DATA COLLECTION PLAN

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: How does play-based learning impact students cognitive engagement?

WHAT AM I MEASURING?
I want to test the following hypothesis:

Play-based learning will increase students cognitive engagement in learning. Theorists, such as, Vigotsky and Piaget, suggest that students are
intrinsically motivated by play and social experiences, and research into cognitive engagement suggests that intrinsic motivation is a key factor in
deep cognitive engagement for students (Blumfield, Kempler & Krajcik, 2006).

The idea of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and its impact on engagement has been explored by numerous researchers, with findings suggesting
that extrinsic motivation (such as, rewards for completing work) leads to more compliant behaviours of engagement in comparison to intrinsic
motivation, where students are taking part because they want to (Jang, 2008). Students who are intrinsically engaged in a task will also be more
likely to persist at more difficult tasks, express creativity and volunteer to take part in tasks (Walker, Greene and Mansell, 2006). This study aims to
explore whether the intrinsic value of play will motivate students to be more cognitively engaged with their work.

I am measuring the cognitive engagement of students within my classroom. I will be measuring cognitive engagement under two different learning
situations and comparing the two:
1. Students undertaking learning activities that have been traditionally used in class (for example, worksheets for letter identification, drawing
pictures for retell of a story)
2. Students undertaking learning activities that are play-based (for example, making letters out of playdough and lego, retelling stories through
drama or puppet shows).

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS:

Cognitive Engagement - there has been much debate over the working definition for cognition, but there is a consensus that it is the psychological
investment a student places on their work (Sinatra, Heddy & Lombardi, 2015). For the purposes of this research project, a definition proposed by
Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel & Paris (2013) will be used. Cognitive engagement is the psychological investment in learning, a desire to go beyond
the requirements of school, and a preference for challenge. As discussed above, motivation is a key factor in ensuring students will be cognitively
engaged in a task, thus it is important to explore the following areas when assessing students cognitive engagement, as proposed by researchers
such as Appleton, Christenson, Kim & Reschely (2006); (1) perceived relevance of task to learning goal, (2) perceived ability to complete task, (3)
perceived autonomy. Appleton, Christenson, Kim and Reschely (2006) then go onto argue that the following are indicators of cognitive engagement;
self regulation, understanding the relevance of a task, the value of learning and students own autonomy.
From this definition, as well as other research on cognitive engagement, a rubric has been developed that aims to measure what cognitive
engagement would look like in a Year 1-2 class. As there is little research in this particular context, many of these indicators have been modified
from previously used self-report scales for high school and higher education facilities, to match the context of a Year 1-2 classroom.
This will be amended as the study goes on:
No Cognitive Engagement
Possible Indicators:
● Off task
● Not completing task to required standard.
● Doing the wrong thing.
● Negative talk about completing task (e.g. I
can’t do this, this is too hard)
Shallow/Superficial Cognitive Engagement
Possible Indicators:
Intrinsic Motivation ​(Jang, 2008)
● Meeting the minimum requirements of
task.
● Emotional response to task is more of
being compliant than being excited about
the task. Might complain that it is boring
(Jang, 2008).
Self Regulation Strategies
● Students completing task because they
have to, unable to explain link between
task and learning goals.
Perceived Ability to Complete Task
● Negative talk about the ability to complete
task.
Perceived Autonomy
● Students beginning to monitor their own
learning, still needing some guidance from
the teacher and/or others in their group.
Deep Cognitive Engagement
Possible Indicators:
Intrinsic Motivation of Task ​(Jang, 2008)
● Students want to take part in the task
● Emotional response to task
● Students do not want to finish task, happy
to keep working even when it is time to
move on.
● Going above and beyond in their task
Self Regulation Strategies/Goal Setting
(Appleton, Christenson, Kim and Reschely,
2006; Kang, Park & Shin, 200?)
● Can explain their learning goals
● Decide whether they have met their goals
● Talk about next steps
● Explain their learning to others
(discussions, drawing, modelling)
Strategising Learning ​(Appleton,
Christenson, Kim and Reschely, 2006; Davis,
Chang, Andrzejweski & Poirier, 2009)
● Apply learning across different contexts,
mediums
● Seeking out new knowledge
● Problem-solving
● Offering their own ideas
● Linking prior knowledge to current task
 Perceived Ability to Complete Task
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel & Paris, 2013)
● Taking risks
● Use of growth mindset
● Students emotional response to task -
happy, enthralled, excited.
● Asking questions when stuck/unsure

Perceived Autonomy ​(Kang, Park & Shin,

200?).
● Manage their own learning

DATA SOURCES:

As Sinatra, Heddy & Lombardi (2015) propose measurement of engagement can be regarded as taking place on a continuum, starting at one end
with where measurement is person-oriented, focused on the individual and their physiological responses. The other end of the continuum is based
around the context of the learner and how the classroom, school and culture around the student impacts on student engagement. Measures at this
end include teacher ratings, observations and self report scales.

This project aims to sit somewhere in the middle of this context, where the focus is on the person-in-context perspective. This means that the
measures of this project are concerned with describing the context on individuals (or in this case, different groups of students). Measuring cognitive
engagement within the person-in-context method will involve:
● Observations of student interactions with learning activities
● Records of learning conversations with students
● Assessing student work against a rubric.

