"Mr.L"-@SecEdUC @dlassignment3uc-blog - Tumblr Blog

Above: An introduction/context to my teaching event.

#CPP3 #Introduction #Teaching event #LAD #SCPE

Above: A visual summary of key findings following critical reflection and analysis of the lesson.

1. Holding thinking and discipline specific language – the lesson through the eyes of Chris Tovani (2004) and Tony Buzan in Literacy Across Disciplines (LAD)

When looking at my event through the lens of LAD it becomes clear that I had unintentionally employed several strategies the significantly contributed to the success of my lesson. As outlined by Hammerness, Darling-Hammond & Shulman (2001) the effectiveness and success of these strategies has only come to light following a critical reflection of pedagogical reasoning within my lesson.

She states:

“Without this grounding in and connecting to the professional knowledge base of teaching and learning, students’ cases might have remained personal and idiosyncratic explorations of their own experiences” (Hammerness et al., 2001, p. 24).

As such, I have outlined three key theories/perspectives noteworthy of the lesson:

A. Instructional purpose

In the words of Tovani (2004), “When readers have purpose, they tend to remember more of the text” (p. 52). Upon reflection of my lesson through the lens of LAD, it is clear that I placed a strong element of instructional purpose from the beginning of the lesson. As such, students responded with greater levels of attention, comprehension and engagement. In order to achieve this, I began my lesson by emphasising its purpose on the first slide of the PowerPoint I was using to aid my discussion. The slide stated:

By the end of today's lesson you will be able to:

Describe the three classes of joints

Describe the main structures within synovial joints

Identify and describe the types of synovial joints

Describe the movements that occur with various synovial joints

These key points/learning objectives were reinforced as key concepts in a revision mind-map (discussed in detail later in this post) that students created throughout the lesson. Likewise, the last five minutes of the lesson was dedicated to a class discussion summary of the lesson covering the points above. This techniques was evidently effective as I observed a high level of student engagement throughout the lesson.

Tovani (2004) suggests that, “...when we share a clear instructional purpose, we give our students a lense through which to read the piece... A clear instructional purpose can greatly improve a reader’s comprehension, because the reader has an indication of what to read for” (p. 59). Likewise she outlines that, “Define a purpose and help students have a clear reason for their reading and writing...Meaning arrives because we are purposefully engaged in thinking while we read” (Tovani, 2004 p. 9). Concurring with these arguments James (2004) highlights that, “Instructional alignment (instructional purpose) has been shown to greatly contribute to enhancing student learning as well as providing information to the teacher about student learning” (p. 30).

In order to improve my future practice of instructional purpose, I aim to incorporate the, “...three steps of structural alignment”, as outlined by James (2004) when struggling to find a sense of purpose for particular lessons. The first step is determining the intended learning outcomes that are explicit and developmentally appropriate (James, 2004). The second step is selecting a learning experience to match the intended outcome (James, 2004). Whilst the final step is to develop assessments (whether they are formative or summative) that measures the planned learning outcomes (James, 2004).

B. Discipline specific language

In addition to my emphasis on instructional purpose, reflection of this teaching event has revealed that I placed a significant emphasis on PDHPE discipline specific language and literacy. The Articular system can be a difficult area of study for some students, due to the sometimes foreign and scientific/anatomical terms associated with the content. In providing students with tools to comprehend these terms and supplying them with an opportunity to apply the content to the real world, literacy became a “gateway” (Shann, 2012) through which students were able to engage with the content in a deeper, more realistic level; thus, improving their revel of comprehension and understanding.

In the words of Tovani (2004), “Teachers of any subject are going to help their cause by teaching their students to be better readers of their content” (p. 25). Likewise, she suggests that in order, “To know how to help readers get through difficult content, I must first identify what they are struggling with” (Tovani, 2004 p. 29). In this case, I had the opportunity to observe this lesson in which students were first introduced to the Articular system content. Throughout this lesson I observed the majority of the class group struggling to comprehend the various types of synovial joints and the various joint movements specifically. As such, I aimed to assist students in what Tovani (2004) refers to as, “...the meaning-making process” (p. 27) and improve their levels of understanding on these topics.

