselves, but also they were placing considerable pressure on their teacher and other children in the classroom. Funding was successfully sought to establish the Indigenous Bridging Unit for up to 15 students at a time to be taught by an Indigenous teacher and an Indigenous assistant teacher. The idea was to bring students into this unit (school-funded bus) who were not attending and/or disengaged and facilitate their transition into mainstream schooling. There is a dual social and academic focus in the unit and a current priority on younger students. The students are taught social skills and are helped with school and classroom routines while at the same time they are introduced to more formal aspects of the school’s curriculum, including the whole school ALP. Students’ individual needs are catered for within a friendly, non-threatening, and culturally sensitive classroom environment. In the words of the assistant teacher
[the unit] gets kids used to school rules and stuff that happens at school … and helps to build social skills and self-esteem … making them feel that they belong to the school …”
While in the unit they have experiences with other classes to build their confidence (for example, music, physical education, sport, and library). Parents are encouraged to attend school assemblies and to drop into the unit and this helps build relationships that will support the transition processes. The importance of this is noted by the Indigenous teacher “We learn off them … they learn off us … it’s sort of like we are learning off each other.” There is a very scaffolded transition of students into mainstream classes. Their prospective teacher visits the unit at first to get to know the students and then begins to take them into their classrooms for limited periods. Continuous communication takes place during and after the transition period between the unit’s teachers and the classroom teachers. There are special graduation certificates when the Indigenous students finally move into their mainstream classes. In line with Sunfield’s commitment to working with the most at risk Indigenous students it has established in cooperation with government and local health, youth and family services, and a learning centre in one of the town camps. This camp was suffering high levels of substance misuse (including petrol sniffing) among adults and youth and there were high levels of community and family violence. The primary school in the learning centre has a Sunfield teacher and assistant teacher and is helping children and youth to get off petrol sniffing, attend school, and have a chance at gaining an education and so open up future life opportunities. Since operating the community has reported a decrease in violence, petrol sniffing, and involvement in the criminal justice system. While as yet no children have moved from the centre to Sunfield School, that continues to be an aim. Rock and Water is a program recently introduced to Sunfield and is specifically designed for boys. The program was developed in response to the perceived need for boys to respond to the changing roles of girls and boys. It incorporates developing physical strength alongside fostering self-esteem and selfconfidence. A mental element is crucial, though at Sunfield, the physical lessons are taught first, to get the boys motivated about the whole program. The mental and the physical then coincide Kids are learning about their inner-self. Learning to take notice of their early warning signs and what’s important to them and what’s worth fighting for and what’s not (Rock and Water Teacher). o The program comprises a set of lessons covering physical strength, relationships, body language, and mental strength. All boys in Years 5 and 6 take part in the weekly program. There is a modified program taught separately to the girls, and there is consideration of extending the program to incorporate Year 4 boys next year. There are a number of Sunfield teachers trained in the program. There is a specific “Boys’ Business” program designed and implemented by a music educator who visits the school on a regular basis. All boys in Years 5 and 6 at Sunfield participate in these sessions approximately twice a term. These sessions feature singing, movement, and games and are designed to offer positive affective, physiological, and intellectual outcomes for boys. The activities and songs are used to facilitate concepts and skills around communication, interdependence, physicality, trust and creativity, with a particular focus on being male. One feature of the sessions is boys giving and receiving compliments and feedback. o
o
o
o
Summary There is much to be learned from the story of Sunfield School. It embraced its own crossroad period with a determination not to lose sight of the needs of its own students and what they really needed for their educational futures. The school’s achievements point to the efficacy of a multifaceted approach in addressing issues around low academic outcomes and unsatisfactory social outcomes. The MeE Framework captures this approach, highlighting the critical interplay of school ethos (E), individual support strategies (M), and whole-class approaches to literacy learning (e). Importantly the case study provides an insight into how a school can reflect positively on its own circumstances and work towards socially just changes that aim to benefit the neediest students. This results in robust and widespread benefits for the whole-school community. Case Study 2: Boundary High School Boundary High School is located in a public housing estate on the outskirts of a major Australian city. A total of 4000 people live on the estate, the majority in impoverished circumstances. The unemployment rate is 33% (and much higher for youth), 34% of the estate residents are receiving a disability pension, and 40% of families are earning less than $200 a week. A significant number of Indigenous (12%) and Islander (17%) people have homes
