Researching and Developing Engaging Pedagogies 2018 2H Action research – guidance notes 1 Capstone unit Researching and Developing Engaging Pedagogies is the capstone unit for the Master of Teaching (Primary). The core aim is to enhance and measure students’ readiness for the teaching profession. · The unit develops students’ skills and expertise in researching their own practice, and facilitates their ‘researcherly’ disposition. (become a teacher-researcher) · The unit supports students’ in refining their pedagogy throughsuch reflective practice. (progress as a teacher) · The unit challenges students to inquire into, reflect upon and subsequently develop classroom pedagogies and assessment practices that facilitate substantive engagement in learning. (become an engaging teacher) The unit extends students’ students’ research skills by drawing on participatory action research (e.g. through the use of peer planning, focus groups and peer assessment). We focus on pedagogies that encourage learners of all social and cultural backgrounds to have engaging and productive relationships with education, schools and classrooms. We review theories which apply to the study of engaging practices in diverse professional contexts. In particular, we look at research into student engagement undertaken in the UWS Fair Go Project. Key readings have been selected to give students theoretical and practical understandings of what engaging teaching looks like, especially for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We link the discussion on engagement to contemporary approaches to pedagogical innovation, which foreground motivation, creativity, technology integration and dialogic space in classrooms. Students are encouraged to implement and evaluate these teaching approaches in their professional experiences. 2 Researching engagement Educational research on student engagement centres on understanding and developing engaging practices. Our focus is on innovative pedagogies that facilitate deep learning through substantive engagement. In this sense, we encourage you to shift your focus from behaviour management (controlling behaviour) to the management of learning (enabling and facilitating quality learning experiences). Concerns about the behaviour of students are valid concerns. We however encourage a pedagogic response to problem behaviour which recognises the links between the quality of the teaching and student behaviour. So engaging pedagogies do not simply ‘fix’ behaviour by exerting control (e.g. a reward systems or external incentive). Instead, we ask you to look deeply into your teaching and see where it is lacking in engagement. It is imperative that you become familiar with the content of our core text (available online through the UWS library): Munns, G., Sawyer, W. & Cole, B. (Eds) (2013) Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Another key resource for engagement (also available online) is: Fair Go Project. (20.

1. Researching and Developing Engaging Pedagogies
2018 2H
Action research – guidance notes
1 Capstone unit
Researching and Developing Engaging Pedagogies is the
capstone unit for the Master of Teaching (Primary). The core
aim is to enhance and measure students’ readiness for the
teaching profession.
· The unit develops students’ skills and expertise in researching
their own practice, and facilitates their ‘researcherly’
disposition. (become a teacher-researcher)
· The unit supports students’ in refining their pedagogy
throughsuch reflective practice. (progress as a teacher)
· The unit challenges students to inquire into, reflect upon and
subsequently develop classroom pedagogies and assessment
practices that facilitate substantive engagement in learning.
(become an engaging teacher)
The unit extends students’ students’ research skills by drawing
on participatory action research (e.g. through the use of peer
planning, focus groups and peer assessment).
We focus on pedagogies that encourage learners of all social
and cultural backgrounds to have engaging and productive
relationships with education, schools and classrooms. We
review theories which apply to the study of engaging practices
in diverse professional contexts. In particular, we look at
research into student engagement undertaken in the UWS Fair
Go Project. Key readings have been selected to give students
theoretical and practical understandings of what engaging

2. teaching looks like, especially for students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. We link the discussion on engagement to
contemporary approaches to pedagogical innovation, which
foreground motivation, creativity, technology integration and
dialogic space in classrooms. Students are encouraged to
implement and evaluate these teaching approaches in their
professional experiences.
2 Researching engagement
Educational research on student engagement centres on
understanding and developing engaging practices. Our focus is
on innovative pedagogies that facilitate deep learning through
substantive engagement. In this sense, we encourage you to
shift your focus from behaviour management (controlling
behaviour) to the management of learning (enabling and
facilitating quality learning experiences). Concerns about the
behaviour of students are valid concerns. We however
encourage a pedagogic response to problem behaviour which
recognises the links between the quality of the teaching and
student behaviour. So engaging pedagogies do not simply ‘fix’
behaviour by exerting control (e.g. a reward systems or external
incentive). Instead, we ask you to look deeply into your
teaching and see where it is lacking in engagement.
It is imperative that you become familiar with the content of our
core text (available online through the UWS library):
Munns, G., Sawyer, W. & Cole, B. (Eds) (2013) Exemplary
teachers of students in poverty. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Another key resource for engagement (also available online) is:
Fair Go Project. (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student
engagement. Sydney, Australia: Priority Schools Funding
Program, NSW Department of Education and Training.