Analysis of Elizabeth Moje’s work on discipline specific literacy (Moje, 2008) has revealed several reasons why I was able to assist students in the, “meaning-making process” (Tovani, 2004). Moje (2008) suggests that in order to be truly effective, discipline specific literacy involves, “...teaching students what the privileged discourses are, when and why such discourses are useful, and how these discourses and practices came to be valued.” In order to achieve this, these were several instances throughout the lesson where I applied the example of my own knee injury to the key terms/concepts we were discussing (i.e. structures of the joint that was damaged, the joint movement that caused the damage, type of joint etc). In addition, I called on students think of themselves as sports physicisians, sports doctors, physio’s etc when revising for this topic so they could hopefully get a tactile and authentic experience of how the concepts we were discussing applied to the ‘real world’. In doing so, I had implemented a strategy suggested by Moje (2008). She (2008) elucidates that teachers must come to the, “...realisation that learning in a discipline requires people to enact particular identities, at least at some levels” (p. 101). Clearly, this strategy I employed inadvertently was effective, as students began applying the content to their own lives and thinking like a sports physician professional. Evidence of this was seen during the discussion I was having with students after class.

A question from one of my students: “So my Dad has had knee surgery after trying to step and avoid a defender in a game of Rugby, does that mean he damaged his medial ligament? And does that mean his articular cartilage was damaged as well?”

I concur with Moje (2008) and Tovani (2004) who argue for the employment of discipline specific leteracies in the classroom rather than generic literacy teaching strategies and aim to incorporate this into my future teaching wherever possible having now seen its effectiveness first hand.

C. Strategies to hold thinking

In addition to the above strategies, reflection of LAD content had elucidated that I also employed pedagogical techniques of what Chris Tovani (2004) refers to as, “...strategies to hold thinking.” Put simply, Tovani outlines that educators should, “Teach students how to hold their thinking and give them opportunities to use the information they’ve held” (Tovani, 2004 p. 18).

The two major strategies to hold thinking included:

Word association and metalanguage

In this instance, I asked students to associate all key terms associated with the Articular system to a particular word that described the term. For example, Fibrous was associated with Immovable in note taking and discussion (Note: a fibrous joint is an immovable joint). In doing so, I was assisting students in simplifying what may seem a complex term, into more straightforward concepts. In addition, I had again incorporated PDHPE discipline specific literacies and used metalanguage to improve student comprehension. Ladwig & Gore (2003) outlines the incorporation of discipline specific metalanguage as a pivotal element to achieving a classroom of intellectual quality. They (Ladwig & Gore, 2003) elucidates that effective lessons, “...explicitly name and analyse knowledge as a specialist language (metalanguage), and provide frequent commentary on language use and the various contexts of differing language uses” (p 11). Interestingly, a study conducted by Van Kraayenoord, Beinicke, Schlagmuller & Schneider (2012) also found, “...metacognition had a direct effect on reading comprehension” (p. 63). Which was clearly the case during that lesson as the observation and discussions I was having with students for formative assessment demonstrated they were able to apply key terms to discussion topics.

Likewise, I emphasised that in order for students to remember all of the joint movements, they had to ‘think in pairs and remember anatomical position’. For example, flexion is the opposite movement to extension, thus, they were a pair. In doing so, it was hoped that in order for students to remember all of the joint movements, they would simply have to remember one of the pairs. Cochaud (1984) highlighted this word association as an valuable memory strategy, stating, “For an item to be learned, its contents must be seen to be related to the content of an item already memorised...Once the accessibility link has been forged, all other relationships between individual items are irrelevant...Once learned, any item of information is wither accessible from a particular other item” (p. 104). Similarly, a study carried out by Van Kraayenoord et al., (2012) found, “...word identification (word association) has the greatest influence on reading comprehension” (p.51).