in the community. There is a very high proportion (51%) of households headed by single parents, and most of these are females. It is recognized that there are very few positive male role models in any situation within the context (familial, peer, community). This situation is exacerbated by high mobility within the estate, making relationships difficult to sustain. The community is characterized by violence, drug and alcohol problems, and attendant intrusive surveillance by police and security. The school constantly battles the stigma of being a place only for “housos” (a pejorative term for people living in public housing). Despite its firm commitment to improving social and academic outcomes for all its students, it is very much seen as a residual school: somewhere you send your child because you have no other choice. As the Principal notes, “You just can’t get over that social stigma to come across that no-man’s land that encircles the estate.” The school receives systems equity funding allocated to the schools in the state serving the most disadvantaged communities. The Issues Five years ago Boundary School was in survival mode. Welfare programs took precedence over quality teaching and professional development, and this was reflected in a huge imbalance in funding and resources directed to its social rather than its academic work. Ironically, this imbalance seemed to be having little positive effect. School attendances were extremely low (5% below the district average, 7% below the state average). There was also an alarming suspension rate, particularly among boys. For example, 229 students received short suspensions in 1998 and 187 of these were boys. Moreover, 107 of these suspensions were for violence. In the same year 27 boys were given long suspensions. The majority of these suspensions were for violence. Much of this was for violence between boys, though some of it was directed against teachers. The social stigma associated with living in a public housing estate worked on a number of levels. Outside the community (even within local and statewide education authorities) there was the idea that the staff was working really hard but unlikely to make any real differences to the kids or their community. The Principal explains the prevalent view from outside: Boundary is working really hard, they’re doing a good job but that’s Boundary – so the rider had an effect on the staff, it was very much a sense of isolation, a bunker mentality More disturbingly the social stigma appeared to have been internalized by many of the students. A teacher comments on this Every single time we returned to the school after an excursion, kids were screaming out of windows, “We are houso scum, we are houso scum!” It was reflected in an attitude that said, “Why would you care? We’re just houso scum.” It is not surprising that such an attitude would heavily impact on the classrooms. Physically, emotionally, and pedagogically Boundary School was an institution in crisis. Teachers were literally surviving day to day. The general behaviour was pretty hard-core: you’d turn your back and you’d have something thrown at you. [There was] a lot of swearing. Learning outcomes were a very big shock. There was a feeling that at times we were baby-sitting, results were really poor. Teachers suffered demoralizing situations because they thought they were weaker, poorer teachers … There was no dreaming happening (Long-serving teacher). How is the School Addressing Its Issues? There were two critical changes at Boundary High School in the early 2000s that transformed the way it would work towards social and academic outcomes for its “lost” boys. Where previously there was an emphasis on welfare and the desperate suppression of simmering tensions, a new era was beginning to work within a much stronger social justice framework. There was a developing argument that if there could be improvements in the school relationships and outcomes for the most disadvantaged students in the school, all students and staff members would benefit. This brought forward the first change, the implementation in 2000 of a program designed specifically for the most at-risk boys in the school. This program offered individual support and thus fell into the Motivation perspective of the MeE Framework. Initial success of this program provided hope that Boundary School could reverse the slide. In the following year, the second change, the arrival of a new Principal confirmed and strongly consolidated this reversal. Boundary School became proactive rather than reactive. Instead of resigning itself to the inevitability of failing students and failing teachers, it took up the challenge to re-engage its students within an ethos of “pressure and support” (Principal). Pressure meant working at the E perspective and not accepting poor attendance and behaviours that led inexorably to suspension, and entailed shifting some responsibility back to the students. Support involved introducing programs and a changed classroom pedagogy that together would offer a more motivating and engaging school and classroom environment ('e'ngagement perspective). The interplay of pressure and support across the three perspectives of the MeE framework is now highlighted in what have been the critical aspects of its increasing success with all of its students, and particularly its boys. 'E'ngagement
There was an evaluation that there were two aspects of the school’s attendance issue that had to be addressed. The first was the attendance itself, the second was the way the school gathered and monitored its attendance data. A close relationship was seen between these aspects. A swipe card was introduced for all students to register their attendance. In this way roll returns can be completed quickly (ten minutes as opposed to two hours) and accurately, and fractional truancy in the early school periods can be checked much more easily. Coupled with this more efficient tracking of students was the introduction of a 5 weekly cycle of review. The whole-school is monitored to see if there are any individuals or group patterns that need to be followed up. This happens through interview processes involving students, teachers, and community We always talk about the combination of pressure and support – so the interview process has an element that the kids know we’re tracking their attendance, they know we’re involving their parents, they know there’s an element of pressure on them to do the right thing rather then historically just not show up and get away with it. Pressure and support is part of my dialogue with everybody at the school. Certainly the kids understand that, we have that very much as one of our driving philosophies (Principal). At the end of the first year there were marked attendance improvements, especially for boys (see evidence for improvement, below). 