ETEC 500 Research Proposal

Empowering Students to Learn: Promoting Inquiry Through Critical Action

Research in a Self-Directed Learning Environment

Brett Williams
Student # 87701124

Due: Monday, April 15, 2013

Introduction
Proponents of educational reform have, in recent years, proclaimed a desperate
need for educators to re-think the way schools are run and how curriculum is delivered to
students. Many believe that the jobs we are preparing students for in their futures do not
yet exist, thus, attributes such as creativity, independence and critical-mindedness are
essential skills necessary for graduates in the twenty-first century to succeed. Binkley
(2012) argues that traditional schooling models characterized by top-down curriculum
delivery and teacher-centric lesson plans do very little to foster twenty-first century skills.
Thus, a re-imagining of curriculum instruction and how students learn has become an
important issue for policy makers and school districts as they seek to develop strategies to
address this need.
While it is certainly not a new pedagogical concept, self-directed learning (SDL)
has become an increasingly popular approach to teaching and learning in response to a
push towards more individualized learning by educational policy makers. In a selfdirected learning environment, students are encouraged to take a greater deal of
responsibility for making decisions regarding their learning, such as time management,
selection of topics to study, and how to demonstrate what has been learned (Hiemstra,
2011). When based on a model of inquiry, SDL places the student at the center of their
learning, which is accompanied by the notion that in so doing, the student will
demonstrate a greater level of interest and motivation to engage with the topic being
studied.

Problem Statement
The purpose of this proposed research study is, therefore, to investigate the
effectiveness of SDL as a model of instruction and learning compared to more traditional
teacher-centric instruction. The research site chosen for this study is a secondary school
that is informed and organized around the principles of SDL. Students enter their first
year as students in traditional schools would, with structured classes and timetables that
control when, where and what students learn. Over the next four years, these structures
are gradually lifted, giving students an opportunity to organize their own timetables to
prioritize their goals each week. While the premise of the school seems intriguing from a
pedagogical standpoint, I often find myself questioning the degree to which students are
actively engaged with the curriculum in other words, to what degree do students feel
invested in the work they are assigned?
The nature and design of the proposed study falls within the criteria of an action
research project, and is particularly influenced by the tenets of critical action research.
Critical action research is defined by its democratic, equitable, liberating and life
enhancing characteristics (Gay et al., 2012). I believe that the potential that SDL allows
for students to be more active in the choices they make, what topics to study and how to
demonstrate their learning provide an opportunity for educators to encourage students to
make deeper connections with issues or topics that they might encounter on a more
personal level. This allows students to play a more democratic and meaningful role in
their learning, and promotes the notion that a students funds of knowledge, interests and
experiences are worthwhile (Gay et al., 2012). Therefore, the guiding question behind
this research proposal is if students in a self-directed learning environment are given a

greater sense of empowerment and see a greater sense of purpose in their learning
experiences, will they demonstrate greater motivation, creativity and interest compared to
students in a more structured, teacher-centric environment?
It is my feeling that the potential for SDL to empower students to take control of
their learning is not considered or incorporated as much as it could be, even at a school
that is informed by an SDL pedagogical framework. There are a number of potential
factors that might contribute to this, according to Hiemstra (2011), most notably concerns
by teachers on how to organize, manage and assess the various stages of a project or
activity. As a result, many of the learning experiences which students tend to have at the
school remain teacher-driven, an approach that is rooted in the need to deliver a single
curriculum to a wide number of students all at once. As Hiemstra indicates, by providing
instructors and students with clear roles and expectations within the context of
individualized instruction, in addition to (when necessary) providing general project
parameters with specific criteria to guide students towards a final product, students will
be able to make meaningful decisions about the direction of their inquiry that will result
in greater motivation, depth of understanding of the topic and themes, and the
development of creative and critical problem solving skills.