Mind mapping

Over the course of the lesson I modelled a revision mind map of the Articular system on the white board next to a Power Point presentation. Following the completion of discussion/explanation on a particular learning objective, I would scaffold a section of the mind map for students who would then complete it in their work books. The primary reason I incorporated this into my revision lesson was that I remember it being a highly effective learning tool for me when I was learning the same content as a student. Following reflection and analysis of research however, the work of Tony Buzan, has highlighted the effectiveness of mind mapping for improving student comprehension and memory (Buzan, 2006). Likewise, his work on mind mapping has highlighted some of the limitations of the mind map I modelled for students (see post below).

Primarily, Buzan (2006) says, “As memory is a process which is based on linking and association, the fewer items there are in the ‘recall store’, the less will be the possibility for new items to be registered and connected” (p. 69). In order to improve this, “recall” (Buzan, 2006) process, Buzan (2006) outlines the multitude of advantages that mind mapping has over the linear form of note-taking; which is normally common to a typical revision lesson in PDHPE. The main include (Buzan, 2006, p. 96):

• The centre with the main idea is more clearly defined.

• The relative importance of each idea is clear – more important ideas are towards the centre, less important are near the edge.

• The links between key concepts will be easily recognisable due to proximity and connection.

• Recall and review of information will be more accessible, effective and rapid.

• Structure allows for easy and neat addition of new information.

• Each map created will look different from another, aiding recall.

• It is more creative than note taking, enabling the brain to make new connections more easily.

(Buzan, 2006)

In addition to this, Buzan (2006) recommends that in order to be truly effective, mind maps have to incorporate certain characteristics. Upon review of the following list, it is clear that whilst I incorporated some elements of effective mind mapping to students, they are several areas of improvement. Key characteristics suggested by Buzan (2006) include:

• Start with a coloured image at the centre – place in landscape position, encourages thought while significantly increasing memory.

• Place images throughout mind map – helps to assist all cortical processes.

• Words should be printed – providing more photographic, clear, legible and more comprehensive feedback.

• Printed words should be on lines, and reach line should be connected by other lines – to show relationship of concepts and guarantee basic mind map structure.

• Words should be in units, one word per line – more note-taking freedom + flexibility.

• Use colours to enhance memory and simulate right cortical processes.

• Leave mind map as a creative process, the mind should be left as free as possible there is no one right way to create the finished process.

Buzan (2006)

Following the analysis of information, I have posted and image in the blog post below with the an example of the mind-map I modelled to students during the lesson. Directly below to it is an image of what the mind map should have looked like, incorporating the recommended features from Buzan (2006) in order to improve student comprehension, memory retention, recall and holding of thinking. I aim to incorporate Buzan’s (2006) strategies into future lessons in which I incorporate mind-mapping. Likewise, I will seek to use mind mapping wherever deemed appropriate in place of the linear note taking processes. Buzan (2006)suggests that there are a multitude of application for mind mapping, including its use application to speech writing, essay writing, examination tasks, meetings and communication and note-taking/summarising (Buzan, 2006).

***NOTE: See reference list in post below***

#Chris Tovani #Discipline Specific Language #Instructional Purpose #Literacy Across Disciplines #Meta language #Mind Mapping #Strategies to hold thinking #Tony Buzan #Word Association #LAD

Above top: The mind map students created by students from my modelling.

Above below: changes to mind map made after reflecting on recommendations from Tony Buzan.

#Mind mapping #Image #Buzan

2. Unintentional and ongoing assessment – the event through the lens of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Practice 3 (CPP3)

Similar to the lens of LAD, analysis of this teaching event from the standpoint of CPP3 has allowed me to identify aspects of assessment that were unintentionally incorporated into my lesson. Like Hamerness (2001), I feel that this clarity has only come through examination of this teaching event from the eyes of CPP3, as she states:

“....cases may provide powerful opportunities for pre-service teachers to examine assumptions, frame problems, and develop their pedagogical muscle with regards to their own particular contexts and classrooms” (Hammerness et al., 2001, p. 26).

Key findings from this “examination,” (Hammerness et al., 2001) include:

A. The unintentional use and characteristics of formative assessment

When first analysing this teaching event under the lens of CPP3, I was concerned as to how I was going to see pedagogical links between the lesson and assessment. That was of course, until I investigated the intricacies of this topic and discovered the significance and variety of formative assessment.

