samantha-barnes.weebly.com · web viewcomparisons of student ownership perceptions between...

COMPARISONS OF STUDENT OWNERSHIP PERCEPTIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS

AND TEACHERS: WHERE THE DISCONNECT OCCURS

A Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master in the Arts of Teaching

in the

Department of Education

The College of Idaho

by

Samantha R. Barnes

and

Hope C. DeCuir

July 20, 2018

Advising Professor: Dr. Terah R. Moore

COMPARISONS OF STUDENT OWNERSHIP PERCEPTIONS

1


Abstract

Our purpose was to examine the current atmosphere of the sixth grade population

towards their ownership compared to how teachers’ perceive student efforts and the atmosphere

of the classroom. The current education atmospheres focus on “banking education” and the lack

of personal educational histories not focused on building student ownership is our problem at

hand (Freire, 1996, p. 53). In order to examine this, we used a 11 question survey including both

quantitative and qualitative data to get student feedback from the two populations. Data were

analyzed to find common themes and recurring patterns among responses. Data yielded a total

of five separate conclusions.

2


Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all of those with whom we have had the pleasure to work with during

this research. Each member of our committee - Dr. Moore, Dr. Talbert, Melissa Langan - has

provided us with personal and academic support over the years and we are especially grateful for

the encouragement over this past year of teaching, classes, and working on our thesis.

We would especially like to thank Dr. Terah Moore, our committee chairwoman. As our

teacher and mentor she has often been a solid and cheerful presence in the eye of the storm and

we are extremely grateful for the love and support she has shown us.

Thanks must also go out to the Education Department at The College of Idaho who have

helped guide us to understand that a “perfect” teacher is rarely a “good” teacher. We especially

thank Patti Copple who served as our mentor and advisor this past year of student teaching, and

without whom we would have gone mad, in every connotation of the word, long before now.

Our gratitude also goes to the schools, the teachers, and the students who participated in

our study and gave us so much more than we had ever anticipated finding.

Lastly, thanks must be given to our friends and family who suffered through the long

rants, the arduous discussions, and many expressions of outright frustration over this process.

Thank you all for the level-headed listening and multitude of unpaid therapy sessions. We

appreciated the colluding.

3


Dedication

Samantha

I would like to dedicate this work to my parents, Teresa and JW Barnes, love you guys!

As well as to my ducklings, I love them always and I am glad to have gotten to know them. You

will all do great things and I am eternally proud of you!

“I raise my voice not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard.”

-Malala Yousafzai

“A quality education has the power to transform societies in a single generation, provide children

with the protection they need from the hazards of poverty, labor exploitation and disease, and

given them the knowledge, skills, and confidence to reach their full potential.”

-Audrey Hepburn

Hope

To my family who has supported all my decisions and adventures. To those who have

been trapped and suffered from the disconnect in teacher/student perceptions, may this be a small

step forward in change.

“And these children that you spit on/As they try to change their worlds/Are immune to

your consultations/They're quite aware of what they're going through.”

- Changes, David Bowie

4


Table of Contents

Abstract 1

Acknowledgements 2

Dedication 3

Table of Contents 4

List of Tables and Graphs 6

Chapter One 7Introduction 7Meet Samantha Barnes 7Meet Hope DeCuir 9A Synthesized Summary of our Mindset Going into our Thesis 10Background of the Problem 11Statement of the Problem and Purpose 13Research Question 14Significance of the Problem 14Delimitations 14Limitations 14Assumptions 15Definitions 15Summary 16

Chapter Two 18Introduction 18Introduction to Constructivism 19Introduction to Student Ownership 20Importance of Student Ownership 22Constructivist Theory to Support Ownership Practices 23Influences on Ownership 29Summary 30

Chapter Three 32Introduction 32The Setting 32Study Design 33Data Collection Tools 34

5


Procedures 36Validity and Reliability 37Analysis of Data 38Summary 39

Chapter Four 40Introduction 40Descriptive Statistics/Demographic Data 41

Students: School A and B 41Teachers: School A and B 45

Findings from Open-Ended Questions 49Students 50Teachers 57

Summary 64

Chapter Five 66Summary 66Conclusions 66Recommendations 76Suggestions 76Summary 77

Appendix A: Student Survey 82

Appendix B: Teacher Survey 83

Appendix C: Student Assent 84

Appendix D: Parent Consent 85

Appendix E: Teacher Consent 86

6


List of Figures

Figure 2.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 22

Figure 2.2 ……………………………………………………....………………………………27

Figure 4.1 ………………………………………………………………………………………40

Figure 4.2 ………………………………………………………………………………………41

Figure 4.3 ………………………………………………………………………………………41

Figure 4.4 ………………………………………………………………………………………42

Figure 4.5 ………………………………………………………………………………………43

Figure 4.6 ………………………………………………………………………………………43

Figure 4.7 ………………………………………………………………………………………44

Figure 4.8 ………………………………………………………………………………………45

Figure 4.9 ………………………………………………………………………………………46

Figure 4.10 …………………………………………………………………………………….46

Figure 4.11 …………………………………………………………………………………….47

Figure 4.12 …………………………………………………………………………………….48

Figure 4.13 ………………………………………………………………………………… 49-50

Figure 4.14 …………………………………………………………………………………51-53

Figure 4.15 …………………………………………………………………………………54-55

Figure 4.16 …………………………………………………………………………………56-57

Figure 4.17 ………………………………………………………………………………… 58-60

Figure 4.18 …………………………………………………………………………………61-62

Figure 5.1 …………………………………………………………………………………….... 71

Figure 5.2……………………………………………………………………………………..... 72

7


Chapter One

Introduction

Through our pre-service program, we developed a passion for constructivist teaching and

the importance of student ownership in the growth of student learning and success in the

classroom. These passions brought us together from two different roads to formulate our

research topic. Our own school experiences were formed under the No Child Left Behind (2002)

era and differs from those that we planned to create for our students. For us, our schooling

experiences focused on getting results. We reject that. Rather, as teachers, we hope to nurture a

love of learning and to help students feel a control in the classroom over what they are learning.

Additionally, we want them to feel comfortable questioning why they are learning something,

and where they are in that process. Important to our thesis is understanding of who we are.

Meet Samantha Barnes

One of my first introductions to feeling a sense of ownership in my own learning was

during a college course where I was one of two “co-teachers” who taught the rest of the class

about interactive notebooks and their uses. Up until this point I had little to no involvement in the

instruction or knowledge I received in a classroom. Most of my classes, from kindergarten up

through my senior year in high school, encouraged me to simply open my mind and allow the

teachers to pour information in rather than engaging in any inquiry and curiosity I may have had.

It was not interesting to me, and I was completely disengaged with the content and the lessons.

One of the very few classrooms that I felt encouraged to use questioning techniques was

a high school History course. We used the Socratic Seminar Method often and, as students, we

8


were given sections that we were required to delve into and then teach to our classmates. This

experience allowed us to be active learners and empowered us to take responsibility for our

learning. It is also one of the driving forces that led me to the belief that students need to have

interaction with different parts of the brain in order to learn effectively and efficiently. Because

this experience was the rarity and not the norm, as a student I was inspired to embark on a study

to see if and how this might have changed at all since I was in K-12 schooling, and if it had not

changed then I was eager to see what I could do in my role of teacher to remedy that.

My own schooling experience included primarily teacher-centered and “teacher as the

authority” practices. This meant that my teachers were the authority, they were seen as the expert

on everything and students were viewed as memorizers in the process and were not the experts.

In this context “memorizer” is being defined as similar to banking education, in that the students

are not required to do anything in order to receive knowledge, but are simply there to have

knowledge deposited into them at any time. I have found that, while teacher-centered practices

are still the most common form of teaching, they have not been the most effective form of

teaching in my own life.

Due to the majority of my learning being direct instruction, which is not an effective way

for me to learn, I became proficient in memorization. I loved classes where we could have

Socratic Seminars because we got to have discussion, and we were invited to say what we

thought in an environment that was safe and comfortable, and where, as learners not memorizers,

we took control over what was discussed. This was the learning environment I wanted to

replicate in my own teaching to foster ownership among my learners.

9


Meet Hope DeCuir

At my elementary school, K-4th graders got a single day during the year to cycle through

centers all based around a single focus. The one I remembered most predominantly was 3rd

grade’s centers on environmentalism. We made art projects from recycled materials, learned

about wildlife from local groups and college students, made our own paper, and explored the

ecosystem around us. These days were also my favorite, and when they stopped, to say I was

disappointed would be an understatement.

As my education continued, these days of interaction and passion for learning faded into

the background. The closest I came to reliving these days were running scenes during rehearsal

in theater class. But, most lessons I remember from school involved taking notes from a

PowerPoint. Occasionally, small group or class discussions revived some life in me. Even into

college, my struggle with primarily lecture-based classes still irked me. Minimal visuals.

Minimal time for me to actively engage with the topic and content and theories unless it was for

a paper. Quizzes and tests required regurgitated information forced me to use a skill I had

developed in middle school that I had hoped I no longer needed.

The classes that brought me joy were the ones where I not only read and listened to the

professor discuss the material but where I got to delve into the material myself and hazard

guesses and hypotheses. I got the most from the classes where I got to shape and follow paths

and demonstrate what I knew. It was not until college that these class structures even became a

norm in my education. Yet, mingled within my pleasure at having access to this classroom

structure, a great deal of bitterness entered me at not having had access to this earlier in my

education at a more regular interval than only special days or discussions in AP classes.

10


That bitterness only grew as I had more education courses under my belt, and I no longer

had just my personal feelings to go off, but those of my peers and my professors that encouraged

and supported not only authentic learning environments, but the importance of students feeling

control - ownership - over what goes on in the classroom. Education in elementary grades

consisted of memorizing information that would then be needed for a test. It came to busy work

that we were told we needed to know without ever creating a meaning for it. I memorized

prayers in English and Spanish because I had to to pass Religion. Do I remember them? No. I

never had a connection or investment in the learning. It did not transfer into other areas of my

life. It did not empower me to take ownership of learning. I had minimal power in my learning

until college where I had opportunity and means and support to construct my own connections

and meaning from content.

A Synthesized Summary of our Mindset Going into our Thesis

Overall, our educational experiences have not offered us those learning opportunities

centered on student ownership, but we have witnessed some in higher education courses and on

occasion, in the classroom as preservice teachers. We have also extensively researched the

constructivist teaching model and identify constructivism at the core of our teaching

philosophies. Through these experiences came our desire to find where student ownership in the

classroom is lacking, and what teachers perceive to be the cause of a lack in ownership. When

students lack ownership of their learning this deficiency negatively impacts their relationship

with their own learning. Our goal was to find and analyze student sentiments in the classroom

and to identify what happens that detracts and increases this ownership.

11


Background of the Problem

At its core, many view that knowledge lies at the center education. To us, school is a

place where you learn and prepare for the real world. School is where you go to learn how to

become an adult and a productive member of society. Education acts as a center for knowledge.

However, many views differ on not just what knowledge is but on how it should be learned and

taught.

The structure of many classrooms now stems from the focus brought on by the influence

of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on the education system and the antiquated, yet unchanged

values of the Victorian education system. In the 19th century, education centered on the value of

students being seen and not heard (Roskos & Neuman, 2012). Teachers dominated the power in

the classroom and little was left for students to grapple with. This lack of student power in the

classroom resulted in a failure to provide student ownership of their learning. This education

centered on the imparting of knowledge left the student as an empty vessel for the teacher to fill:

the basis of banking education (Freire, 1996).

This teacher-centered education model that permeates U.S. education centers around the

theory of Behaviorism that stems from research of Ivan Pavlov. Behaviorists see “learning [as]

the absorption and reproduction of knowledge” (Stears, 2009, p. 398). This theory implies that

knowledge exists as a fixed body of information that can be imparted on the student. Paulo

Freire (1996) references this as “banking education” in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

“Banking education” focuses on education as “an act of depositing, in which the students are the

depositories and the teacher is the depositor”; communication and student voice are neglected in

favor of students becoming passive receptacles for knowledge (Freire, 1996, p. 53).