Critical Review of the Literature

Without a clear and meaningful pedagogical framework in which to structure the
curriculum and to guide and support students, the efficacy of SDL in terms of creating
rich learning experiences is placed into question. Costa & Kallick (2004) define selfdirected learning as the ability for one to be self-managing, self-monitoring, and self-

modifying. In other words, self-directed learners are able to recognize their strengths
and interests, and to monitor, regulate, and adapt their approaches to learning as needed.
However, as Bolhuis & Voeten (2001) illustrate, these key features of a self-directed
learner are often lacking in students, and therefore need to be taught. They stress the
importance of process-oriented teaching and the need for teachers to spend time teaching
students how to learn. During the course of their research, Bolhuis & Voeten found that
this type of teaching was not consistent in the teachers they observed, even ones who had
established learning environments that were more self-directed.
Costa & Kallick (2004) suggest that one method to teach students how to learn is
to have students maintain a regular record of their progress. Creating a checklist that
identifies certain behaviours such as being on-task, good communication and goal
setting - can help students identify different stages in the process and their performance
on those outcomes. This, in turn, helps students to become more reflective learners.
Studies by Binkley (2012), de Kock, Sleegers & Voeten (2004) and McDonald &
McLaughlin (2010) argue that different methods of assessment are required to assist
students with recognizing their own approaches to learning and to broaden their
understanding of conceptual themes. De Kock et al. observed that teachers supportive of
SDL still place an emphasis on the need for students to demonstrate specific outcomes
related to skill sets. In addition, the most common methods of assessment still reflect the
transmission model of teaching, where teachers are viewed as possessing the necessary
funds of knowledge that are to be passed down to their students. Alternatively, by having
students maintain a portfolio of their work, as de Kock et al. suggest, teachers can create
an opportunity to integrate assessments into what McDonald & McLaughlin (2010) refer

to as a continuous learning cycle. According to McDonald & McLaughlin, assessment

should not be the end result of a specific learning task, but rather an integral part of it that
requires students to reflect upon various stages of the process.
Equally important to the notion of students becoming more critically engaged in
the process of learning is their investment in the types of learning activities they are
involved in. As SDL offers students the opportunity to be more active in their learning
process, teachers should be encouraged to relate the curriculum more directly to the needs
and interests of the student. Expanding on the fundamentals of critical pedagogy as
outlined by Paulo Friere (2000), Ledwith (2001) argues that teachers either perpetuate the
status quo, or provide opportunities for students to question. If the purpose of SDL is to
give students more autonomy in terms of how and what they learn, teachers who
perpetuate the status quo offer students limited incentive to invest themselves in what
they are learning. Ledwith argues that problematizing or problem-posing offers
educators an opportunity to inspire and motivate students by allowing them to question
and critique existing funds of knowledge and to place a greater sense of agency in their
roles as learners.
Freire (2000) argues that a traditional educational environment and method of
curriculum delivery lacks meaning and relevance to many students, most notably those
from a marginalized background. In this context, Freire views the role of the teacher as
one that fills the student with knowledge the student is expected to accept as authoritative
and true. Ultimately, the narrative formed by this knowledge is a product of values placed
on it by policy-makers, school boards, teachers, etc. who are, according to Freire,
propping up the status quo established by the majority. In other words, students are asked

to accept a reality that may or may not fit in with their own experiences and funds of
knowledge. Freires discussion on problem posing education is an attempt to address
this disparity by proposing a model that urges students to question and be critical of
knowledge as a means of constructing understanding on their own terms, and wherein an
emphasis is placed on the process rather than the outcome.
Barry et al. (1999) charge that the kind of social action put forward by Freire and
his supporters is in itself an imposed agenda. Most young people, they argue, tend to be
more concerned with their immediate situations than about larger issues perceived as
being beyond their scope and control. By imposing social action upon students, educators
may be ignoring other practical concerns and emotional support that students require and
in some cases come to expect. The fact that forms of social action require a greater
degree of self-directedness may prove too demanding for young people, who have more
than likely been the subjects of direct instruction for most, if not all, of their schooling
and lack the necessary skills to be successful. Aubrey (2004) argues that this outlook is
rather limiting, as it suggests that students possess inadequacies that prevent them from
meeting new challenges. Aubrey criticizes this view by stating that it is more a sign of
insecurity on the part of professionals who fear an imbalance of power and authority
between teacher and student than it is about the capabilities of young people in general.
Ultimately, Fleming et al. (1998) emphasize that asking why is an extremely important
phase of a students development and his/her ability to think and act critically. By simply
examining the what and how that are characteristic of a top-down curriculum, students
are restricted from widening their scope of understanding of the world around them.

