How does the perception of progress impact on the engagement of high achieving Year 8 pupils in Modern Foreign Languages?
Keywords: Modern Foreign Languages
MLT2018
MLT

This research describes a school-based study conducted to understand the effect that high-achieving pupils’ perceptions of progress might have on their engagement in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). Pupils’ perceptions of progress were collated through qualitative data method collections such as interviews and questionnaires. Pupils’ engagement levels were measured using a mixed method data collection through an analysis of changing Attitude to Learning scores (ATL), interviews and questionnaires.
The research was conducted in a mixed secondary school and focused on a class of thirty-one, high-achieving, Year 8 pupils learning Spanish. For the purpose of this study a MFL high-achiever will be defined according to Renzulli’s (1986) ‘The Three- ring conception of giftedness’ (figure 3, pg.16); a pupil with an equal balance of creativity, above average ability and task commitment.
At the start of the study, pre-questionnaires and interviews were conducted with the class to understand their definition of progress. Following these discussions an intervention was designed which offered the pupils the opportunity to review their learning at three stages, as well as the space to practise key learning points by answering three questions, specifically; what do you normally do during the holidays? Where did you go on holiday? And where are you going to go on holiday next year?
The first review was carried out on three fortnightly occasions during the term and the questions remained the same each time, allowing pupils to build on previous answers. The first cycle intervention proved to be successful with an increase of 35% in pupils who rated themselves as ‘very engaged’ at the end of the first cycle. These results were corroborated by an increase of the average Attitude To Learning (ATL) score from a 2 to a 1 (1 being the highest available and 3 being the lowest); a score given against a standardised pro-forma and regularly reflected on and updated by the researcher throughout the process.
After the success of first cycle of the intervention a discussion, with both the Continued Professional Learning (CPL) group (a teaching and learning focus group in my school) and the pupils, led to alterations to the review sheet for the second cycle which included new questions for each review and a revised timescale for reflection.
Nonetheless, the findings of the second- intervention produced yet more questions. At the end of the first cycle pupils averaged a higher point score of for content (8/15 compared to 6/15 at the end of the second cycle), range and complexity (7/10 compared to 5/10 at the end of the second cycle. These differences highlighted that the quality of the work produced over the first cycle was of a better than that produced over the second cycle. Pupils’ also expressed a decline in engagement since there was a decrease of 10% of students who had previously felt ‘very engaged’ compared to the end of the second cycle. Yet despite a seemingly disappointing outcome to the second cycle, the average of the ATL scores recorded by the researcher remained a 1; indicating that when assessed against a standardised pro-forma pupil engagement had not changed and was still higher than their pre-intervention ATL scores, despite a poorer quality of work.
It would seem that pupil engagement during the second cycle intervention did decline, however there are many reasons for this; period of the year, GCSE options were selected during the second cycle or the inability to produce a substantial amount of evidence on the progress sheet in the time given. Nevertheless, it is clear that an intervention which encourages pupils to reflect on their progress and participate in the learning process, does impact positively on their overall engagement.