12


The banking education that dominates the classroom today robs students of any personal

connection to their background knowledge and what occurs in the classroom, any ownership of

what, why, and how they learn, and negates any personal and emotional individualism present in

students that ownership allows to flourish. Freeman, Millar, Brand, and Chapman (2014) note

this permeating even the collegiate level where a survey of student voice in Birmingham City

University (BCU) “indicated a culture...in which students were positioned as passive consumers

in that the university was seen as ‘the provider of products and services and students as

consumers of provision and support’ (McCulloch, 2009, p. 171),” (p. 234). Students have been

placed in positions not to learn but to be taught. They act passively in the classroom while the

only action comes from the teacher who provides for the classroom.

While NCLB (Klein, A., 2018) held schools accountable for student learning and to

ensure that students were learning, financial incentives supported the passing of standardized

testing. This push honed classrooms even further in on a factory model based on banking

education. The teacher stood as the center of power in the classroom, dictating what was to be

learned and how. But, this system bowed to the power that test results held over their heads. And

so, a focus on teaching to the standards that hang like shackles around a teacher’s feet was forced

further into existence.

These education models resulted in distancing students from their learning and placing

them in a position of minimal power where they fail to interact and make meaning of the

information provided to them. Learning and knowing became defined by the student’s ability to

keep pace with the teacher, do as told, and express the ideas as the teacher wished to hear them

expressed. Lessons turned to teaching tricks and skills to find out how another person wants you

to think and what they expect you to get from a text. Math became distant formulas to memorize

13


without a context to allow students to piece together and find the math on their own, describing it

in their own words, while the teacher acts as a supporter to this discovery.

Within this turmoil arises the impending failure of student ownership in the classroom

and its effects on not only student psyche but student performance. When the need to meet

standards trumps the classroom, the student’s learning gets left to the wayside. One theory that

can encourage ownership is constructivism; constructivism establishes the teacher and the

student on equal levels of knowing and discovery which can empower students to take ownership

of their own learning.

Statement of the Problem and Purpose

Inspired by pedagogies of student ownership and building authenticity in the classroom

from Paulo Freire in his critique of “banking education” (1970), Anne Green's work Let Them

Show us the Way (1995), and Antero Garcia and Cindy O'Donnell-Allen's text Pose, Wobble,

Flow (2015), the purpose of our study is to examine the current atmosphere of the sixth grade

population towards their ownership over their education and learning growth in the classroom.

This will then be compared to how teachers perceive student efforts and the atmosphere of the

classroom.

Research Question

Our study focused on the following questions:

1. What is the state of student ownership in the classroom, from multiple perspectives?

a. How do students view their ownership?

b. How do teachers view student ownership in their classroom?

2. How do student and teacher perspectives compare?

14


Significance of the Problem

To us, as educators, this study focused on an area that would help our growth as teachers

by learning what experienced teachers perceived to be encourage student ownership in the

classroom, and how students perceived those same situations. We explored how teacher

approaches and strategies were interpreted by the students as well as viewed student commentary

on what they needed to feel in control of their education.

Delimitations

The participants of this research action research study were the students and teachers

from two student-teachers’ individual classrooms during their second placement during the

spring semester 2019. Both schools had high Hispanic populations, relative to the schools in

nearby districts, and serviced low-socioeconomic families (see Chapter 3: Setting).

Limitations

This study focused on perceptions of ownership in sixth-grade classrooms. Thus the

limitation is the very fact the only grade level included in this study was the sixth grade as it was

the common grade between the two researchers. Survey answers as the only source of data limits

the depth of answers and ability for clarification; it also relies on participants answering with full

candor and complete comprehension of the question as we intended. Additionally, variations in

classroom dynamic between researchers and each class. such as size and management, must be

taken into account as well as each student’s relationship to all grade teachers. The last limit

existed in the return rate of surveys that were permitted to be used in this study.

15


Assumptions

This study assumed that students and teachers would be honest with their surveys, as well

as the assumption that all participants comprehended each question and their answers were based

off that comprehension. Participants were assumed to be an accurate representation of the school

and classrooms’ ethnic and gender demographics. Additionally, student interpretation of

“control”, “in charge of”, and “being a part of” were assumed to be synonymous and similarly

related to ownership, with the assumption that teachers interpretation of “control”, “in charge of”

and “being a part of” were similar. We assumed that “control” in the classroom would be

interpreted in a singularly academic sense. Lastly, it was assumed that all returned parental

consent forms were validly signed by their guardian.

Definitions

Going forward, we have provided common terms used within our thesis and the

definitions we utilize when using these words. All terms are self-defined unless otherwise

specified.

1. Feedback - commentary given in response to student work that specifies specific areas of

needed improvement where growth needs to happen and where it already has

2. Instruction Outcomes/Learning Goals - unit or lesson goals that list specific, content

related skills that students will be able to demonstrate proficiency in by the end of the

unit or lesson

3. Empowerment - returning social power and agency to students who have been stripped of

them; simply, students will be treated as unique individuals with a valuable input to the

learning experience

16


4. Ownership - being a part of the creation of understanding in the classroom and being able

to express their learning in their own words to give value to the meaning within their

learning process

5. Control - researcher assumption implies that control is synonymous with ownership in

that students perceive a validation of their thoughts, ideas, and learning within the

classroom and they understand their growth within the classroom.

6. Banking education - an education model centered on the imparting of knowledge by the

teacher directly into the student; or, the student acting as a bank where teachers deposit

information that could be withdrawn at any time (Freire, 1996)

7. Fundamental Attribution Error- this term identifies the error that “lies in our [systematic]

inclination to attribute people's behavior to the way they are rather than to the situation

they are in.” (Heath & Heath, 2010, p. 180).

Summary

For us, student learning should at all times be centered around the student and provide

students a way in which to express and understand expectations and assessments. This chapter

laid out the importance on classrooms that support and lend themselves to the empowerment of

students to take ownership in their own learning.

The subsequent Chapter II reviews the literature and research on student ownership in the

classroom and its influence on student learning. It will also cover the foundation for

constructivism. Chapter III covers our study design and surveys. Additionally, that chapter will

include our data and analysis tools. Chapter IV reviews our data in the context of our research

questions. Lastly, Chapter V closes our paper with the summary, conclusions, and

recommendations for future study and practice.

17


18


Chapter Two

Introduction

While ownership, to us, acts as a central mechanism on which both student growth and

success depend, not all teachers hinge their practice upon this theory. A priority of ownership

only truly matters when the central ideologies in education promote a student taking ahold of and

participating in the construction of the classroom, its learning, and its assessment. Student

ownership relies on a foundation of a constructivist lens, through which the importance of

student ownership to the learning of the student is given meaning. From this basis, student

ownership gives rise to the interlocking realms of home life and school life. Student ownership

demands a balance of student relationships, home, and the arsenal of teacher strategies to

scaffold student control - as defined by a recognized and valued voice - in the classroom.

Prior personal experience, and discussions with other educators suggests that student

ownership results in higher self-confidence, more initiative in the classroom, and a higher

comfort level in seeking academic and social aid from a teacher. Teachers have worked to

achieve this through practices of higher feedback and student inclusion in the process, student

reflection, and student choice in areas of the classroom. However, observation and exploration of

current research shows a lack in the intersection of student perceptions of ownership with

teachers’ practice and own perceptions.

Introduction to Constructivism

When a student acts only as a receptacle for knowledge to be inserted, student voice is

not centered in the classroom. The lack of centered student voice prevents student ownership as

19


it bars a student from involvement in classroom activities. For this reason, educational ideologies

that permit the centering of student voice and creation of knowledge are most apt to lend

themselves to student ownership. For this reason, we have approached understanding student

ownership with a constructivist lens.

There exists two primary lines of constructivism: cognitive and social. Cognitive

constructivism (also addressed as “personal constructivism” in Liu & Chen (2010) grounds itself

in the work of Jean Piaget. Piaget’s work can be summarized by stating that people (and

students) learn knowledge through constructing it themselves rather than merely receiving it (Liu

& Chen, 2010, p. 63). Social constructivism, based in Vygotsky’s studies, still follows the idea

of individuals building knowledge themselves, but includes a stronger focus on the social aspect

of this construction; knowledge is creating not purely on an individual cognitive basis but with

the input and influence of others in the social community (Lui & Chen, 2010). Schcolnik, Kol,

and Abarbanel (2006) offer a clear summary of the two: “Cognitive constructivists concentrate

on the importance of the mind in learning, whereas social constructivists focus on the key role

played by the environment and the interaction between learners” (p. 13). Despite these

differences, both focus on a learning founded in students having an active role in the creation of

knowledge rather than a passive one where students only exist to absorb knowledge from the

teacher.

In the recent years, constructivism has grown as an educational epistemology - a

philosophy that looks to answer what knowledge is (Quantz, 2015, p. 65). Sutinen (2008) argues

that the most appropriate constructivist model relies on pragmatism - a philosophy that argues

that humans construct knowledge as we interact with the world around us (Quantz, 2015).

Children construct the world around them, and learning is a creative act, not mechanical.

20


As it exists, Sutinen (2008) believes constructivism is too individualistic and must take

more from Dewey and Mead to move it into a useful place for the classroom; the interaction that

creates meaning is fundamentally social. In order to create authentic experiences in the

classroom, teachers must not just bring the outside world into the classroom, but must guide

“disciplined inquiry” (Splitter, 2009, p.139). Splitter (2009) also emphasizes the social aspect of

constructivism that is necessary in creating meaning, echoing Sutinen’s (2008) sentiment that

constructivism must take a more social approach instead of an individual constructing knowledge

on his/her own. Students must be engaged not just with the processes of learning. They also need

to engage with the community both inside the classroom and in the greater discipline in order to

feel like a participant in the learning (Splitter, 2009).

Introduction to Student Ownership

Student ownership, as defined earlier, is when students are a part of the creation of

understanding in the classroom and are able to express their learning in their own words to give

value to the meaning of their learning process. Student ownership is achieved through

engagement of student interest, student participation in the construction of knowledge in the

classroom, and a validity placed on their ideas and voice. This allows students to develop an

understanding of material in the classroom under the guidance of a teacher while still retaining a

semblance of control as marked by student choice, learning pace, and weigh-in to classroom

targets - both academic and behavioral. The idea of student control is important in creating

student ownership as control of learning and being can lead to a connection and ownership of

choice and learning.

Chan, Graham-Gay, Ressa, Peters, and Konrad (2014) provide a list of eight things to be

witnessed in a classroom that has shifted towards student ownership.

21


“1. Learning targets, written in student-friendly language posted in

the classroom

2. Student goals (individual and classwide) and progress charts

posted around the room

3. Students actively engaged in lessons that are clearly focused on

the learning targets

4. Students self-assessing their work using rubrics, checklists, and

self-monitoring forms

5. Students giving each other effective feedback and serving as

resources to each other

6. Students recruiting feedback from teachers and peers

7. Teachers sharing examples of strong student work so that

students are clear about what quality work looks like

8. Students who are becoming self-reliant learners by knowing

what they need to do next to advance their learning” (pps. 111-

112).

Though not an exhaustive list, these eight activities mark a classroom that has turned its focus to

centering students and their voices, providing student control over their learning and boosting

student ownership.

Importance of Student Ownership

Student Ownership is previously defined as, “being a part of the creation of

understanding in the classroom and being able to express their learning in their own words to

give value to the meaning within their learning process” (Barnes & DeCuir, 2018, p. 14).

22


Students need to feel a sense of ownership over some part of their lives and we determined that

school is a place where that ownership would be extremely useful, however we also suspected

that it was an uncommon place for students to feel a large sense of ownership over their work.

We wanted to see what changes would be observable when a student does not perceive a sense of

their own ownership, and when a teacher did not perceive a sense of ownership in the student.

Conley and French (2014) suggest that there are five major components to student

ownership, “Motivation and engagement (1), goal orientation and self-direction (2), self-efficacy

and self-confidence (3), metacognition and self-monitoring (4), and persistence (5)” (p. 1020).

These are all ideals that we suggest come into play with students and their feelings and

perceptions about their ownership and how their teachers “allow” them to have ownership over

their own learning.

Figure 2.1: Student ownership of learning model. (Conley & French, 2014, pg. 1021)

Figure 2.1 suggested that if students do not have some sense of ownership over their

learning and education they will struggle with one or all of these components.