As a methodology, therefore, I feel that critical action research would be

particularly effective in terms of addressing the need to involve students more directly in
identifying their role in how and what they learn in an SDL environment. As Tripp
(1990) argues, socially critical action research tends to develop new practices, rather
than to modify existing ones. Tripp reinforces here the notion that teachers need to reevaluate their role and the roles of students in the classroom, a principle essential to the
success of both SDL and critical pedagogy. He observes that the action research cycle
places an emphasis on planning, acting, monitoring and analyzing a process which is
continuous and ongoing, and ultimately emancipatory.
As Carpenter & Cooper (2009) observe in their study of Maori children in a South
Auckland suburb, by placing an emphasis on the notion that the social and cultural
contexts of students lives are important, students are willing to take greater risks and to
perceive greater value in what they are doing at school. In addition, Carpenter & Cooper
observed amongst students a greater level of comfort and a decrease in disruptive
behaviour due to the fact that students interests, background and knowledge were valued
by their teachers and peers. Esposito & Evans-Winters (2007) also note that critical
action research can be seen as a crucial component to educational reform, specifically in
urban settings. Focusing their attention on students in a multi-ethnic urban school,
Esposito & Evans-Winters note that historically marginalized students respond to the
curriculum with greater interest when their learning experiences in school correlate with
experiences from their own lives. Despite their focus on minority populations, and the
tendency for critical pedagogy activists to focus on the displaced or marginalized, I

would argue that such a conclusion is applicable to any setting, regardless of the location
and demographics of a school.

Research Method
As a means of investigating the impact of critical action research in an SDL
setting, I have selected two grade 8 classes that will participate in the study. Grade 8
classes were chosen due to the fact that their timetables are strictly regulated and meet
with core academic subject teachers three times a week. The two classes chosen also have
similar demographics in terms of gender and academic ability. Students in the grade 8
program typically receive more structured, teacher-driven instruction, however, as the
year progresses, more exposure to self-directed learning activities is provided in order to
prepare students for the following four years at the school. In order to ensure that students
have had opportunities to experience both forms of learning, the core of the critical action
research plan will take place during the spring as teachers work to prepare their students
for the ninth grade.
Of the two grade 8 classes, one will serve as a control group that receives
structured, teacher-driven directives for each lesson. The control group will be assigned
specific portions of the project to be completed each class two classes for research and
project development, one class for drafting a written report, two classes for completing a
visual component, and one class for completing any remaining work to be done. The
experimental group will have more flexibility in terms of how they manage their time and
what their focus will be during each lesson. The experimental group will be given a blank
timetable to be filled out throughout the duration of the project. At the beginning of each

lesson, students will record the goals they plan to meet by the end of the period (See Fig.
1.1 in Appendix). Subsequently, students will note which goals they met or did not meet
and what they will need to do to prepare for the following class.
The project that will serve as the core of the study will require students to identify
a problem within their school or community that they feel needs to be solved (students in
the control group will be given a list of problems to choose from). Students will then be
required to develop a detailed action plan that describes how they will campaign to
change the problem they have chosen to address. The project will be divided into three
components: (1) a written component that describes the problem, its origins, who or what
it affects, and a detailed plan that outlines the steps of their campaign; (2) a visual
component that represents key themes related to the problem or as a tool to be used as
part of the campaign; and (3) a presentation to other members of the class (see Fig. 1.2 in
the Appendix). An emphasis will be placed on developing an action plan that students
could actually execute themselves. Depending on the success and interest in the project,
members of each class could vote on three action plans they felt had the greatest potential
for having an impact on their school or community and work together to make it happen.
As this is a critical action research study, the teacher will serve as both guide and
researcher. In the case of the control group, the teacher will provide explicit objectives
for each period and assist students where necessary. In the experimental group, the
teacher will serve more as a guide, conferencing with students at various stages of the
process to assist students in meeting their project goals. In both groups, the teacher will
work closely with students to identify logistical concerns that might affect the execution

of their action plan. It will also be important for the teacher to liaise with the schools
administration to ensure that potential student-led action plans adhere to school policy.
A variety of instruments will be used to assess the outcomes of the critical action
research study. These include:

