PhD Thesis: 'The Why?'

Start with the why?

Start with the ‘why?’

After around 20 years of teaching mathematics, and more recently, whilst working as a senior school leader, my observations of learning, formal and informal, have led to substantial contemplation. A recurring theme has been the ‘consistent inconsistency’ in the way students appear to approach formal education, engage with school work, and quantify success.

While on holiday in France around six years ago, I was talking to members of my family after dinner one evening as the sun began to set. Over scattered baguettes, cheese and half consumed bottles of wine, the conversation turned to the topic of education and schooling, and eventually to the question of why some children try harder at school. I was asked, “You’re a teacher, why is this?”. Social demographics and background were suggested as being chiefly responsible, but leaning on my experiences as a teacher, I pointed out this was not necessarily the case. Amongst the many students I have taught, there have been countless individuals who come from supportive home backgrounds, with substantial extra academic support readily available, but who seem apathetic towards school. Conversely, there are many students coming from challenging and unsupportive backgrounds, who embrace learning at every stage and celebrate their own ‘version’ of success in the learning environment.

After careful deliberation, I announced that I had no immediate answers, but vowed to ‘look into it’.  The following day, I tried to clarify the issue to myself with two questions which I scrawled on a scrap of paper; 1) when students are learning, what factors might influence their motivation? and 2) do educators place enough value on student-centred concepts of learning, achievement, and success? Buoyed and optimistic, I concluded the issue would be settled by the end of the holiday. This was not the case. In fact, over the coming years, the more I investigated, the more questions I collected to ponder. This project summarises my journey to attempt to understand, though not resolve, these questions, arising from a seemingly innocuous (wrongly, as it turned out) holiday conversation.

It also feels important here to make clear that, when starting my formal research journey, I considered myself principally an experienced educator, with an enthusiasm for Educational Psychology. After considerable endeavour, I now firmly consider myself, if there is such a thing, as a Positive Learning Psychologist. Thus, what follows here is a detailed literature review of the research, concepts, propositions and theories (and the people responsible for them) which feed into Positive Learning. Given this thesis is examining positivity and success in education, much of the review emanates from the key concepts of positivity, success, and learning environments. These broad themes were the first to be given close attention as the PhD progressed and are therefore addressed here first before ‘deep-dives’ are pursued into their ‘ingredients’ (e.g., cognition, learning loads, self-regulation etc.). Throughout the review, each step forward (and where necessary, sideways) keeps in mind the two ‘holiday’ questions which asked what factors influence student motivation, and how much value is given to student-centred concepts of learning, achievement, and success – especially given its potential relevance/importance to positivity.

Key concepts: Positivity, Success and Learning Environments

It is useful to precede a detailed exploration of learning positivity and success by considering the works and ideas of John Dewey (1859 – 1952). Arguably, Dewey was the first to question the wisdom of what could be thought of as traditional formal schooling (i.e., that based on students sitting in rows and being fed information to be memorised and later recited). He considered that, for many students, this typical model might be detrimental to positivity and performance. Dewey (1913, 1916) proposed a clear distinction between education (i.e., opportunity for children to realise their full potential/ability by learning to live, and become positive resources of civilization), and schooling (i.e., an opportunity to acquire pre-determined sets of skills and knowledge). He further highlighted that during learning, importance should be placed on positive relationships (e.g., peer/peer and educator/pupil), reflecting constructively on past-experiences, and considering future ambition (Dewey, 1938).

Moreover, learners should ideally be able to constitute success by recognising their ‘own special ends’ (Dewey, 1916, p. 18), while effective teaching should carefully consider student perspectives, so as to be able to support ‘motivation’ (p. 89), and a desire to develop knowledge, skills and values. Within these propositions, clear importance is given to positivity and success in Learning Environments (LEs). While extensive bodies of research already exist on these topics individually (which will be discussed below), attempts to explore connections between them, especially via empirical research (e.g., Pajares & Urdan, 2006; O’Brien & Blue, 2018; Barbaranelli et al., 2019) have only been made relatively recently.

Historical consideration of Positivity, and its mapping to educational domains

Consideration of Positivity as a concept is traceable to early philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle and Plato (e.g., Lopez & Snyder, 2009; Hefferon & Boniwell, 2011). However, similarly to Ebbinghaus’ (1908) assertion about psychology generally, Positive Psychology could be argued to have ‘a long past but a short history’, given its historical lack of structured research (Peterson, 2006). The term Positive Psychology (PP) was first used by Maslow (1954), who noted that the science of psychology had been “far more successful on the negative than on the positive side” (p.354). He suggested that preoccupation with disorder and dysfunction distorted accurate understanding of human potential, and advocated more examination of human positivity.