3. The questions we will be addressing include:
Engagement
· What is ‘learning through substantive engagement’?
· What does it mean to teach engagingly? What does it mean to
be engaged in learning? What is the relationship between the
two?
· What is the relationship between engagement and creativity?
Evaluation of classroom practices
· Are classrooms facilitative of engaged learning and teaching?
If yes, how? If not, what are the reasons?
Agents of change
· How can we change classroom practices to make them more
engaging?
· How can we plan, deliver and reflect on engaging teaching and
learning practices?
Teaching and learning in ‘new times’
· How can we support ‘learning through substantive
engagement’ in diverse classrooms? (think about cultural
diversity, gender, a wide range of competencies,
modalities/contexts for learning, interests, personal histories
etc.)
· What does engaging teaching (or engaged learning) involve in
the new technological era?
In lectures we develop a deeper understanding of relevant
learning theories, motivation theory, creativity research, cross-
cultural research on education, and general educational research
that is aimed at reforming practice. Note however that the list of
relevant content is endless – everything that you have learnt so
far or are learning right now may be relevant. As a student of

4. this unit, you are in charge of your learning. You need to make
your own links and connections between known and new,
between research/theory and practice, or between different
topics covered in the unit. You will also need to take the
initiative to apply the knowledge you have gained to your own
professional practice and philosophy.
Given the nature of the unit, RDEP does not have a linear
narrative. The unit structure is cyclical, involving numerous
rounds of exploration, knowledge building and reflection. The
overarching theme is ’learning through substantive
engagement’. So, as you go through the content, try to organise
your own developing knowledge and understanding around the
same central focus, shaping your own unique pedagogical
understanding of engagement.
Some of you may find that the content becomes more
meaningful in practice – and this is fine. We are trying to offer
you practical illustrations in both the tutorials and the lectures,
but the best way is to test ideas and make sense of them in your
own practice.
3 Researching your own practice
RDEP is a research-focused capstone unit, reflecting the
changes in the AQF specification for the Masters Degree, which
is now a Level 9 degree.
We draw on the key concepts and principles of participatory
action research. Action research is an umbrella term for the
critical study of one’s own professional practice with an aim to
improve this practice. It refers to “a practical way of looking at
your own work to check that it is as you would like it to be”
(McNiff, 2002, p. 6).

5. Most often action research builds on a cyclical process with the
following steps: i) identify problem areas ii) plan and
implement positive changes and iii) generate critical reflections
on the outcomes (which most often lead to the next action
learning cycle). Here is a useful summary of the fundamental
nature of action research (or action learning):
“The idea of self reflection is central. In traditional forms of
research – empirical research – researchers do research on other
people. In action research, researchers do research on
themselves. Empirical researchers enquire into other people’s
lives. Action researchers enquire into their own. Action
research is an enquiry conducted by the self into the self. You, a
practitioner, think about your own life and work, and this
involves you asking yourself why you do the things that you do,
and why you are the way that you are. When you produce your
research report, it shows how you have carried out a systematic
investigation into your own behaviour, and the reasons for that
behaviour. The report shows the process you have gone through
in order to achieve a better understanding of yourself, so that
you can continue developing yourself and your work.” (McNiff,
2002, p. 6)
There are various approaches to action research. In this unit, we
follow the action learning approach developed and outlined by
Jean McNiff. Your core reading on action learning (available
online) is:
McNiff, J. (2016). You and your action research project. Milton
Park, Abingdon, England: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
Another key resource for engagement (also available online) is:
McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional
development. Concise advice for new action researchers.
Available from: http://jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp

6. The tutorials are set up to support students in the different
phases of the action learning process. Therefore, it is imperative
that you attend your assigned tutorial group and engage in the
tutorial-related activities. The assignments are designed to
invite, facilitate and evaluate your engagement in self-reflective
practice through the planning, implementation and critical
evaluation of an action research cycle.
4 Ethics
In your action research you will need to follow the core ethical
principles and guidelines that apply to all research in social
sciences. Macklin (1992) describes two ethical principles to
guide the conduct of human research. The principle of
beneficence entails that the researcher is obliged to maximise
possible benefits and minimise possible harms, whereas the
respect-for-persons principle requires the treatment of
participants as autonomous agents, thus allowing them to make
informed choices with regard to their involvement.
Ethical and legal questions, however, become more complex
when the research involves young children, or any highly
vulnerable social group. Also, when it comes to school based
action research, the issue of ethics is even more complex, as
shown below.
Reflective practice and action learning
Action research involves doing something differently in your
teaching, and reflecting on the value of the changes. As a
teacher, you do not need to ask your students to consent to the
changes in your teaching. (Though you may want to know what
they think!) You do not need students’ consent to participate in
ongoing classroom activities either. As a teacher, you are free
to vary your strategies, to experiment with new ones and
evaluate your evolving pedagogy. For a self-reflective

7. practitioner, this is the essence of their daily practice. As a
self-reflective teacher, you will also draw on your observations
of your class, and ask students’ views on the quality of
classroom experiences. Such triangulation is part of ongoing,
daily self-reflective practice. However, for the purposes of
reporting your action learning in the RDEP Research project,
you will need to follow the ethical guidelines. Thus, you will
need informed consent for any student data presented in your
Action Research Project Report as illustration.
Collection and use of action research data for an
assignment/report
Your action research for RDEP involves the collection and use
of student data for professional self-reflection. We ask you to
use four types of student data to evaluate your teaching, which
include potentially 'sensitive' material such as children's work,
opinions, or brief records of their conversations with you. You
will discuss your project with your focus group members, and it
will eventually be marked by university staff. When presenting
any of the student data in your Action Research Project Report
(and in the Learning Portfolio), you will need to:
· ensure anonymity by removing any information from the data
that might identify staff or students;
· comply with the ethical guidelines in educational research and
gain informed consent for the use of such data in your Action
Research Project Report.
Consent when the research involves children
Because children are a vulnerable social group, the issue of
consent is even more crucial. However, in contrast to adults –
who are presumed capable of making informed choices on their
own behalf – children usually cannot give legal consent.
Therefore, research involving children often involves 'layered
contracts' (asking for both the parents' permission and the
child's assent) or simply turns to the parent/guardian for
permission. Schools may also have blanket coverage for the use
of student data for classroom-based evaluation. So there are a

8. number of appropriate alternatives, depending on the context.
Therefore, we ask you to follow your practicum school’s policy
in the process of obtaining informed consent for your action
research.
Informed consent for RDEP
You will need to start the ethics procedure during your first two
practicum weeks. First of all, ask your mentoring teacher’s
advice. Your school may be more relaxed about student data
used for action research, and may allow you do carry out your
project with the written permission of your principal and
mentor. Alternatively, your school’s policy may restrict your
collection/use of particular kinds of student data, or may direct
you to seek the guardian's permission to collect such data.
Hence you have a selection of forms YOU will choose from
based on YOUR school's policy.
This is our suggested route, involving all relevant parties:
1) Obtain the informed consent of your mentoring teacher.
They will sign your project off at the end of your practicum too,
so obtaining their consent is central to your research.
Do not start the action research without their written
consent.
· They receive the information sheet (with a brief description of
your own focus attached) and the consent form. They keep the
information sheet, and return the signed consent form to you.
2) Obtain the principal’s informed, written consent. It is your
principal who offered you the placement at their school, so this
should not be a problem.
· Principal receives the information sheet – with a brief
description of your own focus attached – and the consent form.
They keep the information sheet, and return the signed consent
form to you.
Obtaining the principal’s consent may take time. You can start