(1) A self-reflection form at the end of the period assessing how much students
accomplished each period and how much time they felt they were on task. The
teacher will also fill out a similar survey to reflect on how each student utilized
their time. The survey form will be composed of a 5-point rating scale, with 5
indicating sustained focus for the entirety of the 60 minute period (see Fig. 1.3 in
Appendix).
(2) A self-reflective response that students will write at the end of the project.
Students will be prompted with a number of questions to consider in their
response (see Fig. 1.4 in Appendix):
-What made you choose the topic you based your project on?
-What excited you about the topic?
-How much effort did you put into completing the project?
-If you had to do something differently on this project, what would you
do?
-How do you think your project made a difference?
(3) The student project (including student timetable).
(4) Interviews between the teacher and each student to discuss their feelings about
the project.

Data will be analyzed by organizing results into three key categories: (1) Time
management; (2) Motivation; (3) Depth of understanding and project completion. Time
management referring to the amount of time the students remains on task and the
degree to which daily goals are reached - will be assessed using data from both teacher
observations and student self-assessments at the end of each 60 minute period.
Additionally, information used from student records from their timetables will also be
used to provide an indication of how much time was spent on task each period and what
strategies students were using to complete different aspects of the project within the time
constraints. Journal responses and teacher-student interviews will provide a sense of what
excited (or did not excite) students when it came to researching and planning their
project. The final student project will be assessed based on a number of criteria that will
determine the depth of understanding of the topic the student demonstrates, the level of
completion, and the students ability to demonstrate creative solutions in addressing the
project guidelines.
As this critical action research will take place in existing classrooms, informed
consent will be needed by students and parents as data collected from individual students
will be used for reporting (see Fig. 1.5 in Appendix). Pseudonyms for students, the
school, and the school district will be used at all times. Administrator approval will also
be required in order to conduct the study, as information about the schools operational
procedures and students will be included in the research report.
There are a number of potential limitations of the study. Student absences due to
illness or other reasons may affect the students ability to complete the project in the
established timeframe. Similarly, existing external factors that impact student

achievement and behaviour in class may persist through the duration of the study, which
could then affect the students ability to successfully meet the project criteria. As the
project requires a greater deal of independence, the maturity of the students is a factor in
terms of their ability to manage time, problem solve and recognize flaws within the
framework of their project. This could become an issue depending on the composition of
the class and the level of support available for students with special needs.
Despite these limitations, the critical action research outlined in this proposal may
provide better insight on how teachers can challenge and motivate their students,
regardless if the school is based on a traditional or SDL model of schooling. As discourse
surrounding personalized learning and the importance of fostering creative and critical
problem solving skills seems to be on the rise, it is worthwhile to consider how a critical
pedagogical framework might assist in making learning experiences more meaningful to
students. By providing students with opportunities to feel a greater sense of
empowerment and to see more relevance in the topics studied in school, we may discover
that students will take greater accountability for their learning.

References
Aubrey, J. (2004). The roots and process of social action. Groupwork. 14 (2), 6-23
Barry, M., Davies, A., Williamson, H. (1999) Debate. An open response to the concerns
of the Centre for Social Action in issue no. 60. Youth and Policy, 62, 67-69
Binkley, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st
century skills. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-23245_2
Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2001). Toward self-directed learning in secondary
schools: what do teachers do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 837-855.
doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00034-8
Carpenter, V. M., & Cooper, C. (2009). Critical action research: the achievement group.
Educational Action Research, 17(4), 601-613. doi: 10.1080/09650790903309458
Costa, A.L. & Kallick, B. (2004). Launching self-directed learners. Educational
Leadership, 62(1), 51.
de Kock, A., & Sleegers, P. (2004). New learning and the classification of learning
environments in secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74(2),
141-170. doi: 10.3102/00346543074002141
Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2007). Contextualizing critical action research:
Lessons from urban educators. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 221-237. doi:
10.1080/09650790701314775
Fleming, J., Harrison, M., Ward, D. (1998) Social action can be an empowering process.
A response to the skepticism of Monica Barry. Youth and Policy, 60. 42-62
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gay, L.R., Mills, G., Airasian, P. (Eds.) (2012). Educational research: competencies for
analysis and applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educaiton,
Inc.
Hiemstra, R. (2011) Self-directed learning: Individualizing instruction most still do it
wrong! International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 8(1), 46-59
Ledwith, M. (2001). Community work as critical pedagogy: Re-envisioning freire and
gramsci. Community Development Journal, 36(3), 171-82.
McDonald, N. & McLaughlin, I. (2010) Fostering Self-Directed Learning in an Honors
Classroom Through Unconventional Methods and assessment. International
Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7 (2), 64-74
Tripp, D. H. (1990). Socially critical action research. Theory into Practice, 29(3), 158166.

