Assignment 2: Literature Review and Data Protocol:

Group Topic:
Importance of Classroom Engagement for Academic Achievement

Sub-Topic:
The Enactment of Student-Centred Learning for Classroom Engagement.

Part A: Literature Review:

A continuous debate throughout research is shown by the discussion of which style of
learning is more engaging for students; student-centred learning or teacher-centred learning.
Tangney (2013) demonstrates that through student-centred learning, the student is an active
participant rather than an active listener. Hargreaves (2003, as cited in Onurkan Aliusta &
Ozer, 2017) elaborates on this by saying students need to have the ability and skills to think
for themselves, work in collaboration, and monitor their own learning. Whereas, through
teacher-centred learning, the content is the main focus, not the learning process (Smit, de
Brabander & Martin, 2014). Smit et al. (2014 p.697) further state that the student’s role is
“mainly passive; knowledge is transferred from teachers to students; teachers mainly provide
whole-class instruction and control of the learning process”. Onurkan Aliusta and Ozer (2014)
demonstrate that student-centred learning allows students to be the centre of instruction,
considering their own needs, abilities and interest in the teaching and learning process.
Therefore, the call to switch to the student-centred learning style will allow students to
facilitate their own learning, which in turn can enhance student engagement. The purpose of
this critical review is to examine research on student-centred learning, determining what is
needed to be able to shift towards a student-centred learning environment and evidently,
create an engaging environment. This is signified by the main themes that arise through
current research such as the barriers: teacher roles, learning environments, and resources;
with also the students’ voice within student-centred learning environments.
Barriers in Student-Centred Learning
Current research examines the fact that numerous barriers arise when implementing
student-centred learning environments. Onurkan and Aliusta (2014) evaluated in their
research that teachers and students need to be completely ready for student-centred
learning to be able to entirely implement this environment. Three main barriers that occur
for student-centred learning throughout research are the shift in the teacher’s role, the
learning environment established, and the resources available for student-centred learning.

Teacher’s Role:
Implementing a student-centred learning approach demonstrates a role shift for the
teachers involved. Schaal and Bogner (2005, as cited in Sturm & Bogner, 2008) state that the
teacher shifts their role from being the instructor of the learning to the supporter of the
learning. Onurkan Aliusta and Ozer (2014) support this claim by stating that teachers consider
themselves as the main source of information, acting as an authority figure, making all the
decisions. McCabe and O’Connor (2014, pp. 352-353) through their study, Student FG5 states
that they “… enjoyed the responsibility of what happens… learning new skills with their
peers… taking an active role in what they were going to study”. Allowing the students to take
control, motivating the students, creating a safe, participative environment to allow deep
learning is needed through the role of the teacher (Attard et al. 2010; Gilis et al. 2008; Elen et
al. 2007; as cited in McCabe & O’Connor, 2014). Furthermore, the teacher’s role is to have
the necessary training to be able to provide an induction session at the beginning of student-
centred learning to allow for maximised participation from all students (McCabe & O’Connor,
2014; Onurkan Aliusta & Ozer, 2014). Therefore, an evident shift in the role of the teacher
through training and becoming a motivator and supporter of learning instead of the instructor
is needed to implement student-centred learning.

Learning Environment:
The second barrier that can arise in the hindering of student-centred learning is the
learning environment. Guest (2005) discusses that the learning environment is everything
from curriculum choices, to the teaching materials, and the nature, timing and weighting of
assessments. Onurkan Aliusta and Ozer (2017) support this claim by stating that the effects
of large classroom sizes, the need to prepare for examinations and the overload of syllabus
content diminishes the use of student-centred learning. Thus, the teacher’s role shifts back
to the original mindset that outcomes need to be specifically met. Furthermore, the means
of scaffolding will allow for an environment that fully immerses students in student-centred
learning. Calder (2015) illustrates the fact that the enhancement of student-centred learning
is through the structured and built schools with access to resource hubs, ease of access to
internet, and flexible learning spaces. Hence, scaffolding an environment that caters for the
specifics of student-centred learning is essential to its success.

