Boys acting differently: choice, engagement and learning

Teachers may change their pedagogical approach in order to engage male students in the upper years of primary school, such as the use of group work, outdoor or hands-on strategies and negotiated curriculum. Such action is based on an assumption that disengaging students have the capacity to respond positively – to move from a pattern of resistance to a new ‘negotiated’ role of engagement. This paper presents case study research from two Grade 5/6 classes in regional Australia. Teachers used pedagogy that allowed students to make choices about what and how they learn. Teachers and students were observed and interviewed. Students also used an online recording space where they could make reflective journal entries, post work samples and comment on their perceived behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement. The paper reports how students characterised making choices about their learning against the background of past patterns of educational disengagement; choices the students made; and the impact of these choices on the norms of school life.

[1]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[2]  Nancy L. Waldron,et al.  Willing to play the game: How at‐risk students persist in school , 2006 .

[3]  Ellen Mcintyre,et al.  Johnny won’t read, and Susie won’t either: Reading instruction and student resistance , 2006 .

[4]  Mustafa Emirbayer,et al.  What Is Agency?1 , 1998, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  K. Riley,et al.  Re-engaging disaffected pupils in learning: insights for policy and practice® , 2006 .

[6]  Jonathan H. Turner.  The Theory of Structuration , 1986, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  John Smyth,et al.  ‘When students have power’: student engagement, student voice, and the possibilities for school reform around ‘dropping out’ of school , 2006 .

[8]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[9]  L. Taylor,et al.  Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory , 1989 .

[10]  I. Greener.  Agency, social theory and social policy , 2002 .

[11]  C. Skinner,et al.  Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond , 2005 .

[12]  J. Smyth,et al.  Tackling School Leaving at its Source: A case of reform in the middle years of schooling , 2003 .

[13]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[14]  E. Carnell.  Understanding and enriching young people's learning: issues, complexities and challenges® , 2005 .

[15]  David Held,et al.  Social theory of modern societies : Anthony Giddens and his critics , 1989 .

[16]  Sue Dockett,et al.  Australian association for research in education , 1989 .

[17]  J. Thompson,et al.  Social theory of modern societies: The theory of structuration , 1989 .

[18]  Mustafa Emirbayer.  What Is Agency ? ' , 2008 .

[19]  Chris Campbell,et al.  Using an Online Journaling Tool to Collect Rich Self Reflection Data with Elementary School Children , 2007 .

[20]  L. Cohen,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 1980 .

[21]  G. Riordan.  Reducing student ‘suspension rates’ and engaging students in learning: principal and teacher approaches that work , 2006 .

[22]  Luc G. Pelletier,et al.  Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support , 2006 .

[23]  A. King.  The Accidental Derogation of the Lay Actor , 2000 .

[24]  A. Giddens,et al.  Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity , 1998 .

[25]  G. Munns,et al.  First Chance, Second Chance or Last Chance? Resistance and response to education , 2000 .