The goal of collecting these three pieces of data is to assess how students interact with play-based learning activities versus non-play-based
learning activities to produce a certain level of engagement.

DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Name Operational Definition Data Source Collection Method

Observations of student Video recordings of students Observations will be made as groups

 interactions with learning completing activity (based on student literacy groups).
activities.
Video recordings will be made of two
related learning activities - one that is play
based and one that is not - in a week.

These observations will then be

transcribed, with key indicators as listed
above being made note of. An overall
rating of cognitive engagement will be
made from this.

Learning Conversations of Audio recordings of Audio recordings will be made as groups

students with other student/teacher conversations
students and teacher during guided and instructional
during learning time lessons.
The video recordings of
interactions may also be used as
data.
(based on student literacy groups).
These audio recordings/video recordings
will then be transcribed, with key
indicators of cognitive engagement
highlighted.

Student Artefacts Photographs, documents, videos
produced during learning will be used when collecting
activities. student work that is completed
during recorded activities.
Work that is completed during these
activities will be compiled as evidence of
engagement.
These artefacts will be assessed against
the cognitive engagement rubric and a
judgement on cognitive engagement will
be made.

Cycle One (25.03.2019 - 11.04.2019)

Please see index of evidence
Frogs 2 x play based observations
2 x non-play based observations
4 sets of artefacts from observed
lessons
Week 8 + Week 9
Week 8 - P.B then N.P.B (reading)
Week 9 - N.P.B then P.B (writing)
 1 x learning conversation play based
1 x learning conversation non play
based

Dogs 2 x play based observations Week 8 + Week 9

2 x non-play based observations Week 8 - P.B then N.P.B (reading)
4 sets of artefacts from observed Week 9 - N.P.B then P.B (writing)
lessons

1 x learning conversation play based

1 x learning conversation non play
based

Koalas 2 x play based observations Week 8 + Week 10

2 x non-play based observations Week 8 - P.B then N.P.B (reading)
4 sets of artefacts from observed Week 10 - N.P.B then P.B (writing)
lessons

1 x learning conversation play based

1 x learning conversation non play
based

Bunnies 2 x play based observations Week 9 + Week 10 Completed one set in Week 8 (due to
2 x non-play based observations Week 9 - P.B then N.P.B (reading) absences, it was easier to observe this
4 sets of artefacts from observed Week 10 - N.P.B then P.B (writing) group in Week 8).
lessons

1 x learning conversation play based

1 x learning conversation non play
based

Monkeys 2 x play based observations Week 9 + Week 10

2 x non-play based observations Week 9 - P.B then N.P.B (reading)
4 sets of artefacts from observed Week 10 - N.P.B then P.B (writing)
lessons

1 x learning conversation play based

1 x learning conversation non play
based
Evidence

An index of evidence can be found here.

Some evidence is restricted due to ethics and permissions.

Initial Findings:

Reflections on Cycle 1 and Where To Next:

REFLECTIONS

● When starting this project, I was too focussed cognitive engagement in learning tasks. I think I neglected cognitive engagement on a more
holistic level. The set up of this data collection is solely based on how students are cognitively engaged in a instructional/follow up task and how
they respond to that learning intention. Play-based learning is all about building students key competencies, and their 21st century skills
(collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity) and this data collection cycle failed to measure the cognitive engagement in the
development of these skills.
● This data collection plan does not define play-based learning.
● The data collection plan was too rigid and this had a number of negative implications on the data collection.
○ Firstly, it meant I was missing out on other important events that happened throughout the day. For example, when recording one groups
session, there were other groups that were also carrying out activities that had captured their attention and cognitive engagement more
and I missed the opportunities to record this. It is important that I change the way I observe and record learning activities to ensure that I
am able to capture more.
○ The rigidity in planning meant students had no choice in the activities they were completing, which takes away from some of the concepts
of play-based learning. This meant that it lowered the amount of intrinsic motivation students had to complete a task, and in turn, reduced
possible cognitive engagements in a task.
● Using video recording as for my observations became a distraction for the students. Students often looked at the camera throughout
observations and would also dance, sing and use the camera as a mirror. I also believe their behaviour and in turn the levels of engagement
were also altered simply due to the fact that the students were being observed. This is known within research literature as the Hawthorne
Effect. I must find a new way of observing students that will lower the impact of the Hawthorne Effect.
● Whilst I had planned to triangulate between video recordings, audio recordings and collection of learning artefacts, I ended up finding that video
recordings were best suited for the data collection. Due to the age of the students, there was more to observing behaviours than the learning
conversations that were had. I feel like learning conversations became quickly teacher driven.
● The data I have gathered has little impact on my second research question - how can play-based learning be implemented in different areas of
the Curriculum.
● I did not follow the set timetable above. This was due to a number of different reasons, including students leaving and beginning during this
time, groups changing and the usual unexpected changes to daily routines.

WHERE TO NEXT:

It is important for my next cycle of data collection that I find new ways of recording student’s learning activities in a way that will be less obtrusive
and lower the chances of the Hawthorne Effect occurring. For this, I have decided to use field notes through teacher observations. These will allow
me to be more flexible in collecting data and also means more in-depth data collection that will relate with my second research question.

The new data collection plan (to be implemented 29.04.2019-17.05.2019) can be found here.