'e'ngagement In line with the pressure and support philosophy, Boundary High School recognized that it was not enough to make the students come to school if there was little to hold them when they were there. So there was a major focus on the quality of teaching. In line with constructivist views of pedagogy, learning experiences were developed that had relevance for the learners. Professional learning was rigorously put into practice in the development of a theoretically informed school-based pedagogy. Ongoing qualitative assessment (self, peer, and supervisory????) of teaching practices was continuously undertaken using phases of peer observation and debriefing. The result was a more coherent and supportive curriculum within Key Learning Areas established by XXXand across the whole school. The Principal talks about how this complements the pressure around school attendance: There are two elements. The first one is attendance monitoring and pressure and support for kids to come to school, particularly boys, and then secondly when they do come to school they are being engaged in a more meaningful way. The work is more relevant and significant for them. They’re succeeding. All of this improves teachers’ capacity to engage kids. Motivation Notwithstanding the importance of the interplay of these two perspectives, the school also recognized that when a sizeable number of the school population have far greater social needs, then they have to be addressed as a separate issue. The Boys’ Project was a response to this realization. As mentioned above, the boys’ project was initially a small add-on scheme aimed at supporting the most disengaged and at-risk boys. It began in 2000 with 30 boys (at-risk students together with some “natural” leaders from Years 7, 8, and 9) who were identified by teachers and then invited to participate. The impetus for the development of the program came from a survey of the school staff that focused on the very low social and academic outcomes of the Boundary High School boys. As a teacher who was there at the time comments, “We asked ourselves, ‘what can we do for these lost boys?’” The features of the project as it was originally conceived were: o Completely voluntary; o Students register a project (design and make focus: for example, computers, construction, automotive, performance, creative arts); o The project is self-directed and largely completed outside of timetabled lessons; o Regular rewards through excursions; o School and community celebration as projects are presented in an expo; and o Culmination of project for successful students with an outdoor canyoning expedition and Boys’ Project camp (the outdoor adventure initiative was recommended by the staff as this focus had been previously successfully trialled by a couple of teachers). The aim was the improvement of boys’ self-concept and motivation through achieving success in a supportive educational environment. Results from this original cohort were outstanding. There were only two suspensions that year from a group of boys who previously were repeatedly being suspended. As well, feedback from teachers and community showed an important difference had been made in the lives of these boys: Some of the parents were phenomenally grateful and their reactions were incredible. A lot of the teachers talked about behavioural improvements … Those kids have left Year 12 last year and still talk about that as a major turning point in the school … (Boys’ Project Coordinator).
Encouraged by the success of the first group of students, the school looked to expand the project. The coordinator argues that the success needed to be built on It’s easy to have that one-off success, to target a particular group of kids. But we wanted to create something far more embedded in the school culture and have an ongoing success. The expansion had four thrusts. The first was an incorporation of stronger links to classroom work through the introduction of reflective diaries for the boys to complete throughout their time in the program. The second was in the development of mentoring through teachers and community members. Third, a series of workshops was planned for students on issues identified to be important for boys (for example, goal-setting, role models and selfimage, homophobia, rights and responsibilities). Finally, the project was to be offered to an increasing number of boys. In 2003, there were 70 students involved. In 2004 the project was offered to all mainstream boys in Years 7 to 9 and with external funding was expanded to include the senior boys from Boundary’s four primary feeder schools. This development, which has continued into 2005, has also seen the use of Year 10 students as mentors for boys in the primary schools. In its sixth year of operation the Boys’ Project has established itself as an important initiative, recognized within the school and the local and wider educational community. A long-standing teacher discusses its impact across the whole school: They [teachers] are seeing that boys are now calmer, they have a stronger sense of self-identity and are more confident. We’ve actually seen some boys change … take a different pathway. They’ve realized they have choice. That has been a great celebration. The boys talk about Boys’ Project as being a really strong influence. The Principal expands on its achievements: It is now no longer seen as the program that the bad kids do … It has taken on a much higher profile in the school and community and consequently more and more boys have wanted to become involved and particularly in the mentoring side of things. The most significant work is on selfesteem and the fact they see themselves as being able to demonstrate skills and capabilities in a very positive way. It is now viewed as a more positive process in that it actually creates a higher level of esteem, even for kids who are not necessarily exhibiting behaviour problems, it reinforces a whole lot of positive elements to their character, and gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their leadership potential. In many schools facing Boundary’s issues this would perhaps seem evidence enough that something noteworthy had been achieved. Summary This case study provides a striking example of a school refusing to accept that little difference can be made in the lives of students living in a public housing estate. Not being content with the seeming inevitability of “houso” kids rejecting and being rejected by school, Boundary