Resources:
The final main barrier that can hinder the use of student-centred learning is the
availability of resources or materials in the school setting. As Calder (2015) evaluated before,
it is noted that student-centred environments thrive with the access of resource hubs and
ease of access to the internet. Technology seems to be the main issue when implementing
student-centred learning. Educational resources, such as computer labs and books, are still
insufficient and ineffective for the use of student-centred learning (Onurkan Aliusta and Ozer
, 2014). Burner, Madsen and Ismail (2017) demonstrate the idea in their conclusions that
textbooks need to be adaptive in their tasks to allow for student-centred learning to occur in
the classroom. Examples of such tasks are the encouragement of discussions and/or risk-
taking activities throughout the textbook (Burner et al. 2017). However, Mayer, Lingle and
Usselman (2017) examine the fact in their data, when the school is entirely equipped with
technology, it allows for students to have social cohesion in group work demonstrating a
positive impact. With this note, it is clear that the equipment and accessibility of need
resources allow for student-centred learning to thrive.

The Student’s Voice in a Student-Centred Learning Environment

Bolstad and Gilbert (2008, as cited by McEvoy, 2014) state that providing a student
with the voice that allows them to choose what, how, and why they want to learn can create
a passion and enthusiasm for learning. Students, to allow for a student-centred environment,
must have the ability to be motivated and self-directed learners (Lee, 2000, as cited by Sturm
& Bogner, 2008). Allowing for this student motivation is through the learning environment as
stated before. Providing this environment allows for social cohesion and social relatedness
through group work (Mayer et al. 2017; Sturm & Bogner, 2008). Students learn to work
cooperatively to enable negotiation skills and be able to socially construct knowledge
(Vygotsky, 1978; Simons et al. 2000, as cited by Smit et al., 2014). By providing a student-
centred learning environment that evokes students’ ownership, Calder (2015), states that this
signifies a purpose of learning for the students.

Conclusion
The examination of current literature, signifies main themes that need to be enacted
to allow for student-centred learning. Most importantly the issues that arise were the change
in teachers roles, enabling learning environments, resources available, and the student’s own
voice. This overarching view demonstrates the reason for the limited use of student-centred
learning environments amongst teachers. A significant area to note is the minimal
opportunities for teachers to gain professional development to learn about student-centred
learning to be able to implement this into their classrooms. Furthermore, the fact that
teachers feel the need to be the instructors of learning, instead of allowing students to be
their own instructors of learning, hinders the process. However, through research, the
understanding and implementation of student-centred learning has the ability to improve
classroom engagement. Smit et al. (2014) support this through their research by stating that
students that are in the student-centred learning environment perceive more autonomy and
demonstrate more effort towards learning.
Part B: Data Collection Protocol

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled Importance of Classroom Engagement for Academic Achievement for the
class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am
collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

Our topic has identified a few main areas of focus for classroom engagement and academic achievement.
One of the areas will be assessing the means of how enacting student-centred learning can benefit
classroom engagement. This will be done through the analysis of answers towards questions based on
the lesson/s using student-centred learning environments. In order to do this, we are asking for consent
from students to participate in a survey about student-centred learning and how it assisted in classroom
engagement.

By participating in this survey, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to answer questions on a survey that will be analysed to determine the benefit of
enacting student-centred learning for classroom engagement.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.
Signed: _______________________________ Name: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________
By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.
Signed: _______________________________ Name: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________
Data Collection Protocol: Survey

Classroom Engagement without/with Student-Centred Learning:

Students: Pre-Survey:

This survey will be conducted prior to implementing a student-centred learning environment

Survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScri2gUm2j-
jPdV8e444jQkyBw4nYVXc70i28tt__jR0ByP4A/viewform

Students: Post-Survey:

This survey will be conducted after the implementation of a student-centred learning

environment

Survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe5xNJDmigcIOxfHqxZjbWqYDISm4dN6hc8D5x
VOMl8B6uHYA/viewform
Part C: Data Collection Protocol Explanation
The data collection protocol assumes that teachers are implementing another sort of
learning environment for students to engage in before implementing a student-centred
environment. The aim of this research is not to add additional work to the teacher but rather,
allow the teacher to interchange between student-centred learning and other styles of
learning. The overall objective of this study is to understand if student-centred learning
enhances or hinders classroom engagement in schools. The intention of a survey is to be able
to assess the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of students’ engagement in student-centred
learning compared to other styles of learning (Efron & Ravid, 2014). Therefore, an aim to
understand the students’ own perceived understanding of engagement will be analysed
through these surveys.