More recently, a science of human flourishing (e.g., Seligman et al., 1979; Seligman, 1992) has emerged, with the aim of understanding positive subjective experience, emotion, individual differences, and institutions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Although, it may seem clearly advantageous to understand character strengths, well-being, and the elements of fulfilment that contribute to human behaviour (Gillham & Seligman, 1999; Seligman & Czikszentmihalyi, 2000), PP has also faced critique (see e.g., Gable & Haidt, 2005). This has often related to an instinctive, but debateable, assumption that anything ‘not positive is negative’, and that opposing valence causes opposing feelings (Diener, 2000). Consequently, there has been some reluctance to accept that studying negative traits (amongst other arguably ‘negative’ behaviour), is in fact an important part of understanding successful PP approaches (Gable & Haidt, 2005).

Advancement in theoretical detail and practical application of PP has been currently rapid and wide-ranging, often expanding on concepts Maslow initially considered imperative, i.e., growth, spontaneity, self-choice, acceptance, autonomy, actualization of potential etc. (1954, p. 362). One of the potentially fastest-growing applications is within the educational domain, specifically school institutions (see Hefferon & Boniwell, 2011), where understanding PP principles might be of practical benefit in the LE overall. The latter stages of this literature review provide an extensive exploration of the underlying theoretical detail (i.e., Agency, Hope, Goal-directed behaviour etc.), whilst Chapters 4 – 7 of the thesis explore some of the ways they practically apply to real-life LEs, specifically, secondary school classrooms.

 To provide an initial ‘educational lens’, here it is worth briefly highlighting some of the obstacles (i.e., sources of negativity) that are present for students in school learning environments. Such common educational experiences as ‘going wrong’, ‘being stuck’, and ‘not understanding’, are clearly negative in nature, but can be so embedded in everyday education that we should not overlook them and/or their importance. In fact, they have been suggested (Mason, 1985) as ‘an inconvenient truth’ that cannot be avoided, but equally should not be hidden. Instead, Mason suggests they ought to be considered an ‘honourable’ part of the educational process, and in some ways positive; events from which much can be taken psychologically/behaviourally. However, embracing the negatives in this way is not straightforward. Whilst, positive thinking may be assumed to be at the core of individuals’ confidence and optimism, simple belief in positivity does not necessarily generate positivity per se, particularly if/when encountering obstacles (Scheier & Carver, 1993). Generation and maintenance of positivity is complex, conceptually multi-dimensional, and often in the short term, unpredictable (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005).

How is Success defined and quantified?

Within the wider framework of PP, there is recurring focus on what it means to have success (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005), although consensus has been difficult, perhaps due to its subjectivity as a construct (e.g., Panos & Astin, 1968; Sharkey & Layzer, 2000; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; York, Gibson & Rankin, 2019; Weatherton & Schussler, 2021). The task is arguably more challenging when considering student learners, as there is often a power imbalance between those learning and those validating ‘success’ (i.e., educators, parents, policy makers). Of the definitions that exist (e.g., Panos & Astin, 1968; York et al., 2019; Weatherton & Schussler, 2021), Kuh et al. (2006) propose that learner success should constitute “academic achievement, engagement in educationally purposeful activities, satisfaction, acquisition of desired knowledge skills/competencies, persistence, and attainment of educational objectives” (p.7). Although this definition is both wide-ranging and inclusive of affective and cognitive outputs, it is also apparent that evaluation of each factor remains dependent on who measures success and what their motivations/incentives are. As such, discrepancy in whether success has been achieved in the LE seems inevitable.

It is understandable, if not ingrained, for teachers to have a strong desire to ‘improve’ cohort results and ensure that their students get the highest scores/grades possible; to facilitate academic success. Thus, the ‘Why?’ for associated behaviours might be partly answered by considering the way that most educational systems allocate accomplishment. The UK, in common with many other countries, has no quota for academic examination grades at any stage (Ofqual, 2024). However, similar quantities of each grade (particularly at GCSE and A-level) are achieved each year because of the checks put in place to ensure exam difficulty differentiate outcome (e.g., Hallahan, 2024; Qfqual, 2024). A simplistic score dictates a grade for a particular subject, but this is based on an underlying assumption of dispersion on a normal distribution (Hallahan, 2023). This system therefore generates a graduated imbalance of perceived success, but is still thought by many, (i.e., students, teachers, parents, the public etc.) as the metric of achievement. In other words, although progress over time may be celebrated to a degree, ultimately a lower grade means lower success, even if this fulfils the actual potential of an individual.

Such systems often pragmatically use memorisation of a designated syllabus as an assessment tool, with limited opportunities for critical thinking and opinion. Though this is, to some degree, understandable given the need to quantify learning success on a large scale quickly, it is argued by some (e.g., Panos & Astin, 1968; Leman, 1999; Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015; Weatherton & Schussler, 2021) that these are not necessarily the only useful measures of learning success. Moreover, considerations of whether students have deep understanding of learning as a process, and how they internally construct ideas of success and positivity are arguably equally important as externally-imposed metrics. Such student-centred conceptualizations of learning success appear to be currently under-researched; Weatherton & Schussler (2021, p.6) indeed suggest a “paucity” in both developmental research and relevant literature.