23


Constructivist Theory to Support Ownership Practices

Theory does nothing for us if it does not connect to nor inform our practice. Using

constructivism in the classroom manifests itself as a student-centered and student-led classroom

which segues it into a foundational support for student ownership.

The shift to a student-centered classroom that promotes ownership in students means

teachers need to make an active change in the practices and functioning of the classroom.

Schcolnik, Kol, and Abarbanel (2006) provide guiding principles that include creating

environments and situations where students can be exposed to materials and experiences that

allow them to create their own knowledge and prompts them to have questions that require

research, providing opportunities to dialogue, and giving time for students to reflect on their

learning (Schcolnik, Kol, and Abarbanel, 2006). This places teachers into the untraditional role

of “gentle guide” who gives, takes, and lets students work through it (Schcolnik, Kol, and

Abarbanel, 2006, p. 19). Through this classroom environment where students actively engage in

the process of constructing knowledge, students are empowered as holders and owners of what

they learned (Schcolnik, Kol, and Abarbanel, 2006). Thereby, student ownership grows through

the “owning” of the creation of their knowledge. The work put in to create conclusions and reach

mastery itself promotes an ownership.

This student centered,student owned classroom - as created within constructivism - can

be seen in multiple studies that have provided students the ability to take control of their

learning. Schneider (2010) provides an account of how he sets up his classroom on the political

economy of South Africa. His constructivist approach stems from designing his classroom

around bringing in democracy and giving students ownership of their knowledge. As Schcolnik,

Kol, and Abarbanel (2006) suggested, this is done through discussion and creating situations that

24


allow students to create their own questions to research. Schneider (2010) begins by introducing

the structure of future assignments and instructor guided discussions that slowly allow students

to create questions for other small groups to work with. He emphasizes the importance of

“surrendering the role of expert” (Schneider, 2010, p. 103). This aligns with the principle of

having the teacher as the guide in the classroom, actively working against behaviorist structure,

and giving students ownership and returning power to them by giving them leads in the

classroom direction. From here, Schneider (2010) hands off the direction of discussions to

students, which leads them into short and then longer student research presentations. Peckman

(1996) took it a step further when he using his brother’s Peace Corp assignment to Kyrgyzstan to

allow students to create a unit to share information on America with the students there (p. 61).

His students focused on “Teenage American Culture,” planned individual assignment goals, and

the different tasks to be accomplished; Peckman existed in this sphere only as a guide to check in

and offer feedback to his students through conferences (Peckman, 1996, pp. 61-62).

This idea of surrendering the expert role actively works against the premise of “banking

education” and can be seen in other studies as a foundation tool in strategies that allow students

measurable control in their learning. In her novel Let Them Show Us the Way, Anne Green

(1995) discusses her guidance in teaching writer and readers in her first grade classroom with a

student centered approach that allows students to discover the alphabet and let it work for the

author (p. 16). Though older, Green’s work has been foundational in student ownership and

student-centered teaching as evidenced in this book. Green (1995) creates a hidden structure that

allows students to read mentor texts, write their own stories, practice the writing steps, and learn

the application of the alphabet in writing at their own pace (p.27). Though within this classroom

community the teacher may hold knowledge the students do not, Green poses three separate

25


positions for the teacher that flow between leading, participating, and observing (p. 31-32). This

provides evidence for the teacher surrendering control at different stages to allow students to

guide their learning through their own experiences. Green (1995) remarks that though “child

centered” is often equated with self-centeredness and the lack of control and discipline that

damages the students, it allows for the student to feel and see themselves as a valuable part of the

community and learning processes (pp. 28-29). Through this, Green creates a classroom where

students not only learn the mandated material but connect and understand its function as they

have used their own experiences to create meaning. The lack of teacher control does not mean a

lack in classroom control. Within this model, student ownership comes from the ability of

student voice and experience to influence and connect to their learning.

Furthering on the place of constructivism in the classroom, giving students control to

create knowledge allows them to connect the material to their own experiences outside the

classroom. By doing so, students are able to not just feel ownership but are able to understand

the content in a deeper manner. Stears (2009) followed this principle for his study using

constructivist strategies in science class. The whole class began with selecting a topic (fire) and

writing about their own experiences and what they knew. Stears (2009) believed this to ensure

active participation because students could relate to fire and were invested in understanding it

and how it interacts with their community. Activities start with a student’s everyday knowledge

and then carried on expanding it, feeding into Vygotsky’s zone of Proximal Development.

Students can understand material a reasonable distance from their prior knowledge; it focuses on

the construction of stairs to help get students to where the teacher wishes them to end. Stears’

(2009) lessons focused on staying learner centered with activities on discovering how long

different materials burn, what fire needs to burn, and the range and amount of fuels in their

26


community; and he provided worksheets that could be written or drawn on allowing for another

degree of student ownership. By bring students’ lives and knowledge into the class and then

connecting the classroom back to the community, this allows students to build off their previous

knowledge and then keep building off what they learn in the classroom. Even Toraman and

Demir (2016) in their meta-analysis of constructivism’s effect on student attitudes towards

lessons found that the effect in science is more pronounced because of its tendency towards

“practical applications” (p. 130).

Additionally, part of the process to construct meaning is receiving feedback to constantly

modify, update, and improve current meanings. This feedback feeds into furthering student

ownership. Harford (2008) states that the start of the year with “reflection and goal-setting

establish motivation, ensure buy-in, and give students a personal stake in the direction of the

course” and set the groundwork for “eureka moments” later in the class (p. 61). When students

reflect on their work and set measurable goals, they are able to see their strengths, weaknesses,

and the progress they have made (Hartford, 2008, p. 63). When students are able to articulate and

recognize not only what they are succeeding in but where they are struggling, activities in the

classroom have a personal connection to their learning, they are given a direction to work in, and

are able to make a choice in what goals they wish to focus on. Students need to understand the

intended learning, and these targets need to be conveyed in student-friendly terminology (Chan

et al., 2014, p.107). Below is the diagram provided by Chan et al. (2014.) This demonstrates the

foundation that proper assessment and feedback have towards student ownership. When their are

clear learning targets, feedback is able to be measurable and specific. This allows for students to

self-monitor and reflect on their learning - a previous noted benefit of student ownership. Self-

monitoring can only occur - student ownership can only occur - when clear targets and accurate

27


feedback are present to guide students through curriculum. If students are to feel ownership over

the knowledge they have created, they need to be able to assess what they know and what they

have yet to accomplish. In this way, assessment becomes meaningful and a tool in the learning

process while boosting student ownership over the content and skills.

Figure 2.2: Strategies to support student ownership of formative instruction practices (Chan et al., 20014, p. 107)

From here, on a basis of constructivism, ownership stems from a student’s ability to

create and put together information and experience. This ability needs to be nurtured and guided

through student-friendly learning targets and accurate assessment. An additional benefit of this is

that students become engaged with a topic and more intimately aware of it and what they know.

When the teacher relinquishes some of their control and student voice is honored within the

classroom, a more equal power balance allows students to take ownership. Ownership can only

happen if students are active participants in the classroom and that can only happen when a

28


teacher offers them that ability. Teachers cannot bemoan a lack of student participation if they

have not provided a structure that permits and honors it.

Influences on Ownership

While an ideal world would permit only teacher effort to directly correlate to student

ownership, it does not. A teacher’s realm lies primarily in the classroom, and though a large

portion of a child’s day may be spent there, what lies inside the classroom only accounts partially

for what factors sway a students ownership.

In their study about how students evaluate their teachers grading methods, Holmes and

Smith make the statement that, “Too often, grading does not tell student what they did well, nor

does it allow them to build on their successes.” (Holmes & Smith, 2003,p.319). This statement

indicates that without detailed feedback, a student is unable to grow in their learning. They also

mention that a lack of direct feedback is a common student complaint (Holmes & Smith 2003,

p.321). This ties directly to many several themes in our study. All of this leads to the idea that

giving assessments that are not directly tied to student learning makes it difficult for students to

be aware of how they are truly doing in school, as well as the idea that, without getting student

input on their learning goals and steps for the year there could be a large disconnect between the

students and assessments that they are receiving from the teacher.

Students home lives also have an influence on their perception of their own ownership, if

a student has nobody at home to help them they often feel as though they have not control. There

is also a connection between a students socioeconomic status and their perception of control.

Many low SES parents see education as a stepping stone, while their children struggle to have

that same attitude due to their SES, “a family with a high socio-economic status has a greater

capacity to equip their children with richer cultural resources (e.g., toys, books, tutorials) and a

29


more diversified recreational environment (e.g., social activities, interpersonal resources). In

contrast, children from low socioeconomic status families have less access to such cultural

resources. This gap in cultural environment is believed to account for the differences in attitudes

towards learning and academic performance, in addition to overall development” (Luo, Wang,

Zhang, & Chen, 2016, p. 2112).

In lower income schools, such as schools A and B in our study, it is much more common

to have students who struggle to understand why school is important, generally leading to more

behavior and academic issues, “children from families with a low socioeconomic status would

have fewer such resources, thereby making it more likely for them to have lower academic

performance and the negative behaviors and attitudes towards learning associated with such

lowered performance” (Luo, Wang, Zhang, & Chen, 2016, p. 2116).

Additionally, the pressures that come with being a low SES family cause students to feel

they have no control in their own lives outside of school, which causes them to act out in school

because their behavior is the only thing they feel they have control over. (Dotterer, Iruka,

Pungello, 2012, pp. 660-661). These behavior issues lead to strained relationships between the

students and their administrators and teachers, “The students who need relationships with their

teachers the most (i.e. those with limited interpersonal and academic skills) may be the least

likely to be selected as relationship partners.” (Schutz, Zembylas, 2009, p. 98).

Summary

Student growth and success depends upon student ownership, as well as relying on a

foundation of constructivism, through which we give meaning to the importance of student

ownership. From this basis of student ownership, we see a connection in the relationships

between home life and school life, as well as demanding a balance of student ownership of their

30


home life, school life, and the teacher strategies used to promote student ownership in the

classroom.

Higher self-confidence, a higher comfort level in seeking academic and social aid from a

teacher, and more initiative in the classroom are all indicators of a student who feels their

ownership in the classroom. Student reflection, student choice in areas of the classroom, and

practices of higher feedback and student inclusion in the process of their learning are all steps

taken by teachers to encourage and provide opportunities for student ownership of their learning.

However, we suggest that we suggest that current research does not address the interaction

between the student perceptions of their ownership and the practice and perceptions of their

teachers.

31


Chapter Three

Introduction

In order to examine the atmosphere of the sixth-grade population towards ownership in

the classroom and the perceptions of their teachers on student ownership, companion surveys

were created for both populations. These surveys contained both quantitative ratings and

qualitative responses to be collected for data. In this chapter, the following sections will describe

the settings for the study, participants, study design, data collection procedures, and plan for data

analysis.

The Setting

For this study, two schools were used. They will be called School A and School B

throughout the duration of this study. School A and B are both 6-8 grade, Title 1 middle schools,

meaning that they both serve high-poverty and low socio-economic students (SES) in a small

city. Class sizes varied from 20 to 32 students.

School A was Title 1 in Reading and Mathematics. As of 2016, of 699 students 579

qualified for free lunch with 47 qualifying for reduced lunch (areavibes). Additionally, the sixth

grade population was provided two healthy snacks by the district per week at the end of the day.

School A’s demographics are 32.7% Caucasian, 65.3% Hispanic or Latino with the remaining

2% divided between Asian, Pacific Islander, Biracial, Indigenous, and Other (areavibes).

The population of sixth graders asked to participate totaled 68 students with 39.7%

participating in the study. The population of teachers asked to participate totaled 10 with 100%

participating in the study.

32


School B was was also a Title 1 school in both Reading and Mathematics. As of 2016, of

906 students 472 qualify for free lunch with 105 qualifying for reduced lunch (areavibes). School

B’s demographics are 65.1% Caucasian, 27.8% Hispanic or Latino with the remaining 8%

divided between African American, Asian, Biracial, Indigenous, and Other (areavibes).

Out of the entire population of sixth grade students in school B, there were 142 who were

asked to participate in the study, 38.7% of those 142 students participated in the study. The

population of teachers asked to participate from school B totaled 13, with 76.9% of those 13

participating in the study.

