The purpose of the MER was to identify cross-study patterns in the influence of each of the SDT constructs upon each other, and to consequently form a generalised understanding
67
of their potential hierarchical influence upon the optimal enhancement of students’ engagement with learning. Throughout, there was an understanding that bias is an
unavoidable component of qualitative research especially when such studies are reliant upon harvesting others’ self-reported views. For example, one would expect within studies that harvest self-reported perceptions, a high risk of respondent bias (Sackett, 1979). For example, students had not been randomly selected but were drawn, for example, from a larger available population within a school or group of schools. The participation of students was dependent upon, in the majority of studies, the informed consent of both the students and their parents, given that the majority of students were under 18 years old. In a small number of studies, informed consent was given by the headteacher of a school, but it is not recognised in any of the studies that where the students were compelled to participate, they may have done so unwillingly. Such unwillingness may result in skewed responses that undermine the validity of the analysed evidence. In addition, the depth and nature of the motivational and
engagement-predictive variables being explored depended upon the survey instruments selected to investigate the variables under scrutiny, and the study-defining research questions. Finally, the response bias was a factor within all of the studies in terms of the extent to which individual students understood the wording of survey questions, the extent to which it could be categorically stated that all questionnaires were completed in full by all students at each data point, and the full cooperation of participants in giving truthful, considered responses to the potentially intrusive psychological insights being sought (Furnham, 1986). In addition to the different forms of bias that invariably emerge within educational research that involves people within contextual settings, the choice of one theoretical lens over innumerable similar theories creates an epistemological bias (Gorard, 2013; Thomas, 2007).
To dismiss studies on the basis of bias that is clearly unavoidable when it comes to, for example, research questions, selecting a theoretical lens, research design, research methods and instruments, research setting and participants therein, the nature and extent of insights allowed by participants’ willingness to share personal information and their ability to articulate their ideas, would lead to all being dismissed on the grounds of a lack of internal validity (Gorard and Taylor, 2004; Sackett, 1979). Thus, studies have been included and assessed in terms of their external validity for use by teachers within their own classrooms as a basis for pinpointing teacher behaviours and classroom social-contextual factors that have the potential to enhance students’ motivation, engagement and achievement within learning activities (further to Gorard, 2013; Gorard and Taylor, 2004; Thomas and Gorard, 2007; Thomas and Pring, 2004). The quality and significance of educational research is often
68
assessed based upon the external validity and impact of the research outcomes (Research Excellence Framework, 2014 – see http://www.ref.ac.uk/): that is, the extent to which
students’ self-reported perceptions, motivations and future intentions may be predicted across different contexts and life domains. The alternative is that educational research without significance or impact may be regarded as fragmented and potentially worthless, as such research is “… often addressing similar questions, start from different positions or use different sample” (Pring, 2000, p. 2). Education and educational research are concerned with life chances and the positive optimisation of such chances for the benefit of students and teachers: therefore, a disadvantage of “… steering research in the direction of experimental trials … means that ‘qualitative’ evidence is largely ignored, which is particularly wasteful” (Gorard and Taylor, 2004, p. 49).
As a consequence of such thinking, the central focus throughout the BES of the included studies was to summarise and present the findings and potential underlying motivational pathways, whatever they emerged as, in such a way that they could be used as the basis for testing their generalisability (external validity). That is, the informed application of the findings of others’ SDT-embedded research to similar school populations or classroom settings (Hammersley, 1993). Therefore, the key study within this thesis has applied the cumulative findings of the MER. In addition, the central objective was that the evidence to answer the research questions within the MER and central study was of sufficient depth and richness to postulate probabilistic motivational pathways informing students’ motivated engagement with learning (de Vaus, 2001; Denscombe, 2010; Hage and Meeker, 1993; Morrison, 2009).
The 32 included studies draw upon the students’ self-reported perceptions of the SDT- grounded influences that have both positive and negative influences upon their initial and sustained motivation for and engagement with learning in formal learning contexts. In the case of the current research, the choice of a motivational theory that may be generalised across schools and classroom settings can be of use to teachers as it may provide “… relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations and application” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 1). However, seeking to establish criteria for defining quality and diminishing bias is almost impossible, not least because of the difficulty of applying them consistently across all areas of research involving qualitative methods within education (Spencer et al., 2003; Thomas and Gorard, 2007; Thomas and James, 2006).
69 2.15 Synthesising the evidence
The challenge with presenting and analysing the emergent findings of the MER was to assemble the large amount of evidence in such a way that a more meaningful picture could be formed in terms of what the evidence is saying (Atkins et al., 2008). This includes, where used, the effectiveness of interventions, and, in particular, the impact of SDT constructs (isolated and cumulative) upon students’ engagement with learning.
Synthesising the evidence involves logically organising and presenting the evidence emerging from the included studies. The first stage of the synthesis was to present a within- study summary of each of the 32 studies, where the characteristics and results of the
individual studies are described (Appendix 2.1). This included the authors and year of publication, the type of publication (published peer-reviewed journal article or unpublished doctoral thesis), the type of study design and context (curriculum subject, country), the age range and number of students, gender (male and female in the case of all studies: mixed), and the SDT construct outcomes. Appendix 2.2 summarises the critical appraisal of each study on the basis of the SDT-informed focus, and the outcome(s), including intervention(s), where used. This summary revealed that the studies were not homogenous, in the way that may be found, for instance, with randomised controlled trials investigating the same intervention with similar populations. Instead, the included studies were a heterogeneous set as, although they were mainly survey-based, prospective study designs, they drew primarily upon the self- reported perceptions of a wide and diverse range of cohorts. This emphasis upon qualitative, survey-based methods and analysis should not be regarded as prohibitive if the approach of reviewing on the basis of both internal and external validity of the studies, as opposed to internal validity alone (Noblit and Hare, 1988).