What is the ‘Learning Environment’- and why is it important?

Moos (1974) defines three basic dimensions for classifying Learning Environments (LEs), relating to learner interactions with the self, others and systems. Self-based factors encompass personal development and growth, while relationship-based (i.e., ‘others’) factors outline how those in the LE support and help each other. System-based factors address the extent to which an environment is orderly, clear in expectations, and responsive to change. Importantly, student perception of the LE can influence learning behaviours and outcomes, which in turn, can then become part of an individual’s experienced LE (Lorsbach & Jinks 1999). To this end, a learner’s LE (perceived and experienced) is critical when reflecting on student success and positivity.

Research methods exploring these dimensions have tended to be highly specific and often with narrow focus. For example, these include exploration of how science classrooms can be made conducive to effective communication (Hanrahan, 1999), or how measures of ‘actual learning’ and/or ‘feelings of learning’ can be compared and mapped to active learner engagement (Deslauriers et al., 2019). Less common has been holistic consideration of LE factors such as perceived relevance of learning objects, perceived personal control, the effects of feedback, uncertainty, commitment, and the impact of teacher support etc. (see The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey; CLES; Taylor et al., 1997).

To capitalize on research that is based within LEs, Fraser & Fisher (1994) argue that there should be an objective to measure students’ perceptions, investigate associations between those perceptions and attitudinal outcomes, and examine any variability that may arise due to students’ individual differences. Additionally, this should occur, if possible, during learning episodes (i.e., an opportunity engineered by pupil or teacher to allow learning). Thus, LEs have been suggested as not being just physical spaces, but also psychological, social, and cultural settings (e.g., Land & Jonassen, 2012; Rusticus et al., 2023).

Currently, formal educational LEs (certainly, for learners in UK secondary schools) appear to have great inconsistencies. For example, Ofsted (2015) report that for many students, the first three years of secondary education are often ‘wasted’, because schools do not recognise that “a purposeful learning environment is the bedrock for successful learning” (p. 6). This leads to questions regarding the causes of such differences, how best to resolve them, and how LEs in formal settings could/should be made as beneficial as possible.

Valuing student’s perspectives

As mentioned, students’ interpretation of success is likely to be a key part of their motivation and positivity (e.g., Norrish et al., 2013; McCrea, 2020), although in almost all formal educational systems, final attainment metrics are shaped by others (see e.g., Goldstein, 1983; Talsma, Schüz, Schwarzer & Norris, 2018; TES, 2023). At worst, this inequity has been described as a possible root of educational hegemony (e.g., Olaniran & Agnello, 2008; Mayo, 2015), and whilst this may be dramatic, there are certainly questions regarding the morality of any existent incongruity, and the importance and merit given to learner perceived concepts of achievement.

Wolff (2002) argues that students should have a voice in any ensuing discussion, as they are ideally placed as observers and participants, more so perhaps than outside researchers or teachers. However, few empirical studies consider learner’s perspectives on either learning itself or the factors which affect its success (Cook-Sather, 2018), and there is a distinct lack of longitudinal exploration of students’ academic self-concept and belief (Wolgast, 2018). Kearney et al. (2016) even suggest a lack of any meaningful research into ‘classroom climate’ (e.g., the engagement level with academic activities, relationships with peers, level of support from teachers) as perceived by students.

Despite this lack, the issue has received important attention within classic pedagogical literature. For example, Friere (1968) advocates for close dialogue between student, educator, and society, based on meaningful relationships. Without these relationships, a traditional pedagogy dominates (i.e., one focusing solely on long-term factual memorisation via rote learning) which leads to a broken banking model. Here, teachers are perceived as the owners/depositors of knowledge, and students as passive recipients who become non-critical thinkers, skilled in remembering facts, but unskilled in real world application/critical evaluation (Torres, 2019). Freire (1993) warns that “education is suffering from narrative sickness wherein teachers narrate, and students listen” (p. 52), but also offers an ontological alternative in which the importance of fostering hope in students is emphasised. This can be achieved by improved teacher-pupil dialogue, and emergent joint responsibility for intellectual growth (Freire, 1992). 

Further, Ausubel (1968) suggests that, because the most important factor influencing learning is existing knowledge, teachers should prioritise establishing a conceptual understanding of existing student insights prior to teaching any new material (rather than just using summative assessment). Wiliam (2011) summarises the importance of student/educator collaboration, connection, and mutual understanding (i.e., with both having an awareness of the others’ motivations and beliefs) by proposing that “a bad curriculum well taught is invariably a better experience for students than a good curriculum badly taught; pedagogy trumps curriculum. Or more precisely, pedagogy is curriculum, because what matters is how things are taught, rather than what is taught” (p.12).