The demographics of the two schools were important to address and keep in mind,

because Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs will be addressed in our conclusions, and the premise of

Maslow’s hierarchy is that people cannot move up the hierarchy, toward achievement and self-

actualization,without first having the basic needs of the lower tiers met.

Study Design

This study focused on data collection through surveys to examine what the atmosphere

around student ownership was. Two surveys provided 11 questions for either students or teachers

to reflect and provide feedback. These surveys were designed to address elements the we had

identified and believed as either synonymous or contributing factors to student ownership in the

classroom.

Data Collection Tools

For this research, we acted as instruments in gathering data. We were involved in the

classrooms with the students and teachers participating in the study. We also administered and

collected data by way of survey.

33


The quantitative question responses were rated on a scale from 1 to 7. On this scale, 1

corresponded to “never”, 4 to “sometimes”, and 7 to “always.” After recording responses to each

question in a data table, the “countif” function determined the frequency of each rating. This,

divided by the total number of participants, provided the frequency percentage of each rating for

every question. This allowed us to judge how the responses were divided among the whole in

relation to the same question and notice any trends among responses.

For participants, the first six questions asked for a rating in response to the prompting

question. Students rated the following questions we deemed relevant to our study: Do you keep

track of your school items?, Do you bring your materials to class every day?, Do feel you have a

part in the classroom learning process?, Do you feel you have a part in the assessments of your

learning?, Do you feel you like your grade is an accurate reflection of what YOU know?, and

Do you feel in charge of your learning? For students, these first six questions focused on student

perceptions of how often they believed themselves involved in the learning goals and assessment

design of the classroom, whether grades accurately represented what they learned, and whether

they kept track of their materials. These questions were selected in order to identify aspects of

the classroom where ownership frequently does or does not show itself; student participation and

involvement in these areas demonstrated how high or low student ownership may be. On the

other hand, teachers rated the following questions: Do you keep completed student work?, Do

you give your students an opportunity to complete work that is unfinished due to lack of student

preparation?, Do students have a part in deciding classroom learning targets?, Do you think

your students have a part in the assessments of their learning?, Do grades accurately represent

the learning growth of your students?, and Do you think your students feel in charge of their

learning? For teachers, these statements looked at the teacher side of the question we had

34


students responding to, and whether they make a discernible effort to include students in these

classroom decisions and if they felt student grades accurately represented student learning.

Participants then answered five open-ended questions with short responses that we

believed correlated with ideas and actions that contributed to ownership. After recording

individual student responses to each question in a data table, the data was disassembled by

question to be reviewed for common themes that appeared within the given answers. These

themes range between one and four for each question. Students responded to the following

questions: What supports do you have in place that help you learn?, What have teachers done

that helps you feel in charge of your learning?, What have teachers done that causes you to feel

like you have NO CONTROL of your learning?, Which teacher(s) help you feel in charge of your

learning in their classroom? Why?, and Which teacher(s) cause you feel like you have no control

of your learning in their classroom? Why? These questions had students identify specific actions

that contributed or detracted from their feeling of control in the classroom. Instead of discussing

the idea of ownership with students, control over the classroom was used to replace the term as it

plays also into the placement of power within the dynamic. Ownership provides power to

students which can be recognized in whether they feel in control of what is happening in the

classroom.

For teachers, the following questions were answered: What supports do you put in place

that help your students learn?, What do you do that helps your students to feel in charge of their

learning?, What do you think causes your students to feel like they have NO CONTROL of their

learning?, What do you notice about students who do feel in charge of their learning?, and What

do you notice about students who don't feel in charge of their learning? These questions had

35


teachers identify specific classroom policies they have in place to increase student ownership and

what they recognize in students who lack ownership.

Procedures

At School A, a month prior to the study, students were presented with the Student Assent

form first and discussed the nature of the study and what would be done. Those who assented

were provided with the Parent Consent form. During the last week of school, all students were

asked to fill out the student survey which was then handed in personally to the us as the

researcher. Those who had provided both assent and consent were assigned a number; when we

collected the surveys, we redacted the name of the surveyed student and wrote the assigned

number on the survey. Those who lacked either assent or consent were set aside into a separate

folder to be shredded. These surveys were kept intact during the entirety of the last week as

students continued to submit parental consent forms. After the last day of school, all surveys

without assent or consent were shredded.

We then supplied teachers with consent forms a month prior to the study. All teachers

who had agreed to participate were given the survey the last week of school to answer on their

own schedule. Consent forms were collected on an individual basis.

At School B we gave the parental consent forms to students three weeks prior to the study

and informed the students about the nature of the study and what would be done with the

information. We then also informed students that their participation in this survey had no effect

on either their grade or our personal feelings about the student. Students had three weeks to

return their consent form signed by a parent. If the original copies were lost, we provided extra

consent forms, students had opportunity to collect new forms as often as they needed.

36


During the last week of school all students who returned the Parental Consent form were

given the Student Assent form to sign and return to us. Once students handed in their assent form

they were given the survey and proceed to take the survey in class that day, once they had taken

the survey the students handed them in personally to us. Those who provided both assent and

consent were assigned a number and names were redacted.

In contrast to the students, teachers received consent forms and surveys three weeks prior

to the last day of school. All teachers who agreed to participate had until the last week of school

to answer the survey questions on their own schedule. These were individually handed in to us in

order to keep confidentiality. All teachers who responded to the survey were assigned to letters,

the first was a “B’, referencing School B, and the second letter was between A and K as a

qualifying letter with which to reference the surveys.

Validity and Reliability

The surveys were field tested prior to the study in School B by selecting teachers who

would not be participants in the study. Responses were then reviewed by us to check for

problematic wording and whether responses corresponded with comprehension of the question to

increase validity of the study. To ensure reliability of results, we both analyzed the data of each

school and then reviewed the other’s work.

Analysis of Data

Data were separated into two sets: quantitative and qualitative. Additionally, data were

analyzed on an individual school level and at a combined schools level.

The first six questions of the surveys makes up our quantitative data. The numerical

rating given to each statement was recorded for each student and teacher. As descriptive research

37


“highlights the outstanding characteristics of a sample, or of the population from which the

sample was drawn,” each question was treated as a single variable (Gray, Williamson, Karp, &

Dalphin 2007, 398). Mariginals were used in summarizing the data collected as responses were

limited to only seven possible options. The frequency of ratings for each question on the surveys

was calculated using “countif.” Then, rating percentage of each was determined by dividing

frequency by total participants. This was done at the student and teacher level for each school

separately and combined. A bar graph of percentages provides visual aid for the distribution of

the marginals. For students, this will be used to analyze which areas provide the highest and

lowest amount of ownership, if they all trend similarly or if any area is statistically significant.

For teachers, this will be used to analyze which areas teachers notice ownership in and provide

ownership in their classroom.

The second five questions of the surveys makes up our qualitative data. Following the

qualitative analysis framework from Chris Hendricks (2017), data was compiled on a sheet with

each student’s answers to questions recorded. These answers were disassembled by question and

looked at individually. The responses to the questions were studied for the most frequent

responses for each individual question and these were noted and categorized by theme. Then,

from these responses, data was reassembled with the top three common themes noticed and

recorded, in addition to any outlying responses. Interpretation followed by using common themes

to share the narrative of the data. These trends were then put towards answering the research

questions regarding student and teacher perceptions of ownership and their comparison in the

conclusions seen in Chapter 5.

38


Summary

Our study focused on the creation of companion surveys created to focus on two different

populations. Looking into classroom ownership and the atmosphere towards this idea was

examined using these two different surveys, one of which is geared towards students, and the

other is geared towards their teachers. In this chapter, the following sections were described: the

settings for the study, participants, study design, data collection procedures, and plan for data

analysis.

39


Chapter Four

Introduction

To examine the atmosphere of student ownership in the sixth-grade classrooms

participating in our study between teachers and students, we kept the data for teaches and

students separated. In our approach to understand how students and teachers view student

ownership, our quantitative data showed little significance while our qualitative data unearthed

unexpected themes. Due to this, we reported our quantitative data by integrating the responses

from both schools into a single data body; however, analysis of the data occured at the student

and teacher level. The bar graphs in Figure 4.1-4.12 present the percentage of response

frequency within the data pool for each of our first six survey questions.

Following this, common themes found in short answer questions, such as ownership

strategies and feedback importance, will be presented on the student level and the teacher level.

These responses have been presented at the individual school level in addition to integrating the

responses for themes on a wider demographic. Our qualitative data has been presented this way

as the themes provided insight to a disconnect in the teacher and student perceptions to be

discussed in Chapter 5.

Descriptive Statistics/Demographic Data

Students: School A and B

When combined, students at both schools responded with ratings that highly centered on

the “Almost Always” to “Always” (5-7). The skew left persists throughout all six questions,

though many produce a more pronounced skew.

40


Figure 4.1

The first question referenced student attitude to keeping track of school items - such as

homework, pencils, paper, binders, etc. The highest rating was 6, receiving 39% of student

responses. Following this, is a rating of 7 at 26%, 5 at 18%, 4 at 15%, and ratings of 2 or 3 tied

with 1%. This question yielded no responses of “Never” (or 1).

This shows the majority of students lean towards “Always” in response to how often they

kept track of their materials for class as seen in 65% of students giving a rating of 6 or 7. A slight

skew to the left indicates that few students feel they never or rarely keep track of their materials.

Figure 4.2

The second question narrowed in on student attitude of bringing said school materials to

class. The highest rating was 7 with over half of student responses at 53.7%. Following this, is a

41


rating of 6 at 25.6%, 5 at 12.2%, 4 at 7.3%, and 3 with 1.2%. This question yielded no responses

of “Never” (1 or 2).

Over three-fourths of students (79.3%) of students center towards the right in their

responses, demonstrating a strong feeling of always bringing their materials to class each day.

The remaining skew left towards “Sometimes”, but once again do not touch the “Never” end of

the scale.

Figure 4.3

Question three addressed student attitude towards feeling a part of the classroom learning

process. The highest rating was 7 with 34.1% of student responses. Next is a rating of 6 at

25.6%, 5 at 20.8%, 4 at 13.4%, 3 at 4.9%, and with 1 receiving 1.2% of responses. These

responses present a fairly smooth skew to the left. Though the “Always” rating is not as

predominantly ahead of the others, it still holds the majority of student sentiment with a steady

drop off towards our first “Never” rating.

42


Figure 4.4

The fourth question dealt with students feeling a part of assessments of their learning.

The highest rating was 6 gathering 41.5% of student responses and stands out among the other

response. Second is a rating of 7 at 29%, 5 at 14.6%, 4 at 12.2%, and 3 at 3.7%. This question

yielded no responses of “Never” (or 1). Yet again, the skew to the left is noticeable and stands

out starkly against nearly half of the population giving a rating of 6. While 41.5% of students

feel a part of classroom assessments, there is a clear taper that leads past “Sometimes” without

quite reaching “Never.”

Figure 4.5

Question five focused on student perceptions of whether their grade is an accurate

reflection of what they know. Though close together, a rating of 6 in the highest, with 37.8%

with 7 close behind at 31.7% of responses. 4 and 5 sit tied at 13.4% of responses each, with 3

43


receiving 2.4% and 1 at 1.2%. Though a majority centered around a higher end of the scale with,

the responses give a sharp drop to “Sometimes”and continue to skew to the left. Even if 69.5%

of responses favor a rating of 6 or 7, the scattering to the left draws attention to a pull of students

towards the left. Thirty-seven percent of students gave a rating of 6, 25.9% gave a 4, 18.5% gave

a 5, 11.2% gave a 8, and a tie of 3.9% for both ratings of 1 and 3.

Figure 4.6

The sixth question asked students to rate how often they felt in charge of their own

learning. Despite a high concentration between “Sometimes” and “Always,” there is a skew

towards the left. This time, “Never” rates at the highest percentage so far with 2.4% of responses,

which is double what it has received in any of the previous questions for this section. Despite

this, 7 ranks highest with 36.6% - with almost 16 percentage points over the next two highest (4

and 5) with 20.7% of responses respectively. Following is 4 with 14.6%, 3 and 1 with 2.4%, and

2 with 1.2%.

Teachers: School A and B

When combined, teachers’ responses at both schools were fairly consistent. There does

not tend to be a pronounced skew in either directions, however when there is a slight skew

present the graphs tend to have a slight skew to the left.