Whilst I knew that the lesson I presented had links to summative assessment (as it was a revision lesson for an end of term exam) I was unsure how my lesson incorporated other aspects of assessment. Churchill et al., (2011) defines formative assessment as, “Assessment designed for the purpose of providing feedback to the learner” (p. 402). Notably, this form of assessment is most typically informal and often occurs concurrently with what Churchill et al., (2011); Krause, Boucher, Duchesne & McMaugh, (2010); & Brady & Kennedy (2012), refer to as, “assessment for learning” and “assessment as learning”. Krause et al., (2010), defines “assessment for learning” as, “...assessment with the goal of improving learning”. This form of assessment is typically conducted when a new topic is introduced to students, to assess what they already know and in relation to where they are expected to be in accordance with the curriculum documents; whilst also being conducted regularly throughout teaching periods via formative assessment (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy (2012). Whilst I did not conduct a prior assessment for learning during this lesson to see what the students already knew; I had observed two lessons in the previous weeks of professional experience in which my mentor teacher covered the content in which I was providing a revision lesson on.

In addition to this, Churchill et al (2011) defines, “assessment as learning”, as the, “Assessment with the goal of helping students to become more conscious of their own learning processes.” This aspect of assessment is strongly linked to formative assessment, it includes the ongoing assessment of students as learning activities takes place; and it is the various forms of this: assessment as learning, and formative assessment that I unintentionally conducted throughout this lesson that have evidently contributed to its success.

Upon reflection Churchill et al., (2011); Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy (2012) have highlighted several common examples of formative assessment that I had inadvertently included in this revision lesson, including:

i. Observation – (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy, 2012) - Throughout the lesson I was constantly observing students (both indirectly and directly) to see who was participating in discussion? Who was engaged in the creation of their mindmap/notetaking? Who was asking questions to demonstrate they were engaging with content? Who was demonstrating their understanding of the more difficult/advanced topics? Etc.

ii. Questioning – (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy, 2012) – During periods of discussion, I conducted strategic questioning wherever possible with students, probing at them to see how much they truly understood and could comprehend the topics we were discussing.

iii. Student work – (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy, 2012) – whilst this evidence was limited; I scanned students mind-maps/note taking where ever possible as I walked throughout the room over the course of the lesson. In doing so, I noted numerous differences in student presentation of their mind map. Whilst all students had written work that was sufficient, only those who demonstrated evidence of understanding and comprehension in questioning, discussion and observation demonstrated work of a higher standard.

iv. Discussion – (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy, 2012) - although highly informal, the discussion that took place after class with the 6 students provided evidence that they were applying the concepts we had discussed to their real world experiences, indicating they were working at the higher levels of blooms taxonomy. It also highlighted that my pedagogical practices had been effective, as outlined by Haberman, (1991), “Whenever students are involved in reflecting on their own lives...good teaching is going on...exceedingly powerful pedagogy” (p. 7).

All considered, by the end of the lesson, these forms of simple, formative assessment had allowed me to basically identify which students where at a high level of understanding and comprehension and those that were at a low level. As such, I will not underestimate the use of such pedagogical and assessment practices in my future teaching.

B. My role as a stakeholder in summative assessment and the various purposes of summative assessment

Whilst this teaching event was a revision lesson that involved a great deal of formative assessment; one of the major purposes of the lesson was prepare students for their end of term exam, which was to be held one week later. As such, the complexities summative assessments are clearly evident upon reflection of this reaching event.

I concur with, Churchill et al., (2011) who defines summative assessment as, “Assessments designed for the purpose of providing a statement of level of achievement or grades at a particular time. They are often used for certification purposes or for periodic reporting.” In addition, definitions of the various forms of summative assessment provided to me by Phill Roberts this semester has elucidated that the summative assessment I was inadvertently preparing students for was what Roberts (2012) refers to as a, “traditional and norm-referenced assessment.”

Whilst the class group had a blend of students studying tertiary and accredited coursed, along with a mix of students in year 11 and 12; the exam students were preparing for was their end of term Human Movement exam. Notably, all students had a weighing of 40% for this exam, and the same exam paper was to be given the other two Human Movement class groups during exam periods. Despite this similar percentile weighing, the purpose of the assessment varied for each student.