9. your action research whilst you are waiting for their response,
provided that you have your mentor teacher’s consent.
3) If so advised by your Principal, obtain the guardians’
informed consent. According to the university policies, all
parents need to be provided with information and consent forms.
However, this needs to be negotiated and aligned with the
School policy (as described above).
Do not worry if the return rate is not high.
· You can implement your changed teaching strategies anyway –
you do not need the guardian’s permission for this.
· You can build on all student data in your own self-reflection –
you do not need the guardian’s permission for this.
· In your report, simply illustrate your self-reflective evaluation
with those students’ data whose parents gave you written
consent. Data from 4-5 students will suffice in your report.
You will need to scan the signed copies of the relevant forms
and include these in the appendix section of your report (Linked
to Criterion 2 of the marking grid for 2B).
6 Tutorials and lectures supporting you in your action
research
Lectures: choosing your research focus
Face-to-face and online lectures mainly centre on academic
content that may be useful in the development of your own
research focus. Students are expected to start with the
‘engagement’ literature (‘exemplary teachers – pedagogic
excellence’ readings) and expand their reading into some of the
other content areas (e.g. on motivation or creativity etc.). Thus,
the criteria for the second assignment (2B, Research Findings
and Conclusions Report) include considerations of the core
engagement literature (‘Demonstrates knowledge of theory and

10. practice surrounding student engagement’) as well as
understanding of the wider academic literature (‘knowledge of
trends in pedagogical innovation – e.g. motivation, creativity,
dialogic pedagogies, technology integration, culturally
responsive pedagogies’).
Tutorials: the action research cycle
In order to help students to implement this knowledge in
practice, and familiarize students with participatory action
research, the tutorials will mainly focus on methodology.
Consequently, the readings for tutorials will be methodology-
centred.
7 Focus groups
Systematic self-reflection through participatory action research
draws on dialogue and collaboration with critical friends. For
the purposes of this unit, we encourage you to create and
maintain a circle of critical friends, which we will refer to as
focus groups (4-5 members from your tutorial group). Focus
groups function as self-organised platforms for the development
and sharing of ideas. They also provide opportunities for
professional, constructive feedback and social support. Both
assignments require students to document and critically reflect
on these collaborative learning processes.
We invite you to organize yourselves into focus groups in the
first tutorial. These are self-managed groups: it is the group
members’ responsibility to arrange face-to-face meetings or
virtual dialogue, and monitor constructive and regular
participation. Nevertheless, we offer a couple of technological
suggestions to facilitate virtual dialogue:
8.1 Google Docs
Google Docs is a free, web-based application linked to Google

11. Drive. It allows you to create and edit documents online whilst
you are collaborating with other users in real time. Documents
can be shared and edited and/or commented on by multiple
users.
For excellent support, check out youtube for free webinars on
Google Docs basics, for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBh8bMC7XEU
8.2 Zoom
Zoom is a cloud video-conferencing software, which enables
you to connect virtually (up to 25 people can connect and use it
for free).
You can do video-conferencing, chatting without video, file
sharing etc. Go to zoom.us. Sign up for free and create a
profile.
Watch the following introductory webinar for detailed
information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2W8KLi6R6o
There are also video tutorials and other technical support on the
site itself.
These are only suggestions. The way focus groups are managed
will depend on the group members’ needs and preferences.
1

12. Criterion 1 – Description of MeE, applied to own professional
practice
MeE framework entails both the psychological as well as
sociological elements of learners’ motivation and engagement.
Building on the research from the psychology of education and
the sociology of education of the N.S. W Fair Go Project
(FGP), the MeE framework aims at overcoming the inherent
shortfalls of failing to account for dimensions of social power
and the own complexities as it regards students’ motivation and
engagement (N. S W., 2006).
Further, Munns et al. (2013) conceptualize that MeE framework
operates as a heuristic for providing teachers with analytical
tools for schools and classrooms focused towards developing
productive interventions for enabling students to develop robust
and healthy relationships with what they learn (Munns &
Woodward, 2006). MeE framework is founded on the principle
of substantive engagement of learners through valuable learning
activities. The approach further suggests a multifaceted
approach to students’ engagement as pivotal to creating
equitable learning outcomes (Price, 2008).
As conceptualized by Munns & Woodward (2006), classroom
interactions, pedagogy, and individual guidance enhance
engagement by promoting learners’ confidence and self-belief
in their abilities to achieve something in school. Substantive
engagement should prompt students to focus on learning and
equip them with problem-solving and critical thinking skills
(Patton, 2012).
Within the ‘e’ngagement sphere, great focus is on the classroom
processes and discourses and the social power dimensions
(Munns & Woodward, 2006). Relationships within the teaching
and learning contexts should be purposely designed to foster
active participation of students. ‘e’ngagement provides
reflective, substantive, and contextualized knowledge to enable
students to perform excellently and remain optimistic
throughout their learning (McNiff, 2017). In a classroom,
students are the centers of learning and thus have feelings of