44


Figure 4.7

The first question addressed how often teachers kept ahold of completed student work.

Throughout both schools, there was a far greater spread of data across the scale. The highest was

4 at a percentage of 44%, 6 at a percentage of 28%, a tie between 5, and 7 at 11%, and the lowest

was “Sometimes” (or 3) at 6%. This question yielded no responses of “Never” or “Rarely” (or 1

and 2). The majority of the combined teacher’s responses sit heavily at “Sometimes”, however a

little over half of participants fall between “Often” and “Always”.

Figure 4.8

The next question addressed the teacher giving students opportunity to complete

unfinished work that went uncompleted due to student unpreparedness. This graph skewed to the

45


left. The majority of responses were a rating of 7 at 42.1% which sits as the front-runner. A close

second is 6 at 36.8%. 5 at 10.5%, and a tie between 3 and 4 with a percentage of 5.3%. While the

strong majority of teachers responded that they “Always” or “Almost Always” provide the

opportunity for students to makeup work, a little under a fourth of participants center around

“Sometimes”.

Figure 4.9

The third question looked at teachers including student participation in deciding

classroom learning targets. Once again, a strong majority can be recognized in 53% of responses

giving a rating of 4. There is a four-way tie between 1,2,5, and 6 with percentages of 10.5%, and

lastly 3 with a percentage of 5.3% . Response focused on “Sometimes” with a fairly even bell

curve among the data, with the main exception being the dip in responses at 3. There is a distinct

lack of “Always” as a response to this particular question.

46


Figure 4.10

Question four asked about teachers involving student participation in the assessments of

their learning. 53% of teachers responded with a rating of 5. The second highest response was 4

with a percentage of 32%, however the rest of the responses are in a three -way tie of 5.3% for

1,3, and 7. Though the majority of teachers responded slightly above “Sometimes”, there is slight

skew to the right as there are few responses beyond “Often” (or 5).

Figure 4.11

Next, the fifth question had teachers reflect on whether they believe student grades

accurately represent their learning growth in the classroom. There is a strong majority in “Often”

(or 5) as it sits at 42.1%, 4 and 6 sit tied at 21.1%, 3 with a rating of 10.5, and lastly 2 with a

47


percentage of 5.3% . Apart from the majority sitting around a response of “Often” or

“Sometimes”, there is a slight skew to the left of the graph.

Figure 4.12

Lastly, teachers were asked to rate how often they see/interpret students feeling in charge

of their learning. 47.4% of teachers gave a rating of 5 - showing they interpret students feeling in

charge of their learning “Often”. 15.8% gave a rating of 4 while 3,6, and 7 all got 10.5%, and

5.3% gave the question a rating of 2. Once again, the data focuses on a spread around

“Sometimes” with a fairly even bell curve and no discernable skew to either side.

While reviewing this data, it did not provide the information we had anticipated and

found the results inapplicable to answering our research questions. Moving forward, we sorted

through the short responses from our open ended questions.

Findings from Open-Ended Questions

The following charts present the survey question, common themes, and student quotes to

support what we found. This data has been presented both in the individual schools and in

integration as though themes between schools were similar, small nuance’s of responses and

focused were noted.

48


Students

Unlike our quantitative data, our qualitative data is separated, both by school and by

teacher/student answers. We began our qualitative data analysis focusing on the student

perceptions of their learning and control in the classroom. The charts below outline our survey

questions, the themes we noticed from the answers to those questions, and our evidence

supporting our themes.

School ASurvey Question Themes Student Quotes

What supports do you have

in place that help you learn?

- Teachers

- Peers

- Parents/outside

- Myself

“People outside of the classroom because I can ask them what they are doing in their class and I can compare to if we are learning the same thing.” - Student A3

“What supports I have in place that help me learn are a teacher and parents.” - Student A6

“The supports I have in place are me paying attention and asking questions.” - Student A10

“Some supports that help me learn are paying attention and keeping track of my work.” - Student A17

What have teachers done

that helps you feel in charge

of your learning?

- Academic support

- Emotional support

“What teachers have done that helps me feel in charge of my learning by giving me sometimes homework, and I'm in charge of what happens to my homework.” - Student A6

“What teachers have done that helps me feel in charge of my learning is them answering my questions and them teaching me.” - Student A10

“Teachers help me feel in charge of my learning by helping me and telling me what is bad and what is good.” - Student A17

49



that causes you to feel like

you have NO CONTROL of

your learning?

- Lack of positive

attention

- Lack of explanation

“They say how to do it and if you don't do it their way they get mad.” - Student A2

“They sometimes never explain anything, so then when we have test we fail.” - Student A22

“[A teacher] completely rattled me and made others sad.” - Student A13

“When they don't pay attention to me when I need help.” - Student A11

Which teacher(s) help you

feel in charge of your

learning in their classroom?

Why?

- Encouragement

through giving advice

- Receiving free time

“They sometimes let us choose the activity.” - Student A27

“She always tells me if I can't do it move on or she pushes me forward.” - Student A3

Which teacher(s) cause you

to feel like you have no

control of your learning in

their classroom? Why?

- If a teacher is

“mean”

“I don't want to say, but that teacher never explains something so sometimes I don't understand.” - Student A15

“[A teacher] is really rude and she doesn't listen to you.” - Student A11

“... she usually bosses us around and yells at us.” - Student A13

Figure 4.13

At School A, students tended to views their supports as their relationships. These

relationships most commonly noted were parents, teachers, peers, and themselves. Comments on

finding support in physical resources did not occur at a significant rate. Those that did followed a

vein of resources provided by the student themselves such as Student A14 who said, “I always

look in my notebook.” For School A, student relationships with others provided what they

viewed as support for their academic experience.

When commenting on what allows a feeling of control in the classroom, support in both

the academic and emotional field were consistently brought up. Teacher actions specifically

50


noted as contributing to allowing students to feel in charge of their classroom experience were

noted in adding students were in reference through encouragement through teachers providing

advice and feedback. Students also felt control when provided “free time” which here will be

defined as unstructured, student choice activities or work time.

On the other hand, School A frequently mentioned the inverse of these ideas as a source

for students feeling out of control in the classroom. When teachers lacked in giving positive

attention and feedback to students, participants claimed to feel no control within the classroom

setting. Another occurring theme was a feeling of no control when a student perceived a teacher

as “mean” towards them which predominantly was the case in reference to negative

consequences for classroom behavior.

School BSurvey Question Themes Student Quotes



- Teachers

- Peers

- Parents/outside

- Myself

“I have a lot of support. My main source of support is my family. I also get support from my friends and teachers.”-Student B28

“My teachers, and the students around me. And my parents.” -Student B34

“What helps me learn is the kindness and patient attitude of my peers and teachers”- Student B44

What have teachers done that

helps you feel in charge of

your learning?

- Encouragement

- Working in groups

“They ask if I understand and don't get angry no matter how many times I ask for clarification.” - Student B12

“All of them because we are always collaborating and coming up with ideas.” -Student B18

51


“Many teachers just by simply encouraging me or telling me "amazing job" just motivates me to try my hardest. My friends and family support me.” -Student B39

What have teachers done that

causes you to feel like you

have NO CONTROL of your

learning?

- Lack of explanation

- Moving too quickly

“Some teachers don't let us explore topics or ideas further. “ -Student B13

“There has only been a few times but it's when we take notes, we go too fast so you are just writing words not learning it.” -Student B47




Why?

- Positive learning

environment

- Willingness to explain

further

“They allow different opinions of how to do things.” -Student B31

“It's always been [a teacher] and I think it always will be like that. He always is there for me, educational or not. He lets me take control but he’s also like my co-pilot walking me through the way and warning me.” -Student B39

“[A teacher], [a teacher], [a teacher]. They have one thing in common: they tell me to do my own things and they don't take it away or do it for me.” -Student B46


feel like you have no control

of your learning in their

classroom? Why?

- No freedom to further

explore interesting ideas

and concepts

- Teachers not allowing

students to do whatever

they want.

“Some teachers don't let us explore topics or ideas further. “ -Student B13

“Some teachers say things like "You will have an F if you don't complete the work" which makes you forcefully try and learn and do the assignments.” -Student B10

Figure 4.14

52


Similar to School A, students from School B tended to views their supports as their

relationships. These relationships most commonly noted were teachers, peers, parents, and

themselves. Also similar to School A, School B had very few students who felt that their support

was from a physical resource. Student B17 was one of those few students that did feel as though

they had a resource they could reference, “I have a binder to keep track of my stuff and a

notebook to help me study.”

For School B, student relationships with others provided what they viewed as support in

both the academic and emotional field. These relationships also allowed for a feeling of control

in both their personal lives and educational experiences, as well as giving students strong support

through teachers who showed a willingness to provide encouragement, better explanations, and

more group work.

Students often suggested a lack of control if they felt as though there was poor

instruction, or a lack of complete explanation on their teacher’s part. There was also a feeling of

being unsteady in their control if the teachers moved too quickly through the work and if the

students were not allowed to do what they wished, whenever they wished. This was often

expressed as a student feeling a teacher is being “mean” to them.

Both SchoolsSurvey Question Themes Student Quotes



- Teachers

- Peers

“The supports I have in place are me paying attention and asking questions.” -Student A10

“My teachers help expand my learning experience. “ -Student B8

“Parents, teachers, my older sister. “ -Student B18

53


- Parents/outside

- Myself


that helps you feel in charge

of your learning?

-Academic Support

-Emotional Encouragement

“What teachers have done are making games or keeping us active so we can learn” -Student A4

“My teacher tells me that she has confidence in me.” -Student A12

“My teachers have us find answers for ourselves. We don't just copy the answers. “ -Student B13


that causes you to feel like

you have NO CONTROL of

your learning?

-Lack of Explanation

- Moving too quickly through

materials.

“The sometimes never explain anything, so then when we have test we fail.” -Student A22

“ Rush through the notes on the board. “ -Student B17




Why?

-Encouraging Advice

-Positive learning

Environment and Classroom

setting

“ [A teacher] because she always tells me if I can't do it move on or she pushes me forward.” -Student A3

“The teachers that help me are the ones that help you to understand things you need to know.” -Student B1

“[A teacher]. She is always willing to help.” -Student B35


feel like you have no control

of your learning in their

-Lack of complete freedom

given to the students

“[A teacher] is really rude and she doesn't listen to you.” -Student A11

“[A teacher] because she usually bosses us around and yells at us.”

54


classroom? Why?

Student A13

“A teacher that makes me feel like I have no control of my learning is [a teacher], she is nice and all, but I feel forced to learn and do the work. “ -Student B10

Figure 4.15

When combining the data from both schools and viewing it as one large group, we

noticed that the patterns stayed fairly similar to our original thoughts, with a few exceptions due

to the amount of data we were compiling. There is still the idea from both schools’ students, that

their support comes from parents, family, teachers, and themselves with the exception of one or

two students who do not think they have been given any support. As well as the idea that the

most important forms of support given that help them feel control are emotion and academic.

The lack of explanation and fast pace of work causes many students throughout both

schools to struggle with a sense of control or “being in charge” of their learning, as well as a

perceived lack of control being noted anytime a student felt they did not have one hundred

percent free will to do what they wanted. However, positive learning environments and large

amounts of encouragement were noted by the majority of students as being ways their teachers

give back the control of their learning.

Teachers

Our second portion of our qualitative data analysis focused on the teacher perceptions of

their students learning and control in the classroom. The charts below outline our survey

questions, the themes we noticed from the answers to those questions, and our evidence provided

by the teaches that supported our themes.

School A

55


Survey Question Themes Teacher Quotes

What supports do you put

in place that help your

students learn?

Supports focus on building

foundations within three

relationship areas:

- Student-Student

- Student-Work

- Student-Teacher

Focus primarily on Student-

Teacher.

“Individual meetings throughout the week. Parent communication. Productive classroom environment.” - Teacher AF

“Alone-on-one area, heterogenous small groups, peer tutoring, self and peer assessments, whole group discussion on how to improve, what went right or wrong, hands on games to keep engagement high.” - Teacher AD

“Peer Teaching. One-on-One with Teacher. Reflection/Feedback.” - Teacher AI

What do you do that helps

your students to feel in

charge of their learning?