For the students studying a ‘tertiary package’ the results of this assessment were going to contribute to the final mark at the end of the year; influencing student class rankings, moderation rankings within the school and ultimately, have some contribution to their Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) score. As such the assessment was a “...high stakes assessment”, for these students; defined by Churchill et al., (2011) as, “Assessment that has long term consequences in terms of future pathways and opportunities” (p. 401). In contrast, this assessment piece played a less significant role for students studying accredited courses. For these students, the marks they received would still rank them amongst their peers, however only those who were also studying accredited courses. Similarly, this assessment would have no link to the ATAR of accredited students, as they were ineligible to receive it.

Notably, these differing purposes between the two groups meant that accredited students were allowed to bring additional learning tools with them into the exam (text book, notes, etc), but would still sit the same exam as the tertiary students. As such, tertiary students perceived accredited students to have an, ‘easier’ assessment.

Despite these disparities, students were still undergoing, “assessment of learning” (Krause et al., 2010), through this process of summative assessment, defined by Krause et al., (2010) as, “Assessment with the goal of judging what student know and can do at a particular point in time.” In my opinion, I believed these allowance adjustments for this assessment to fair and equitable for students studying the accredited course. Churchill et al., (2011) elucidates this point, arguing, “...To be fair, an assessment process must allow everyday students to best demonstrate their levels of attainment on the learning being assessed” (p. 407). In addition, Churchill et al., (2011); Krause et al., (2010); & Brady & Kennedy (2012), each emphasise the various purposes of assessment in education; suggesting that each assessment needs to be designed and adapted specifically for its own unique situation.

It is upon reviewing this information that I began to question the formation of this assessment. The topics to be covered in this exam were: the articular system, the skeletal system, the muscular system and the nervous system. Now in the ‘real world’, the application of such content is highly practical, as is which much of the content of PDHPE and Human Movement. Yet here, I was preparing students for a written exam which was to include multiple-choice, true-false and short answer responses from students. Upon reflection, I have been called to question as to whether or not elements of, “authentic assessment” (Krause et al., 2010) could have been applied to this summative assessment. My personal suggestion would have been to incorporate some form of laboratory or practical based assessment into this summative assessment process.

In addition to this, reflection of my role in preparing students for this exam through the lens of CPP3 has allowed me to identify that I was playing a significant role as a “stakeholder” in this assessment (Banta, 2005). Woolfolk & Margetts (2010) outline that assessment should ideally suit all stakeholders involved in the assessment process, “...educative assessment is where the assessment supports the learning of all the key stakeholders – students, their parents and their teachers” (p. 562). In recognising my role a significant stakeholder, the content of my lesson particularly focused on the learning objectives relevant to this topic (the Articular system) when preparing this lesson.

Ultimately, the complexities and issues of summative assessment have been revealed upon analysis of my teaching event in relation to CPP3. In addition, I have been made aware of my role as a major stakeholder in assessment along with the difficulty and issues associated with the formation, type and purpose of items of summative assessment in relation to the needs and requirements of individual students and class groups.

C. Roles and features of effective feedback

A common theme throughout my studies of CPP3 this semester has been the importance of effective feedback for improved student learning and assessment. In particular, reflection upon this teaching lesson has revealed that whilst I unintentionally employed aspects of feedback strategies, it is an area of potential improvement. Likewise critical analysis has highlighted links that exist between effective feedback and various forms of summative and formative assessment.

I concur with, Hattie & Timperley (2007) who suggest, “Feedback is information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding. It occurs typically after instruction that seeks to provide knowledge and skills or to develop particular attitudes” (p. 102). In addition, Hattie & Timperley (2007) suggestthat feedback within the classroom involves a symbiotic relationship that exists between teachers and students. They outline that, “...teachers need to seek and learn from feedback as much as do students” (p. 104). This notion was of high significance upon my reflection. Prior to critical analysis, I was aware that my lesson incorporated numerous instances of me providing feedback to individual students during class discussion and questioning on their learning. However, it is only now that I am able to see that on several occasions, the students provided me with feedback on the effectiveness of my teaching.