Appendix
Fig. 1.1 - Goal Setting Chart
Date

Goals

Goals Achieved

Fig. 1.2 Social Action Project Description and Rubrics

Guiding Question: How can an individual create change?
Background: Throughout this unit, you will explore instances where people have fought
to make changes, either big or small, to make the world a better place.
Summative Task: You will identify a problem you see within their school or
community, or a problem on a more global scale, that you feel needs to be
addressed/fixed. You will design a campaign that will raise awareness of this problem in
an attempt to create change.
Your campaign will consist of:
1) A Written Component You will write a 2-3 report explain how you will conduct
your campaign. You will need to provide an overview of the problem you plan to
address. You will need to explain how the problem was created or why it exists and who
is impacted by this problem. You will also need to explain the steps involved in your
campaign. This may include how will you inform people of the problem and what
solutions to the problem you can suggest.
2) A Visual Component This part of the project will involve creating a visual
representation of your campaign. This could be a poster advertisement promoting the
problem you wish to change. You could create a storyboard of a television advertisement
you plan to film, or a collage of pictures and text that relate to your issue. The choice is
up to you.
3) A Presentation Component You will present your campaign to me. The goal of
your presentation will be to provide an overview of the problem, the steps you plan to
take to address the problem, and how you plan to convince others to join in your cause.
You will also explain the process of creating your visual component and how it relates to
your campaign.
Written Component

Visual Component

Presentation Component

/25

/25

/25

Written Component

Visual Component

-a thorough and insightful explanation

of the problem is provided, including
detailed reasons why this problem
exists and who is affected by it.
-student uses illustrative detail to
explain what steps will be necessary
to address or solve the problem.
-students call to action seems entirely
plausible and could easily be
implemented.
-a detailed explanation of the problem
is provided, including several reasons
why this problem exists and who is
affected by it.
-student clearly defines the steps that
will be necessary to address or solve
the problem.
-students call to action seems
plausible and could be implemented
with some adjustments.
-an adequate explanation of the
problem is provided, with few reasons
why this problem exists and who is
affected by it.
-student uses some detail to explain
the steps necessary to address or solve
the problem.
-students call to action seems
somewhat flawed; more planning may
be required.
-a weak explanation of the problem is
provided, with very little detail as to
why this problem exists and who it
affects.
-student uses little detail to explain
the steps necessary to address or solve
the problem.
-students call to action appears
flawed and could not realistically be
implemented.
-very little explanation of the problem
is provided, with little to no detail as
to why this problem exists and who it
affects.
-student uses very little detail to
explain the steps necessary to address
or solve the problem.
-students call to action is unrealistic.

-the work is exceptionally attractive in terms

of design, layout, and neatness.
-All graphics provide greater insight and
impact on our understanding of the topic. All
borrowed graphics have a source citation.
-the work expands on the ideas presented in
the written component .

-The work is attractive in terms of design,

layout, and neatness.
-All graphics are related to the topic and
most make it easier to understand. All
borrowed graphics have a source citation.
-the work reflect ideas presented in the
written component.

-The work is acceptably attractive though it

may be a bit messy.
-Some graphics relate to the topic. Most
borrowed graphics have a source citation.
-the work has some connections to the ideas
presented in the written component.

-The work is distractingly messy or very

poorly designed. It is not attractive.
-Graphics do not relate to the topic or
several borrowed graphics do not have a
source citation.
-the work has very little connection to the
ideas presented in the written component.

-No care has been taken to design the work,

nor to make it attractive.
-Graphics do not relate to the topic and
borrowed graphics do not have a source
citation.
-there are no connections between the
written component and the visual
component.

TRAIT
NONVERBAL
SKILLS
EYE CONTACT

POISE

VERBAL SKILLS
ENTHUSIASM

ELOCUTION

CONTENT
INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

Holds attention
of entire audience
with the use of
direct eye
contact, seldom
looking at notes.
Student displays
relaxed, selfconfident nature
about self, with
no mistakes.