Students are given or co-

create expectations within

the classroom on

assignments.

“Analyze Learning target, have a small group discussion, then they help write success criteria, student assignment choice 2-3x per week. Open seating. For low cognitive - choose questions to answer within a concept.” - Teacher AD

“Student generated success criteria. Individual and group accountability. Responsibility based support at home.” - Teacher AE

“very clear expectations” - Teacher AB

What do you think causes

your students to feel like

they have NO CONTROL

of their learning?

- Lack of Engagement

- Unclear Expectations

- Lack of support

“When everything is dictated to them and they have little or no choice.” - Teacher AC

“Lack of feedback. Lack of basic skills to deal with new challenges (or even demonstrate previous knowledge). Lack of support.” - Teacher AE

“Assignments/activities that are not engaging.” - Teacher AF

What do you notice about - Correlation between “Students who are in charge of their

56


students who do feel in

charge of their learning?confidence and motivation

learning are on task, ask questions to better understand, use [morning intervention] time when needed, turn stuff in on time.” - Teacher AA

“They participate more easily, have greater confidence and can focus on the importance of learning.” - Teacher AD

“More productive, greater effort, highly motivated, intrinsically motivated, and higher interest in learning.” - Teacher AG

What do you notice about

students who don't feel in


- Undesired behavior for the

classroom

- Closed to feedback

“At times, they have come behavior issues. I think they don't connect consequences to their behavior.” - Teacher AB

“They do not focus, distract others, and make excuses for not completing work.” - Teacher AC

“Off-task behavior. Recycle assignments without reading feedback from the teacher or other students. Often answers with "I don't know" in class. Constantly asking about grades.” - Teacher AF

Figure 4.16

When reflecting on their own practice, teachers remark on their supports centering on

building off one of three researcher termed foundational relationships: (1) student-student, (2)

student-work, and (3) student-teacher. The primary focus within these relationships tended to be

strategies that are directed on primarily Student-Teacher. Specific strategies used to enhance

students feeling in charge of their learning center on giving or co-creating expectations within

the classroom on assignments to be done. On the other hand, teachers remark that students feel

no control over their learning when there is a lack of engagement, lack of support, and unclear

expectations within the classroom. Looking at the behavior of students in relation to perceived

57


control in the classroom, teachers commonly noted a correlation between feelings of control and

high confidence and motivation in the classroom. In contrast, when teachers perceive students

don’t feel control, they note undesired classroom behavior and a resistance to offered feedback.

School BSurvey Question Themes Teacher Quotes



students learn?

Supports focus on building


relationship areas:

- Student-Student

- Student-Work

- Student-Teacher.


Teacher.

“High expectation for quality work. Examples of quality are present, grading expectations are given, and certain adaptations are made for students who are low academically. Proximity and encouragement are given to students who are reluctant learners.” -Teacher BE

“Classroom environment is a safe place where it is okay to make mistakes. Elbow partners, show material in different ways, use student work as examples.” -Teacher BJ




- Planning Expectations

- Behavioral Expectations

“Relationships need to be built with students, and they need to know you have high expectations for their individual work.” -Teacher BE

“ Students feel in charge when they have a choice in the outcome or how to demonstrate the learning.” -Teacher BH

“Students complete behavior and academic reflections at the end of each quarter and they use these to create goals. Students also do a variety of peer and self assessment with things like essays and literature circles.” -Teacher BC

What do you think causes - Lack of skills and abilities “I think if a student falls behind or

58




of their learning?

gets frustrated by something they don't think they're good at (such as writing) they often feel like they no longer can control their success.” -Teacher BC

“Direct instruction 24/7, not allowing students to collaborate, not allowing students to make up work, testing students too often.” -Teacher BG

“Lack of math/read/writing skills. Lack of differentiation. Lack of planning and long-term thinking.” -Teacher BD




- Take initiative in school

- Think to the future

“Enthusiasm, awareness/interest in post-high school career.” -Teacher BD

“They are usually quick to adopt and initiate undesired activities and have a generally more positive demeanor when at school.” -Teacher BI

“They are more successful because they understand what is being asked of them. They are always looking ahead and are eager for more.” -Teacher BJ




- Pulled along by the flow of

school

- Lack of relationships built

“Some students have had events happen in their lives that have created a lack of background knowledge. These holes in their knowledge need to be filled in order to be in charge of their learning. These same students need to have relationships built with their teachers and classmates so they feel safe asking questions and producing their best possible work.” -Teacher BE

“Less buy-in, more negativity.” -Teacher BI

“They often feel like victims of

59


indifferent, bureaucratic violence.” -Teacher BI

Figure 4.17

In School B, teachers viewed of support for students generally coming from relationships

students have with others, specifically their relationships with Teachers, other students, and their

own families. Similar to School A, the most common supports noted in School B were teacher-

student relationships, with a fairly even amount of supports coming from both student-student

and student-family relationships.

Teachers in School A noticed that a common tool to allow students to have control over

their learning was the ability to show clear expectations and allowing students to take the

initiative in their own learning. Contrary to this, teachers imply that students feel they have no

control when they lack skills to succeed, they have no or few relationships built, and they are just

being pulled along in their learning by the flow of the classroom. Teachers seemed to notice a

direct correlation between whether or not a student feels they have any control and how a student

behaves, as well as their interactions with others.

Both SchoolsSurvey Question Themes Teacher Quotes



students learn? Supports focus on building


relationship areas:

- Student-Student

- Student-Work

- Student-Teacher

“Alone-on-one area, heterogeneous small groups, peer tutoring, self and peer assessments, whole group discussion on how to improve, what went right or wrong, hands on games to keep engagement high.” - Teacher AD

“Peer Teaching. One-on-One with Teacher. Reflection/Feedback.” - Teacher AI

“Classroom environment is a safe place where it is okay to make mistakes. Elbow partners, show

60



Teacher.material in different ways, use student work as examples.” -Teacher BJ




Creation of expectations,

both behavioral and

planning.

“Student generated success criteria. Individual and group accountability. Responsibility based support at home.” - Teacher AE

“Relationships need to be built with students, and they need to know you have high expectations for their individual work.” -Teacher BE

“Students feel in charge when they have a choice in the outcome or how to demonstrate the learning.” -Teacher BH

What do you think causes



of their learning?

-Lack of support and clear

expectations

-Student lacks a certain skill

set

“Lack of feedback. Lack of basic skills to deal with new challenges (or even demonstrate previous knowledge). Lack of support.” - Teacher AE

“I think if a student falls behind or gets frustrated by something they don't think they're good at (such as writing) they often feel like they no longer can control their success.” -Teacher BC




-A positive association

between confidence and

motivation.

“They participate more easily, have greater confidence and can focus on the importance of learning.” - Teacher AD

“More productive, greater effort, highly motivated, intrinsically motivated, and higher interest in learning.” - Teacher AG

“They are more successful because they understand what is being asked of

61


them. They are always looking ahead and are eager for more.” -Teacher BJ




-Poor relationships and

classroom behaviors

-Closed to feedback

“At times, they have come behavior issues. I think they don't connect consequences to their behavior.” - Teacher AB

“Some students have had events happen in their lives that have created a lack of background knowledge. These holes in their knowledge need to be filled in order to be in charge of their learning. These same students need to have relationships built with their teachers and classmates so they feel safe asking questions and producing their best possible work.” -Teacher BE

Figure 4.18

When regarding both schools as one, we noticed that the teachers considered the

connection between a teacher and a student the most common connection needing to be built. We

also noticed that, along with creating strong connections, and giving positive support, teachers

suggested that making students aware of the behavioral and classroom expectations at the

beginning of school goes a long way toward helping the students feel a sense of control over

their learning.

The common themes being shown throughout the questions about a lack of control are

the ideas that a student who feels they are lacking in skills will struggle with control, if they

don’t have confidence in themselves they will not feel a sense of control, as well as the idea that

a student who feels they lack control in their learning will not embrace feedback as it is given but

will instead ignore it and view it as an attack on them personally.

62


Summary

Our intent was to use both quantitative and qualitative data o examine the atmosphere of

student ownership in the sixth-grade classrooms participating in our study between teachers and

students. In order for this study to be as effective and enlightening as possible, we kept the data

for teacher and students separated. Due to our findings, or lack thereof, while we continued to

keep the student and teacher quantitative data separated, we did integrate the responses from

both schools into a single data body. We included the bar graphs for each of our first six survey

questions to present the percentages of response frequency within the data pool.

We next noted common themes, such as feedback importance and ownership strategies.

These responses have been presented at multiple levels, we kept the individual schools in

addition to keeping the student and teacher responses separated, thus allowing for theme

observation on a more widely spread demographic level. Our data has been presented this way

due to the lack of information found in our quantitative data, and the themes found in our

qualitative data that provided insight to a disconnect between teachers and students we discuss in

Chapter 5.

63


Chapter Five

Summary

We designed our study to examine the atmosphere of the sixth grade population towards

their ownership in the classroom in comparison to how teachers’ perceive student efforts, their

strategies to build ownership, and the atmosphere of the classroom. Our study focused on the

following questions:

1. What is the state of student ownership in the classroom from multiple perspectives?

a. How do students view their ownership?

b. How do teachers view student ownership in their classroom?

2. How do student and teacher perspectives compare?

Data were collected through surveys designed to address elements that we believed

indicative of ownership. Two surveys (a teacher and student edition) provided eleven questions

for reflection and feedback. Questions allowed for the rating of statements about the classroom

and personal experience in addition to short answer feedback.

Conclusions

When looking at the data, we began by addressing the question: How do students

perceive their ownership? The largest trend to take note of in comparing the results of the

quantitative and qualitative is that the data indicated a disconnect between the rating and

responses. While quantitative responses consistently remained towards the right of the graph

with varying skews to the left, indicating responses that suggested a higher degree of feelings of

64


student ownership, the short answer responses provided trends that seemed to suggest students

felt little presence within the classroom itself.

Conclusion #1: Among students, no singular definition of perception or of “control”

existed. Rather, two prominent perceptions exist side by side.

One of the issues we ran into when sifting through the qualitative data was the differing

definitions and opinions on control in such a way that the idea came to no longer reside in the

definition as we had set earlier. While control was treated synonymously with ownership

between the researchers - as the perceived power within the term control indicates the control a

student with ownership feels over their learning - students indicated two separate ideas of

“control”.

The first idea of “control” meant simply to the student “I do what I want”. This was

shown in student discontent in having to complete teacher assigned work instead of possessing

the ability to complete work as they deemed necessary. This is evidenced in Student A21’s

response of, “Tell us we have to do it or give us a bad grade or do stupid work projects” and

similar sentiments of having to follow teacher instructions in order. Student B33 expressed the

desire to explore outside of classroom restrictions (“Letting me kinda do my own thing”).

Occasionally, comments would also center on student inability to talk in the classroom when

they wanted (Student A26). These students view control in the classroom explicitly not only in

which actions are able to be performed but what academics they are allowed to participate in.

Teacher action that oversteps theirs is when control is lost. Therefore, the data suggests that these

students perceive their control as when their actions are free of teacher restrictions. This control

can either indicate need for student choice or need for student peer socialization. Socialization

tended to be favored more over choice of work.

65


The second definition geared more towards the learning within the classroom and

worked within the teacher’s control. This control can be summarized as “I understand what the

teacher wants me to do.” Student A10 stated, “What teachers have done that helps me feel in

charge of my learning is them answering my questions and them teaching me.” Additionally,

Student A18 and Student B12 also remark on teachers answering their questions as providing the

control. Student B12 even narrows on the fact that the teacher not getting angry as an important

part of this. This indicates that what students needed most to feel control within the classroom,

and begin to broach into feeling they owned their learning, was good feedback. Without

feedback, frustration and discontent was a common theme among students in both School A and

B. This control exists in a realm closer to what we had anticipated of what student ownership is

and what strategies tend to focus on as Schcolnik, Kol, & Abarbanel (2006) and Holmes & Smith

(2003) centered on clear feedback as a strategy to increase ownership.