Haberman (1991) suggests, “Whenever students are being helped to see major concepts, big ideas, and general principles and are not merley engaged in the persuit of isolated facts good teaching is going on. At all levels and in all subjects, key concepts can be made meaningful and relevant” (p. 6). Likewise, Haberman (1991) outlines that, “Whenever students are involved in reflecting on their own lives...good teaching is going on...Autobiography can be the basis of an exceedingly powerful pedagogy” (p. 7). As such, student discussions with me after class were able to provide me with feedback on my teaching that demonstrated that they were reaching that, “autobiographical” (Haberman, 1991) level of comprehension and as a result, highlighting the effectiveness of my teaching.

Although this lesson occurred at the end of my professional experience, the feedback I received from students would have informed my future teaching. I would have continued to apply personal examples in class discussion and encourage students and provide them with tools to apply the concepts we were discussing to their everyday lives (Churchill et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2010; & Brady & Kennedy. 2012).

In contrast to this, there are several elements of the feedback I provided to students that could have been improved. The majority of the feedback I provided to students was verbal when questioning them or during class discussion, and was immediate, allowing little processing. Woolfolk & Margetts (2010) state that, “...effective feedback must translate into a clear, positive message that students connect with...Praise such as ‘Awesome work!’ is not really helpful...studies have concluded that it is more helpful to tell students why they are wrong so they can learn more appropriate strategies” (p.562). In addition, characteristics of effective feedback are also outlined by Woolfolk & Margetts (2010) as when, “...the teacher should make specific comments on errors or inappropriate strategies, but balance criticism with suggestions on how to improve, as well as comments on the positive aspects of the work” (p.563).

Due to a lack of knowledge previously, I feel that the timing and over-positivity of my feedback, could also have been improved. For the most part, my feedback was immediate and direct, as I simply wanted to provide students with the feedback they needed and then continue on with the lesson as soon as possible. A study conducted by Hattie & Timperley (2007) found, “It is difficult to document the frequency of feedback in classrooms, except to note that it is low” (p. 100). In addition Hattie & Timperley (2007) elucidates that the timing of feedback should vary depending on the classroom situation, and it is pivotal in for student success and improvement, suggesting, “...immediate error correction during task acquisition can result in faster rates of acquisition, where as immediate error correction during fluency building can detract from the learning of automaticity and the associated stages of learning” (p. 98). As students were in the, “fluency building,” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) stage during this revision lesson, I should have given less immediate feedback, so as to provide students with the opportunity to question their own thinking and find their own answers, without being spoon-fed the correct one.

In relation to feedback for formative and summative assessment purposes, O’Connor & Wormeli (2011) suggests, “Most formative assessments provide descriptive feedback for students, followed by opportunities to revise in light of that feedback and be assessed and accredited anew” (p. 44). In contrast, Falk, Ort & Moirs (2007) says, “Summative assessments, on the other hand, are for evaluative declarations and sorting students. They do not offer much in the way of feedback and opportunities for revision and reassessment” (p,72).

All considered, whilst I had incorporated elements of effective feedback into my lesson, there are aspects of its timing, rate and type which I will strive to improve in future teaching.

***NOTE: See reference list in post below***

#Curriculum Pedagogy and Practice 3 #Feedback #Formative Assessment #Summative Assessment #Teacher as a stakeholder #CPP3

3. Potential limitations and future improvements – a critical view of the lesson from a3. Socio-Cultural Politics of Education standpoint (SCPE)

Similar to the analysis of my teaching event through the lens of LAD and CPP3, investigation of the event from the standpoint of SCPE has allowed me to further identify several pedagogical strategies that were inadvertently incorporated into the lesson. In contrast however, the majority of examination has revealed several limitations to the lesson and in doing so; it has provided me with new insights and alternatives to incorporate into future lessons. This process has been elucidated by Nilsson (2009) who suggests that these, “...experiences of critical incidence might also serve as a catalyst for change” (p. 254).