The surveys developed for the data collection protocol were formed through the guidelines
of the National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). Through this framework, the initial use
of the survey is made for a college setting. Therefore, the survey is adapted to allow for
responses in any available school setting. In addition to this survey, a generalised observation
of students’ engagement can be obtained to support the data from the survey. However, the
survey will be the main focus of the data collection and means of analysing this research
project.

The survey is modest with only 15 questions; it is easy to distribute and collect data.
Distributed on the internet through Google Forms will allow for easy collection and analysis
of responses. Questions that were developed in the survey were a mix of Likert scale styled
questions, linear-scaled questions and one open-ended question focusing on the style as
created by the National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). There are two surveys for the
data collection as an understanding of improvement in terms of engagement is needed to be
understood. Students will enter the pre-survey to see how their engagement is with any
learning environment provided by the teacher previously. Therefore, after the
implementation of a student-centred learning environment, the students complete the post-
survey to analyse the differences in engagement. In terms of data collected, a means of only
collecting from 10 student participants that were involved are needed for a suffice amount of
data for this type of research.

Prior to the collection of data, students and teachers involved will be given consent forms to
ensure ethical principles are being followed. No student or teachers’ names or personal
information will be collected during the surveying process to ensure privacy is respected. In
addition, consent forms will be issued and collected from participants that are willing to
engage in the research project. Therefore, information will only be collected from these
participants in the survey. Anyone else in the classroom that did not consent will not be
surveyed in the process.
Reference List:

Burner, T., Madsen, J., Zako, N., & Ismail, A. (2016). Three secondary school teachers
implementing student-centred learning in Iraqi Kurdistan. Educational Action
Research, 25(3), 402-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1162186

Calder, N. (2015). Student wonderings: scaffolding student understanding within student-

centred inquiry learning. ZDM, 47(7), 1121-1131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-
0734-z

Efron, S.E. & Ravid, R. (2013). Action Research: A practical guide. Guildford Press e-book
retrieved from:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UWSAU/reader.action?docID=1137441.

Guest, R. (2005). Will Flexible Learning Raise Student Achievement?. Education Economics,
13(3), 287-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09645290500073761

Mayer, G., & Lingle, J., & Usselman, M. (2017). Experiences of Advanced High School
Students in Synchronous Online Recitations. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (2),
15–26.

McCabe, A., & O'Connor, U. (2013). Student-centred learning: the role and responsibility of
the lecturer. Teaching In Higher Education, 19(4), 350-359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860111

McEvoy, S. (2014). Engagement through Passion: Incorporation Student-Centred

Contextualized Learning into our Planning and Pedagogy. New Zealand Physical
Educator, 47(2), 13.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). National Benchmarks of Effective
Educational Practice. National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from
http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/NSSE%202000%20National%20Report.pdf

Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Özer, B. (2014). The Barriers that Hinder the Use of Student-Centred
Learning in Schools in North Cyprus. Educational Sciences And Practice, 13(25), 1-21.

Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Özer, B. (2016). Student-centred learning (SCL): roles changed?.
Teachers And Teaching, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1205014

Smit, K., de Brabander, C., & Martens, R. (2013). Student-centred and teacher-centred
learning environment in pre-vocational secondary education: Psychological needs, and
motivation. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 58(6), 695-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821090

Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. (2008). Student‐oriented versus Teacher‐centred: The effect of
learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and
motivation. International Journal Of Science Education, 30(7), 941-959.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701313995

Tangney, S. (2013). Student-centred learning: a humanist perspective. Teaching In Higher

Education, 19(3), 266-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860099
 Appendix A:

Researching Articles and Main Themes:

Article Main Points

1 Will Flexible Learning Raise Student
Achievement? - Deciding their own learning
- Delivery of S-CL
Citation: Guest, R. (2005). Will Flexible Learning - Web-based: technology
Raise Student Achievement?. Education - Interaction of student and teacher
Economics, 13(3), 287-297. - High School
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09645290500073761