Consistent use of
direct eye contact
with audience, but
still returns to
notes.

Displayed
minimal eye
contact with
audience, while
reading mostly
from the notes.
Displays mild
tension; has
trouble recovering
from mistakes.

No eye contact
with audience, as
entire report is read
from notes.

Occasionally
shows positive
feelings about
topic.

Shows some
negativity toward
topic presented.

Shows absolutely
no interest in
topic presented.

Students voice is
clear. Student
pronounces most
words correctly.
Most audience
members can hear
presentation.

Students voice is
low. Student
incorrectly
pronounces terms.
Audience
members have
difficulty hearing
presentation.

Student mumbles,
incorrectly
pronounces
terms, and speaks
too quietly for a
majority of
students to hear.

Student
incorporates a
good amount of
detail,
development and
support.
Persuasive
language is
sometimes used in
an attempt to
create a
convincing
argument.
Student presents
information in
logical sequence
which audience
can follow.

Student
incorporates an
adequate amount
of detail;
development and
support may be
lacking.
Persuasive
language is not
used often enough
to create a
convincing
argument.
Audience has
difficulty
following
presentation
because student
jumps around.

There is little or
no detail,
development and
support. No
persuasive
language is used.

Demonstrates a
strong, positive
feeling about topic
during entire
presentation.
Student uses a
clear voice and
correct, precise
pronunciation of
terms so that all
audience members
can hear
presentation.

Student
consistently uses
illustrative detail
development and
support.
Persuasive
language is used
extensively to
create a
convincing
argument.
Student presents
information in
logical,
interesting
sequence which
audience can
follow.

Makes minor
mistakes, but
quickly recovers
from them;
displays little or
no tension.

Tension and
nervousness is
obvious; has
trouble recovering
from mistakes.

Audience cannot
understand
presentation
because there is
no sequence of
information.

Fig. 1.3 Self-Reflective Survey

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating Not At All and 5 indicating Always, assess your
work habits during the period.
How much time did you spend on task?
How much
time did you
spend on
task?
Did you
meet all of
your goals
this period?

Fig. 1.4 Self-Reflective Journal

After completing the project, respond to the following prompt. Include specific examples
from your experience to help illustrate your responses.
1) What made you choose the topic you based your project on?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2) What excited you about the topic?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3) How much effort did you put into completing the project?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4) If you had to do something differently on this project, what would you do?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5) How do you think your project made a difference?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1.5 Parental Permission Form

Dear Parent/Guardian:
This letter is to inform you of a research study that will be taking place in your
childs classroom over the course of a two-three week period beginning next month. This
study has been approved by a UBC Research Board of Ethics.
The purpose of this study is to investigate in what ways and to what degree are
students motivated by the way in which the curriculum is presented. As a school that
promotes self-directed learning, we as educators are regularly seeking to improve
teaching methods and curriculum delivery to help motivate and encourage our students to
excel at school. As such, I am hoping that this study will allow students to make deeper
and more meaningful connections with the curriculum and their lives.
The design of this research study calls for a comparison between two different
models of teaching and learning one that is more traditional and teacher-driven, while
the other self-directed. Two groups of students will be used as part of the study Group
A will receive more specific instruction from their teacher, who will also determine how
students will use their time in class during each class period of the study. Group B will
receive the same project guidelines, but will work independently to investigate their
chosen topic and to monitor their own goals and progress each class period. These two
groups will be randomly placed. Ultimately, the goal of the study will be to examine the
impact that these learning experiences have on students engagement with the topics being
taught, as well as their overall breadth of understanding.
The study will take place over the course of six class periods, or roughly two
weeks. The study will not take away from learning time in the classroom, and there are
no foreseeable risks to students. The parent or researcher may decide to remove the
student from the study at any point. The information about each student will remain
confidential, and any data used as part of the study will remain anonymous. Information
and results of the study can be obtained through the school principal.
The purpose of this form is to allow your child to participate in the study. Please
note that parental and student consent is voluntary. If you have any additional questions
or concerns, feel free to contact the principal or myself at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
__________________________________
Students Name

________________________________
Students Signature

__________________________________
Parents Signature

___________________________________
Date