Significant findings from this reflection and analysis include:

A. Friere’s Banking Model of Education + Transformative and Generative Pedagogies

Upon critical analysis of the lesson, I felt that I had incorporated far too much teacher-centred learning and not enough student-centred learning. In presenting and facilitating the discussion of revision of the Articular System, I feel as though I was simply trying to embed knowledge into students so they could recall it when they were to sit their exam one week later.

When I first heard of Paulo Friere’s, “Banking model of education” (Miller, 1998; and Wink, 2011), earlier this semester, I became somewhat unsettled; as I felt as though my lesson had incorporated several negative elements of this model. Put simply, Miller (1998) defines Friere’s model as education which, “...does not promote creativity and only views students as passive objects...The minds of students are not seen as creative and generative, but as empty vessels, passively open to deposits...” (p. 64). Wink (2011) adds to this stating, in the Banking model, “...the teacher has the knowledge and deposits it in the empty heads of the learners, who then has to give it back during testing” (p. 55). In short, “The banking concept of education prevents students from becoming creators of the world” (Miller, 1998, p. 64), and it was this “prevention”, that I fearful thought I had created amongst my students.

In contrast to these initial thoughts, Symes and Preston (1997) outlines, “...if knowledge is an act of discovery in which the knower develops a critical consciousness which questions...then education cannot be regarded as a simple transfer (like making a deposit in a bank) from one person to another” (p. 57). As such, feedback I received from students via discussion after the lesson elucidated that although I thought I was simply, “...transferring” (Symes and Preston, 1997) information to students; they were in fact showing me evidence that I had simulated them into a higher level of engagement.

Wink (2011) elucidated this through the, “...three models of pedagogy” (p. 7 ). The first, relating to Friere’s banking model of education, is the, “Transmission model” (Wink, 2011, p. 8). Here, “...conversation flows in one direction...from student to teacher”, and many students are left with numerous questions and confusions (Wink, 2011). Above this, is the more desired, “Generative model” (Wink, 2011, p. 8). Here, “...communication flows in several directions...more realistic learning takes place from a more hands-on approach to learning” (Wink, 2011, p. 8). While finally, the most desired pedagogical framework is the, “transformative model” (Wink, 2011, p. 8). Here, learners have experiences, “...in the real world and participate in real activities...communication flows freely from learner to learner, and the teacher becomes a partner in the learning process” (Wink, 2011, p. 8). Reflection upon this theory has made me understand that I had actually incorporated numerous aspects of the, “Transmission model”, and, “Generative model” in my lesson, particularly evident with those students who decided to stay back and engage in further conversation on the Articular system(Wink, 2011).

Linked with this idea of generative and transformative pedagogies is “...student connectedness” (Zyngier, 2007). In a study conducted by Zyngier (2007), he suggests that, “...Connectedness implies a relationship between the home, school, and community, as well as between the curriculum and students’ real life situations” (p. 1). In discussing content of the lesson after class with a number of students, it was evident that they were seeking, (and most of the time successfully) this sense of, “connectedness” (Zyngier, 2007), and applying the content to their, “...real life situations” (Zyngier, 2007). For example, many students spoke with me at length about particularly articular (joint) injuries that their parents had suffered and were relating it to the structures of a joint capsule (a learning objective covered during the lesson). I think this process was also assisted as I made students aware of my own knee injury and how it related to the content we were covering. Many of them were fascinated by this, and their own stories, and so together we had begun to move out of Winks’ (2011) suggested, “...Transmision model of pedagogy,” and into, “...Generative”, and, “...Transformative models”, of pedagogy (Wink, 2011). As suggested by Zyngier (2003), students were beginning to, “...crave the opportunity to take education beyond the four walls as it appears in its usual format” (p. 41).

As a result of the above analysis, I aim to make a constant effort to, “...see teaching as something more than the transmission of information” (Nilsson, 2009, p. 254).

B. The virtual school bag that I bring to the classroom

Throughout my studies at university, I have constantly been reminded of a, “virtual school bag” (Cunneen, 2012) which I bring to the classroom as I teach. Lampert (2005) conveys that, “...there is no division between personal politics, the politics of a country (as expressed in policy) and the everyday practices in a classroom” (p. 86). As suggested by Tyler (2011), this can be a potentially damaging issue for students as, “...Internal factors such as meritocracy, individual habits, social marginalisation and social capital...should also be considered if the teacher is to adopt pedagogy and practice that will transform inequality within educational contexts” (p. 1).