High School looked to changes within its own programs, pedagogy, and organization. In this way it did not try to let itself “off the hook” by taking on a deficit view of its students and blaming them and their community for their circumstances. The main feature of this story is the way the school has responded to a large group of under-achieving and aggressive ‘lost boys’. While the Boys’ Project is a powerful example of a motivation (M) strategy, aimed at encouraging individual disengaged boys to improve their attitudes to school work and their relationships with the school, it is also interesting to see how this intervention works with an ethos of pressure and support (E), and critical changes to the quality of classroom pedagogy (e). Conclusion These two case studies have highlighted different ways to approach the challenging task of improving the relationships that students have with education, schools, and classrooms. There is a dynamic to this complex relationship that straddles individual, relational, and holistic perspectives, and this dynamic is picked up by the joint psychological and sociological focus of the MeE framework. The framework provides important opportunities not only for exploring the different strategic positions that schools have taken up to improve students’ motivation and engagement, but also for evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies. If the framework can help educators with these critical processes, there seems much to be gained from straddling the “great divide”. About the Authors Dr Geoff Munns is a Senior Lecturer in pedagogy and curriculum in the University of Western Sydney’s School of Education and Early Childhood Studies. He has more than 25 years teaching experience in primary schools (including executive roles as Assistant Principal and Principal). His research interests focus on improved educational outcomes for
students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds (including Indigenous students). In particular he is interested in how these students can become engaged in their classrooms and subsequently develop a long-term commitment to education. Dr Munns has experience in qualitative, ethnographic methodologies. Andrew Martin is Associate Professor and International Research Fellow at the Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia. His Areas of interest are motivation, academic achievement, pedagogy, and research methods. Professor Rhonda Craven is the Acting Director of the Self-Concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre—ranked as the 7th most productive educational psychology research centre in the world, and a Professor in the School of Education in the College of Arts, University of Western Sydney (UWS). She is a highly accomplished researcher with demonstrated expertise in utilising the strongest statistical analyses, having successfully secured over 2.7 million dollars in prestigious, external, nationally competitive funding for 25 largescale research projects. She is the recipient of the Meritorious Service to Public Education Award, Betty Watts Award (Australian Association for Research in Education), the inaugural recipient of the national Aboriginal Studies Association Life Achievement Award, and the Vice Chancellor's Award for Excellence on Postgraduate Research Supervision and Training. Contact Details Dr Geoff Munns Senior Lecturer in Education University of Western Sydney School of Education and Early Childhood Studies Locked Bag 1797 Penrith South DC NSW 1797 Ph: +612 9772 6449 Fax: +612 9772 6432 Email:
[email protected]
References Freebody, P. and Luke, A. (1990). 'Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context', Prospect 5(7): 7–16. Furlong, V. (1991). Disaffected Pupils: reconstructing the sociological perspective. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12, 3, p. 293-307. Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20. Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88-106. Martin, A. J. (2003a). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam. Martin, A. J. (2003b). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88-106. Martin, A.J. (2005). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. Submitted for publication. Munns, G. (2004). You Say Motivation, I Say Engagement: Can We Work This Whole Thing Out? Paper presented at SELF Research Centre Biannual Conference, Berlin, July. Munns, G. (2005). School as a Cubbyhouse: Tensions Between Intent and Practice in Classroom Curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 25, 1, p. 1-12. Munns, G. & Martin, A. (2005). It’s All About MeE: A Motivation and Engagement Framework, paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Sydney, December.
Munns, G., Lawson, J., O’Brien, M. & Johnson, K. (in press). Student Engagement and the Fair Go Project, in Fair Go Team, School Is For Me: Pathways to Student Engagement. Sydney: Priority Schools Funding Program, NSW Department of Education and Training. Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., Singh, M., Thistleton-Martin, J. & Steele, F. (forthcoming). Motivation and Engagement of Boys Evidence-based Teaching Practices. Report submitted to the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.
Figure 1 – The MeE Framework of Motivation and Engagement ‘E’ngagement “School is for me” o o
School is a place that “works” for me Education is a resource that I can successfully employ now and in the future
Motivation ‘e’ngagement
Students are helped to have adaptive thoughts o o o
Self-efficacy Mastery orientation Valuing school Students are encouraged to show adaptive behaviours
o o o o o o
Active participation Reflection on learning Quantity and quality of effort Persistence Planning and monitoring Study management
Students effectively manage/minimise impeding thoughts and affect: o Anxiety o Fear of failure Uncertain or low control Students effectively manage/minimise maladaptive
Students are involved in classroom pedagogical relationships, learning experiences, and discourses that emphasise o o o
Active participation (high behaviour), Genuine valuing (high emotion), Reflective involvement in deep understanding and expertise (high cognition), These relationships are the vehicles that carry
o o
Realisation of engaging classroom messages – knowledge, ability, control, place, and voice Personalisation and adaptation to messages : strategy, support, direction, and connection.