Conclusion #2: Within these competing ideas of control, student definition of and

perceptions of their control revolved around where they rested on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Students’ perceptions adjusts based on what needs have or have not been met inside or outside of

the classroom.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs centers on the assumption that all people of a set of needs

to be fulfilled; as each need is met they will naturally move on to meet the next need (Parkay &

Stanford, 2004, p. 287). As people are physically healthy and feel secure, they will then search

for emotional needs of friendship and acceptance before moving on to eventually reach the

highest tier that demands they use their skills and talents to reach their highest potential (Parkay

& Stanford, 2004, p. 287). However, not all students are able to function at the same level. This

was especially true for students from low-SES backgrounds as the students of our study come

66


from. This affected not only their placement on the hierarchy of needs but their development

level as well (Parkay & Stanford, 2004, p. 287).

Primary student critiques of what does and does not provide them control tended to

center around emotional and social support instead of academic. Even requests regarding

academics frequently focused on the emotional aspect. Students wanted emotional support, “free

time”, a positive environment, and encouragement through positive feedback. Student A12 states

that what helps them feel in control is when “My teacher tells me that she has confidence in me.”

Additionally, teacher patience and not getting upset “no matter how many times I ask for

clarification” helped students to feel control (Student B12). While these requests and perceptions

may be set aside as inconsequential because of a lack of focus on the academics of school (where

ownership is typically applied), we find that this is imperative to understanding what the student

sees as control.

Until this finding in our data, we had not contributed much to Maslow’s hierarchy

outside of one of the multiple influences on student ownership. Yet, as Parkay and Stanford

(2004) mention, whether a students biological or physcology needs have been met (the lower

tiers on Maslow’s hierarchy) will influence a students ability and development in the classroom

(285-287). Though these student responses do mention academics, it is done through a focus on

the emotional safety they feel with the teacher. The feedback alone and structure of expectations

isn’t given the focus that Chan et al. (2014) does in their recommendations for a student centered

classroom. Student language focuses on a joint (or more) importance on the emotional safety

conveyed through these interactions with can be explained when looking at this data in terms of

Maslow’s hierarchy. Though students seek the feedback, they need to feel safe and a sense of

belonging which are central to Maslow’s second and third tiers. This suggests that a student

67


cannot feel the level and perception of control that falls along with ownership strategies until

biological and psychological needs have been met.

Conclusion #3: Some students acknowledged a disconnect between student needs and

the power dynamics at play within the curriculum they are required to learn.

Though a smaller portion of student participants related purely to the academics and

power dynamics, several did tap into the difference in status positions between the students and

the teachers. Remarks followed a stream similar to Student 27 who said, “They [don’t] care what

we had to say.” Others draw along the sentiments that they are merely told what to do or get a

bad grade and teachers “forcefully [make students] try and learn and do the assignments,”

(Student B10, Student A21). These comments drew from several of our early works in Chapter

Two towards the banking model of education that we suggest connects Freire (1996) to the

importance of constructivism in the classroom. Students are remarking on the practices that stem

from a teacher centered classroom where the teacher acts as the source of knowledge and never

lets a student be the expert as Schneider (2010) suggests. When the students are not given a

priority and the banking model occurs, this resentment builds and students cannot perceive

control within their classroom experience because the teacher has been placed solely in a place

of power and makes all decisions in classroom procedure and academics.

However, these very concepts and actions of banking education that students commented

on as being the source for their lack of control were mentioned by others to be the source for

their possession of control. One such students said, “What teachers have done that helps me feel

in charge of my learning by giving me sometimes homework, and I'm in charge of what happens

to my homework” (Student A6). This then becomes a struggle to identify if this control is

claimed simply because of the lack of a model of teaching outside of banking and as such the

68


only way a student perceives control or if the student would maintain this expression within

other models.

Students even provided insightfully nuanced perceptions of the powers at play in the

classroom - one student even identified the term “power” without it having been indicated in the

survey or by us. Student B7 said, “Most of my teachers make me feels like I have control but

some teach the best way they like teaching not what the students like.” Another notes that though

no teacher limits their feeling of control they address it with the specific terminology of never

feeling like the teacher had “too much power over the class” (Student B53). Meanwhile Student

B15 notes the control discrepancies between student-teacher and overarching systematic forces,

such as district and state department of education, and states, “Some subjects in a certain grade

are not fun whatsoever. But you have to learn it because the law says so! And we will probably

not need that information later, when we grow up.” These students are tapping into a banking

model that exists not just on a school level but on a nationwide level. Their perception of no

control is noted and then directly contributed to what goes on culturally behind the curtains that

enforces that truth for them. Even if a couple noted that it is not the case currently with their

teachers, they possess an awareness of those interactions and how they affect others outside of

themselves and the classroom.

Conclusion #4: When approaching how teachers encourage and witness student

ownership, teacher strategies focused on building self-efficacy and tapping into student desire of

self-actualization providing “controls” in an academic realm and in a teacher-student

relationship. Students who the teachers identify as not feeling control are given terms of

“unmotivated” and labelled behavior problems.

69


As mentioned in Chapter Four, teachers reflected that their student supports centered on

building three types of relationships: student-student, student-work, and student-teacher. Further,

specific classroom strategies focused on providing checking points for feedback to students and

variation in the delivery of information in the classroom. Teacher AD mentioned what they did

to increase student control as, “Analyze Learning target, have a small group discussion, then they

help write success criteria, student assignment choice two to three times per week. Open seating.

For low cognitive - choose questions to answer within a concept.” Teacher BE uses “high

expectation”, “examples of quality [student work]”, and clear “grading expectations” to support

students in the classroom. This idea of student friendly learning targets in addition to specific

feedback and student models is supported by Chan et al. (2014). These strategies reflect parts of

a student centered classroom. However, little is given to demonstrate teachers allow time for the

student to be the expert on a topic, as Schneider (2010) suggest. Yet, as the literature shows,

teacher strategies focus on providing understanding and control within the academic spheres of

the classroom to support student ownership.

When noting the differences between students who feel they do or do not have control in

the classroom, teacher comments focus on student behavior in the classroom. Students who are

perceived as feeling in control are motivated and ask questions. Those who are perceived as

feeling a lack in their control are unmotivated, constantly question their grades, and distract

others in the class. While strategies to support control focus on the academics, critiques of

student control devolve into a commentary on student behavior when these strategies do not

work and not on their academic understanding. This can be attributed to a fundamental

attribution error as teachers complain about the behavior displayed instead of the underlying

system at work that create the behaviors (Heath & Heath, 2010, p. 180).

70


When students do not feel control in the classroom over the academics - which student

ownership is focused on - it shows in their behavior as that becomes an area the teacher

perceives the lack of control manifesting, equating it to a lack of self-control over behavior.

Teacher strategies are often used and decided upon from the point of view of Maslow’s

“Esteem” tier which focuses on the needs of education and achievement giving students control

for ownership within the. Yet, the question to discern then is whether student behavior that

creates distraction comes from a need for achievement (creating and demonstrating power in the

classroom and taking the class’s attention) or from a need of belonging (receiving peer positive

attention).

Conclusion #5: When comparing student and teacher perceptions of student ownership,

the idea of control and what can be taken ownership of stems from the fulfillment of needs in

relation to where students sit on Maslow’s hierarchy which primarily rest in Belonging and

Safety Needs.

Figure 5.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Boatwright, Hoffman, Medcalf, 2013)

Even with a constructivist lens, if there is no underlying Pedagogy of Care that insists all

needs of a student are met, previously discussed measures to ensure student ownership goes to

71


the shitter. If students are not able to exist in the top tiers of “Self-Actualization” and “Esteem”,

they are unable to construct meaning nor exhibit the benefits of student ownership of internal

motivation. Once people have had all previous needs met they are able to focus on striving for

education, achievement, and reaching their fullest potential, all of which underlay the very basis

of learning and mastering a skill. A student focused on sleep, a safe environment, or simple

acceptance in the community cannot be expected to focus on learning.

However, teachers’ strategies and expectations approach students from the top tiers but

reality has them lower - expecting a desire for self-actualization and esteem to direct control

when students are wanting control of safety and belonging. A student won’t seek and respect the

ownership of their learning if they don’t possess the control of their safety and belonging. This

is evidenced in students seeing teachers as “mean” for a reason they don’t feel control.

Figure 5.2: Student ownership of learning model. (Conley & French, 2014, pg. 1021)

This model mentioned previously in Chapter Two, speaks to the self-efficacy and regulation that

is expected and needed for student ownership that cannot be expected if students have not had

their needs met. The problem then resides in the fact that the practices are not addressing the

earlier needs to be met because they are assumed to have been met already. “Free time” and

positive feedback meeting lower tier needs. This is where control is perceived because that is

72


what is needed. Teacher strategies focus on building self-efficacy which the students don’t

recognize or respond to because they are incapable of doing so.

While a teacher approaches the issue from the top tiers, students interpret it from an idea

of belonging. A student views the rejection of personal time and friendliness in harsh terms

because that is what the student needs. This is where control is perceived because that is what is

needed. Teacher strategies focus on building self-efficacy which the students don’t recognize or

respond to because they are incapable of doing so because their most basic needs have not yet

been met. Until those emotional needs are met inside or outside of the classroom a student will

not be able to meet the teacher’s self-efficacy expectations. As mentioned earlier, a student

cannot be expected to seek education and competence if they are unable to feel rested, fed, safe,

and accepted. As student themes around what provides control in the classroom centering on

social desires and free time, this may indicate a focus on their need for control - need here used

to indicate that until it has been met nothing else can be expected - to stem from the classroom

needing to provide and fulfill those tiers first in the classroom. This may be in addition to having

these tiers met at home or might be because of a lack of those tiers at home.

The constructivist lens need to be adjusted to take into account that students in this study

appear to focus their constructed meaning into social dynamics and emotional needs in alignment

with Social Constructivism as discussed in Schcolnik, Kol, and Abarbanel (2006). But, before a

discussion on ownership within banking education versus constructivism can take place, first

ownership within student hierarchy of needs has to be addressed. No ideology that informs

practice and produces strategies that relate to the two top tiers can yield anything in terms of

student perceptions of control unless they have their physical, emotional, and social needs met.

Both ideologies rest on education being a highly personal matter that requires self-regulation

73


which cannot occur until the first three tiers of needs have been met. Because of this, the

disconnect in how theory informs practice and how those practices are being interpreted by

students creates a discrepancy in the student views and teacher views of control in the classroom.

We noted that the teachers do multiple Student-Teacher "controls", this may contribute to

the student feeling a lack of control because they are not working individually or in small groups

with others. Adolescents have begun to enter a stage where peer relations have become a core

part of their identity. Their peer approval has begun to rank higher than adult approval in sixth

grade; additionally, this peer social group provides development that the adult-child relationship

cannot (Ormrod, 2009, 242). This creates a reason for the demand for more social time when we

see the focus on teacher strategies centering on adult-child relationships. Ormrod (2009) notes

this in their developmental trends in middle schoolers in addition to imaginary audience where a

student believes they are the center of attention at all times in social situations (pps. 240, 242).

The commentary on group projects providing more control in their education may indicate that

for these students ownership in education is not about individual efforts and teacher approval but

a group effort that has been marked worthy by the peers.

With this in mind, within the classroom despite teacher best efforts to be aware of the

control dynamics and allow students control and ownership over their learning, expected results

will not happen until student physical, emotional, and self-esteem needs have been met. Or, as

these needs fluctuate, the teacher must be aware of how such a fluctuation influences the

student’s ownership in the classroom.

This can even be seen within Quantz’s narratives. Quantz can also be used to identify this

in a Reproductive Narrative. This narrative asserts that public schools educate those of different

classes based on class in a way that benefits a capitalistic society (Quantz, 2015, p 199). If using

74


the Reproductive Narrative, these findings of student perception become intrinsic to the fact that

they belong to a public education system that exists purely to create a workforce. A subset of this

narrative places the onus on students to recognize that they are at work within this system; this

results in students who do not buy-in to what schools teach (Quantz, 2015, p 200). This sets up a

disconnect immediately on what teachers come into the classroom anticipating for students and

what students actually enter knowing.

Teachers may enter the classroom with assumptions of control that contradict what

students know to be within the classroom. The focus on emotional security can then stem not just

from the need to have such desires met but because this is a level at which they are able to show

resistance to the Reproduction Narrative. Control for students may be centered on the lower tiers

of Maslow’s hierarchy because that is what the public education system has provided for them to

take control of. A workforce does not need to take control of self-actualization to follow orders.

