Having established the aims of the project (and a high level plan of action), it is time to turn my attention to the means (a research methodology); how will I meet the objectives and how do I prove that they have been met (assessment). In order develop a meaningful methodology one has to revisit the principal objective; Does the SOLE promote deeper learning in children excluded from the education system in the developing world. The focus of the research is the learning process and how students acquire knowledge. Mathewson (1994) defined learning in terms of student engagement or willingness to participate in school activities. Pintrich et al (1990,92) subsequently defined learning task engagement in terms of the following factors:

– Cognitive: the extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered e.g. efforts to integrate new material with previous knowledge and to monitor and guide task comprehension through the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies
– Behavioural: the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented e.g. active student responding to an instructional antecedent, such as asking relevant questions, solving task-related problems, and participating in relevant discussions with teachers/peers
– Affective: the level of students investment in, and their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks e.g. high levels of interest or positive attitudes towards in the learning tasks

Chapman (2003) continues with the identification of a number of tools used to characterise learning in terms of engagement factors. The groups of the tools is listed as follows:

Self Report measures: Items relating to the cognitive aspects of engagement often ask students to report on factors such as their attention versus distraction during class, the mental effort they expend on these tasks e.g. to integrate new concepts with previous knowledge, and task persistence e.g. reactions to perceived failures to comprehend the course material. Students can also be asked to report on their response levels during class time e.g. making verbal responses within group discussions, looking for distractions and engaging in non-academic social interaction) as an index of behavioural task enagagement. Affective engagement questions typically ask students to rate their interest in and emotional reactions to learning tasks on indices such as choice of activities e.g., selection of more versus less challenging tasks, the desire to know more about particular topics, and feelings of stimulation or excitement in beginning new projects. Related tools include: Educational testing service (1992a, b, c), Meece et al (1998), Miller et al (1996). The problem of self assessment is related to the consistency of students of varying ability to accurately report their own cognitive, behavioural and affective responses.

Checklists and rating scales: A summative assessment scale asking teachers to rate their students in terms of percieved levels of task engagement. Tools in this category include: Skinner et al (1990, 93), Student motivation to Read by Sweet et al (1996)

Direct Observations: Often used to validate student self perception of task engagement. In addition to the observation protocols of Ellett & Chauvin (1991), Ysseldyke & Christenson (1993), Greenwood & Delquadri (1988) related tools include: CISSAR by Delquadri and Greenwood (1998). Most observational tools apply some form of momentary time sampling system that records nominated student activity (code) at prescribed intervals/periods in time.

Work Sample Analysis: Engagement judged in terms of student outputs (project, portfolio, assignment, learning journal etc)

Focused Case Study: When the focus of an investigation is restricted to a small group of target students, it is often more useful to collect detailed descriptive accounts of engagement rates. These accounts should describe both students behaviours and the classroom contexts in which they occur. This might include, for example, the behaviour of peers, direct antecedents to the target students behaviours e.g. teacher directions, as well as the students response and the observed consequences of that response e.g., reactions from teachers or peers. Case studies generally attempt to place observations of engagement within the total context of the classroom and/or school, and are concerned as much with the processes associated with engagement as they are in depicting engagement levels. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest several types of observations recording methods that may be used in case studies e.g. field notes, context maps, and sketches.

This last option has been elaborated in full as it may provide a suitable platform of analysis for each of the individual learning environments identified. It would appear that the focused case study would enable an objective evaluation of the learning process as well as learning outcomes. This would provide a further dimension of assessment when compared to the work previously undertaken by Sugata (in relation to the efficacy of the SOLE).

Unfortunately, the Lincoln and Guba book (Naturalistic Inquiry) will not be available from the library until 16th July at the earliest.