13. self-belonging and ownership of their learning. The
‘E’ngagement aspect integrates both the motivation and
‘e’ngagement spheres (Munns & Woodward, 2006).
‘E’ngagement emphasize on positive school ethos, diversified
curricular and extracurricular activities in a classroom.
The research action plan will entail inquiry-based teaching
pedagogy. The plan helps in developing learners critical
thinking processes and remains inquisitive of their
surroundings. As described by Bishop et al. (2012), the
approach prioritizes learners’ questions, thoughts, and learning
strategies thereby transcending the realms of general curiosity.
Criterion 2: Personal Philosophy, including own approach to
student engagement
As an educator, I believe learning is a collaborative process
encompassing the cohesiveness of teaching and learning
processes. Collaborative learning emphasizes the principle of
positive interdependence based on a built-in incentive for
accountability (Kilcommins, McCarthy, & Ryan ). Individual
responsibility leads to promotive interaction, development of
social skills, and eventually group processing. Mercer & Dawes
(2014) conceptualize that students create meaning in discourse
in a collaborative environment where they can synthesize
information and relate it to a framework of prior knowledge.
Further, Kohn (1999) suggest that educators should jointly
involve students in classroom tasks to foster interactive
dynamics and engagement. Collaborative learning mainly
entails promotion of exchange and involvement of each learner
to yield shared cognition (Vass, 2017).
I affirm collaborative learning as it transcends the typical
teacher-focused education to perceive the learner as the center
(Vass, 2017). I believe in educators being expert designers of
intellectual experiences rather than knowledge transmitters for
students. According to Munns et al. (2013), collaborative
learning occurs effectively when students actively exchange
ideas to solve a problem. As conceptualized by Munns et al.
(2013), achievement of learning goals is greatly influenced by

14. the levels of learners’ engagement. Equally, Csikszentmihalyi
(1975) describes the collaborative model of learning as integral
to creating an enjoyable classroom.
In affirmation, (Rogoff et al. (2013) argue that intent
participation gained from collaborative learning offers learners
firsthand learning thereby enhancing learning accountability.
Following the principle of substantive engagement described in
the MeE framework, collaborative learning philosophy promotes
engagement by granting students opportunities to actively
interact with their environment in solving problems (Munns et
al., 2013). Particularly, understanding interactive dynamics
coupled with collaboration methods can help me as an educator
to achieve credible performance in the classroom.
References
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). A theoretical model for
enjoyment. In Beyond boredom and anxiety (pp. 35-54).San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K.,
Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active
learning increases student performance in science, engineering,
and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015).
Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the
fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1),
ar5.
Kilcommins, M. McCarthy, & A. Ryan (Eds.).Integrative
learning international research and practice. London:Routledge.

15. Kohn, A. (1999). Appendix B: What to look for in a classroom.
In The schools our children deserve. Moving beyond traditional
classrooms and "tougher standards". Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin
Munns, G., Sawyer, W., & Cole, B. (Eds.). (2013). Exemplary
teachers of students in poverty. Retrieved from
http://lib.myilibrary.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/Open.aspx?id=423
270
McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research: All You Need to Know.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage..
Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between
teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford
Review of Education. 40:4, 430-445.
Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and
student self-assessment: The REAL Framework.Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 193-213.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940600703969
New South Wales Department of Education and Training,
University of Western Sydney, & Priority SchoolsPrograms
(N.S.W.). (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student
engagement. The Fair GoProject. Retrieved from
https://education.nsw.gov.au/futures
learning/media/School_is_for_me_Pathways_to_student_engage
ment-1.pdf
Patton, A. (2012). Work that matters: The teacher’s guide to
project based learning.
Price, D. (2008). Learning futures: Engaging students. London,
United Kingdom: Innovation Unit.
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., Peter M. & Clapham,
S. (2012). Professional development, changes in teacher
practice and improvements in Indigenous students’ educational
performance: A case study from New Zealand. Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 28 (2012) 694-705.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chavez, M., &
Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent
participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 175-203.

16. Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig zag: The surprising path to greater
creativity. Somerset, NJ: Wiley. (especially Introduction:
Choosing creativity.)
Vass, E. (2017) Building dialogic spaces through inclusive
conversations. In Attard, C. et al. Engaging Schooling. Taylor
& Francis.