Recommendations

For further study, we recommend several courses of potential investigation. One

possibility would ask students to identify activities and teacher actions that added to their

learning. A unit could be presented to the class on student ownership, what it is, how it can be

built, and its benefits. This could be coupled with pre- and post- surveys on student attitudes and

understanding of ownership and address strategies they find helpful. Additionally, teachers could

be paired with pre- and post- surveys after the unit on implementation and reflection on student

attitudes and tried strategies.

Another direction of study would be a focus on determining how student and teacher

placement on Maslow’s hierarchy influence their perception of ownership and control in the

classroom. This would allow further exploration in how a student who is

75


hungry/unsafe/outcasted experiences ownership in comparison to a student who is not. This

cross-study could track student self-ranking on the hierarchy as well as check-ins on what was

perceived as ownership. This could then be referenced with teacher strategies.

Eventually if a consistent difference is found, a study on finding strategies to increase

ownership in students lower on Maslow’s hierarchy would be highly recommended as current

strategies all assume that students are able to be at self-actualization every day in the classroom.

Suggestions

Suggestions for future or repeat studies rest in establishing a consistent definition for

ownership and “control of learning” among students and teachers prior to the survey. On the

other hand, this step could be skipped if the survey includes the participant to include their own

definitions. Building on this, the language of our survey questions (“control” and “part of”) and

interchangeable usage of terms may have had an effect on the lack of correlation between our

quantitative and qualitative data.

An additional aspect of language used within survey questions would be to specific that

we were asking for the sense of control in the students education as “the classroom” brought a

disconnect for students. While teachers approached the question in academic control, the

students approached it as personal control in an environment.

If our survey were to be reused, we suggest a revision of the terminology used within the

questions to create a consistent meaning.

Summary

Despite several of the conflicting responses on the idea of control that stemmed from our

fault in survey wording, this did give us an opportunity to notice a trend that had not been

76


anticipated to take such a pivotal role in student ownership. While some students remark on their

ownership and control in the classroom being diminished by the adult forces inside and outside

of the classroom, the majority of students focused on the importance that teacher instruction and

feedback be emotionally fulfilling prior to it being correct or helpful. This demonstrates that

despite teacher focus on student control in academics at a self-efficacy level and the disconnects

that can occur when students work at this level, the majority are viewing their control in other

areas not because of their behaviors or their stubbornness because they lack the met needs that

require them to function on the teacher anticipated level.

77


References

A. (2016). Syringa Middle School. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from

https://www.areavibes.com/caldwell-id/schools/syringa middle school-160051000109/

A. (2016). Sage Valley Middle School. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from

https://www.areavibes.com/caldwell-id/schools/sage valley middle school-

160060000838/

Klein, A. (2018, June 05). No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements,

Criticisms, and More. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from

https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-

definition-summary.html

Chan, P.E., Graham-Gay, K. J., Ressa, V. A., Peters, M. T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond

Involvement: Promoting Student Ownership of Learning in Classrooms, Intervention in

School and Clinic, 50(2), 105-113. DOI: 10.1177/1053451214536039

Dotterer, A. M., Iruka, I. U., & Pungello, E. (2012). Parenting, Race, and Socioeconomic Status:

Links to School Readiness. Family Relations, 61(4), 657-670. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3729.2012.00716.x

DeLuccia-Reinstein, R. (2011). Does the environment affect a child’s behavior? How: Trusted

advice for the curious life. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://www.ehow.com/

print/about_5367285_environment-affect-child_s-behavior

Freeman, R., Millar, L., Brand, S., & Chapman , P. (2014). Student academic partners: student

employment for collaborative learning and teaching development, Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 51(3), 223-243. DOI:

10.1080/14703297.2013.778064

78


Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (Ramos M. B., Trans.). New York: Penguin Books

Press.

Gray, P., Williamson, J., Karp, D., & Dalphin, J. (2007). The Research Imagination: An

Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Green, A. (1995). Let Them Show Us the Way: fostering independent learning in the elementary

classroom. Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers.

Hartford, M. (2008). Beginning with the Students: Ownership through Reflection and Goal-

Setting, The English Journal, 98(1), 61-65.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2011). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. London:

Random House Business.

Hendricks, Chris. (2017). Improving Schools Through Action Research: A Reflective Practice

Approach (4th ed.) Boston: Pearsons.

Holmes, L. E., & Smith, L. J. (2003). Student Evaluations of Faculty Grading Methods. Journal

of Education for Business,78(6), 318-323. doi:10.1080/08832320309598620

Liu, C. C. & Chen, I. J. (2010). Evolution of Constructivism, Contemporary Issues in Education

Research, 3(4), 63-66. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1072608

Luo, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., & Chen, A. (2016). The influence of family socio-economic status

on learning burnout in adolescents: Mediating and moderating effects. Journal of Child

and Family Studies, 25(7), 2111-2119.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0400-2

79


Medcalf, N. A., Hoffman, T.J., & Boatwright, C. (2013). Children's dreams viewed through the

prism of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Early Child Development and Care, 183(9), 1324-

1338, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2012.728211

Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Essentials of Educational Psychology. New Jersey: Merrill.

Parkay, F. & Stanford, B. (2004). Becoming a Teacher, Sixth Edition. San Francisco: Pearson.

Peckman, S. (1996). Developing Student Ownership in the “Real World”, The English Journal,

85(2), 60-63. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820618

Quantz, R. (2015). Sociocultural Studies in Education: Critical Thinking for Democracy.

Boston: Paradigm Publishers.

Roskos, K. & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Classroom Management for Achieving Readers, The

Reading Teacher, 65(5), 308-312. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41331660

Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in Theory and in Practice,

English Teaching Forum, 44(4), 12-20. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?

id=EJ1107896

Schneider, G. (2010). Democratizing the Classroom: Sequencing Discussions and Assignments

to Promote student Ownership of the Course, Review of Radical Political Economics,

42(1), 101-107. DOI: 10.1177/0486613409357185

Schutz, P., & Zembylas, M. (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research : The impact on

teachers' lives. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sutinen, A (2008). Constructivism and education: education as an interpretative transformation

process, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 1-14. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-007-9043-

5

80


Splitter, L. J. (2009). Authenticity and Constructivism in Education, Studies in Philosophy and

Education, 28, 135-151. DOI: 10.1077/s11217-008-9105-3.

Stears, M. (2009). How social and critical constructivism can inform science curriculum design:

a study from South Africa, Education Research, 51(4), 397-410. DOI:

10.1080/00131880903354733

Toraman, C., & Demir, E. (2016). The effect of constructivism on attitudes towards lessons: A

meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 62, 115-142. DOI:

10.14689/ejer.2016.62.8

81


Appendix A: Student Survey

1. Do you keep track of your school items?

Never Sometimes Always

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Do you bring your materials to class every day?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Do feel you have a part in the classroom learning process?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Do you feel you have a part in the assessments of your learning?


82


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Do you feel you like your grade is an accurate reflection of what YOU know?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Do you feel in charge of your learning?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

83


Short Answer

7.What supports do you have in place that help you learn?

8. What have teachers done that helps you to feel in charge of your learning?

9. What have teachers done that causes you to feel like you have NO CONTROL of your

learning?

10. Which teacher(s) help you to feel in charge of your learning in their classroom? Why?

84


11.Which teacher(s) cause you to feel like you have no control of your learning in their

classroom? Why?

12. Tell me who your teachers are:

Social Studies:

Math:

Science:

85


Appendix B: Teacher Survey

1. Do you keep completed student work?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Do you give your students an opportunity to complete work that is unfinished due to lack of

student preparation?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Do students have a part in deciding classroom learning targets?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Do you think your students have a part in the assessments of their learning?


86


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Do grades accurately represent the learning growth of your students?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Do you think your students feel in charge of their learning?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Short Answer

7.What supports do you put in place that help your students learn?

87


8. What do you do that helps your students to feel in charge of their learning?

9. What do you think causes your students to feel like they have NO CONTROL of their

learning?

10. What do you notice about students who do feel in charge of their learning?

88


11. What do you notice about students who don’t feel in charge of their learning?

89


Appendix C: Student Assent

You are being asked to take part in a research study of how sixth grade students feel about their

ownership (the level of investment a learner has in learning, teaching and leadership anywhere

throughout the education system) in the classroom at school. We are asking you to take part

because you are in our class and fit our demographic. Please read this carefully and ask any

questions you have before agreeing to take part.

What the study is about:

The purpose of this study is to look at how sixth grade students feel about how much control they

have in the classroom over their education and learning growth. This will be compared to how

teachers think students’ feel.

What we will ask you to do:

If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire featuring 11

questions about your experience and feelings towards school and the classroom.

We do not expect any risks to you if you participate. There are no benefits or payment for

participating in this study. You may feel uncomfortable answering questions about how teachers

help or hurt your learning.

90


Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Your name will

be removed from your question form so that no one will know it’s yours. After the answers are

uploaded, all paper copies will be destroyed.

In our thesis paper, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you.

Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the

records.

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. If you decide not take part, it will not affect

your grade in any way. If you decide to take part, you are free to stop at any time.

If you have questions: The researchers conducting this study are Samantha Barnes and Hope

DeCuir. If you have questions you may contact Samantha Barnes at

[email protected], and Hope Decuir at [email protected]. If you have

any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the

Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Statement of Assent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any

questions I asked. I assent to take part in the study.

Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ________________________

Your Name (printed) ____________________________________________________________

91


Your assent form will be kept by the researcher for at least one year beyond the end of the study.

(Spanish translation was provided to students but has not been included.)

92


Appendix D: Parent Consent

Your student is being asked to take part in a research study of how sixth grade students feel

about their ownership in the classroom at school. We are asking students to take part because

they are in our class and fit our demographic. Please read this form carefully and ask any

questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study.

What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to examine the current atmosphere of the

sixth grade population towards their ownership in the classroom over their education and

learning growth. This will then be compared to how teachers’ perceive their efforts and the

atmosphere of the classroom.

What we will ask you to do: If you agree for your student to be in this study, they will be asked

to fill out a questionnaire featuring 11 questions about their experience and feelings towards

school and the classroom.

We do not anticipate any risks to your student participating in this study other than those

encountered in day-to-day life. There are no benefits or compensation for participating in this

study. Students may experience slight discomfort in answering questions about how teachers

have helped or hindered their learning.

The students answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Their

name will be removed from their question form so that no one will know it’s theirs. After the

answers are uploaded, all hard copies will be destroyed. In our thesis paper, we will not include

93


any information that will make it possible to identify your student. Research records will be kept

in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the records.

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. If you decide not to let your student take part,

or if they do not want to take part, it will not affect their grade in any way. If you decide to take

part, you or your student are free to withdraw at any time.






Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any

questions I asked. I consent to allow my student to take part in the study.


Your Name (printed)

____________________________________________________________

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least one year beyond the end of the

study.

94


Terah Moore David Douglass

Faculty Adviser and Sponsor Human Protection Administrator

[email protected] [email protected]

(Spanish translation was provided to students but has not been included.)

95


Appendix E: Teacher Consent

You are being asked to take part in a research study of how sixth grade students feel about their

ownership in the classroom at school. We are asking teachers to take part because they interact

with our demographic and shape the classroom environment that our students are responding to.

Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part

in the study.

What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to examine the current atmosphere of the

sixth grade population towards their ownership in the classroom over their education and

learning growth. This will then be compared to how teachers’ perceive their efforts and the

atmosphere of the classroom.

What we will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to fill out a

questionnaire featuring eleven questionsabout your classroom policies as they related to student

ownership and engagement.

We do not anticipate any risks to yourself participating in this study other than those encountered

in day-to-day life. There are no benefits or compensation for participating in this study.

Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Your name will

be removed from your question form so that no one will know it’s yours. After the answers are

uploaded, all hard copies will be destroyed.

96


In our thesis paper, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you.

Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the

records.

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may decide to not take part. If you decide

to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.






Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any

questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.


Your Name (printed)

____________________________________________________________

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least one year beyond the end of the

97


study.

Terah Moore David Douglass

Faculty Adviser and Sponsor Human Protection Administrator

[email protected] [email protected]

98

samantha-barnes.weebly.com · web viewcomparisons of student ownership perceptions between...

Documents