2 Three secondary school teachers implementing

student-centred learning in Iraqi Kurdistan - Student-oriented learning
- Teacher – learner interaction
Citation: Burner, T., Madsen, J., Zako, N., & Ismail, - Learner – learner interaction
A. (2016). Three secondary school teachers - Peer Collaboration
implementing student-centred learning in Iraqi - Biological maturity
Kurdistan. Educational Action Research, 25(3), 402- - Social-constructivist perspective
419. - Own learning processes
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1162186
- Risk taking
- Teacher knowing their students
- High School

3 Student-oriented versus teacher-centred: the

effect of learning at workstations about birds - Student as the focus
and bird flight on cognitive achievement and - Group collaboration
motivation - Cooperative learning environment
- Cognitive benefits
Citation: Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. (2008). Student‐ - Motivated and self-directed learners
oriented versus Teacher‐centred: The effect of - Teachers role
learning at workstations about birds and bird flight
on cognitive achievement and
motivation. International Journal Of Science
Education, 30(7), 941-959.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701313995

4 Engagement through Passion: Incorporating

Student-Centred Contextualized Learning into - Student voice
our Planning and Pedagogy - Socio-cultural factors

Citation: McEvoy, S. (2014). Engagement through

Passion: Incorporation Student-Centred
Contextualized Learning into our Planning and
Pedagogy. New Zealand Physical Educator, 47(2), 13.
5 Experiences of Advanced High School Students
in Synchronous Online Recitations - Technology
- Group work
Citation: Mayer, G., & Lingle, J., & Usselman, - Multiple channels of communication
M. (2017). Experiences of Advanced High caused troubles
School Students in Synchronous Online
Recitations. Educational Technology &
Society, 20 (2), 15–26.

6 Student Wonderings: scaffolding students

understanding within student-centred inquiry
learning
Citation: Calder, N. (2015). Student wonderings:
scaffolding student understanding within student-
centred inquiry learning. ZDM, 47(7), 1121-1131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0734-z
- Scaffolding
- Investigation into student interests
- Collaborative co-constructed
- Fully involved learning process
- Promote student thinking and focus
- Teacher role
- Group work

7 The Student Experience of Learning: A Case

Study of Technology-enhanced Learning - Technology
- Meaning interaction with peers
Citation: Kemp, S., & Polytechnic, T. (2012). The - Effective feedback
Student Experience of Learning: A Case Study of - Metacognitive knowledge and skills
Technology-enhanced Learning. The International - Community of learners
Journal Of Learning, 18(6), 37-49. - Social cognition
- Student satisfaction
- Peer interaction

8 Digital storytelling as student-centred

pedagogy: empowering high school students to - Voice and Identity
frame their futures - Student engagement
- Respectful Relationships
Citation: Staley, B., & Freeman, L. (2017). Digital - Ownership of meaningful curriculum
storytelling as student-centred pedagogy: - Authentic assessment
empowering high school students to frame their
futures. Research And Practice In Technology
Enhanced Learning, 12(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0061-9

9 Student-centred and teacher-centred learning

environment in pre-vocational secondary - Constructivist
education: Psychological needs, and motivation - Social activity
- Students make their own choice
Citation: Smit, K., de Brabander, C., & Martens, R. - Teachers role
(2013). Student-centred and teacher-centred - Relationships
learning environment in pre-vocational secondary
education: Psychological needs, and
motivation. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational
 Research, 58(6), 695-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821090

10 The Barriers that Hinder the Use of Student-

Centred Learning in Schools in North Cyprus - Students are the centre of instructions
- Active agents in their own learning
Citation: Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Özer, B. (2014). The - Technology
Barriers that Hinder the Use of Student-Centred - Previous knowledge
Learning in Schools in North Cyprus. Educational - Power and authority
Sciences And Practice, 13(25), 1-21. - Teachers role

11 Student-Centred Learning (SCL): roles changed?

- Monitor their own learning
Citation: Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Özer, B. (2016). - Collaboration
Student-centred learning (SCL): roles changed?. - Increased awareness
Teachers And Teaching, 1-14. - Teachers role
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1205014

Main Themes that Arise:

- Barriers of SCL:
o Teacher’s Role
o Environment
o Resources
- The Students Voice in Student-Centred Learning