Upon reflection it is clear that my personal cultural capital, social capital and habitus influenced how I approached the lesson and influenced my presentation of the lesson content and the hidden curriculum. Evidently, my socio-cultural imagination was directly reflective of my virtual schoolbag, and it was directly affecting my approach to the lesson; along with my attitude and expectations of the students.

Having been brought through the Catholic education system and having previous professional experience placements at only private schools, my perceptions of public education (and specifically publically educated students) was most significantly dissimilar from reality. Somewhat ignorantly, I had a perception of the public education system that included students from families of the working and lower class with a low socio-economic status and poor social and cultural capital. As outlined by Lampert (2005), this incredibly bias perception influenced by my own prejudices lead me to, “...form differential expectations of the students....and these expectations influence teacher behaviours” (p.92). As such, I feel as though I had lowered my expectations with some students. For example, there were several instances where I, ‘dumbed down’ and over-simplified content from the lesson due to my lower expectations of students. Likewise, any sporting examples I used to elucidate certain learning objectives where related to sports stereotypically popular with the Australian working class (e.g. Rugby League).

Lampert, (2005) conveys that teachers can at times, “...default to behaviour that may not demonstrate their best intentions” (p. 88); and this was most certainly the case. Halfway through my lesson, I remember discussing a complex element of the revision (joint structures) and suddenly realised how far advanced and more engaged the students were, contradictory to my previous perceptions. From that moment on, I have made a conscious effort to shift my expectations and wipe any pre-conceived perceptions and prejudices when dealing with a group of students. Now I aim to create an unbias classroom that incorporates, “...a critical and transformative connectedness that recognises that a teaching practice includes both class and culturally appropriate teaching...for success for all students, not just those who come to school with the social and cultural capital acknowledged by the school system as appropriate” (Zyngier, 2007, p. 2).

In addition to this, the concept of habitus has several links to the, “virtual school bag” (Cunneen, 2012) one brings to the classroom. Winkle-Wagner, (2010) outlines habitus as, “...the meaning that is given to one’s perceptions...categories of perception and appreciation in the social realm” (p. 9). In this case, my habitus had shifted since the last time I was on professional experience. On previous pracs, I felt as though my age was awfully similar to those of the students, and as a result, it was limiting my ability to be the teacher I wanted to be. In this instance however, although I was in an almost identical, “social realm”, this was the first time that I felt as though students were not questioning my age, and seeing me as a young, naive and unknowledgeable teacher. I was comfortable with the habitus, and it was the first time I felt as though I demanded and deserved the respect I was shown; ultimately, contributing to the success of the lesson.

C. Heteronormativity and gender perspective bias I brought to the lesson

One of the most significant areas we have analysed this semester has been that of gender issues and gender equality. I found this topic highly relevant when analysing this teaching event, as it has highlighted several areas of improvement for my future teaching.

Throughout the revision lesson, I used numerous examples of sporting injuries and real life applications of joint movements that aligned with the learning objectives I was aiming to cover in revision of the Articular system. Upon reflection, it was evident that in doing so I was unintentionally perpetuating standards of Heternormativity to the class. Inadvertently, these examples and applications I was providing were in most cases linking content with typically male dominated sports (e.g. Rugby league, Rugby Union, Basketball, etc). Likewise, I was providing examples of only male athletes with specific cases of injury and I had a tendency to choose male students first during discussions. In addition, I even referred to the model skeleton as ‘dangerous Dave’ when demonstrating applications of joint movements we were covering. In doing so I was, “acting out my maleness” (Cunneen, 2012) and forwarding this onto my students, despite having a class that was roughly 45% female, 55% male. Notably, of the six students that stayed back after class to discuss lesson content with me, four were male. Clearly, I was engaging the male students within the class, but should I have changed my pedagogy to connect more with the female students?

A Norwegian study conducted by Dowling (2006) analysed how Physical Education teachers professional identities influenced gender equality in their classroom. Notably Dowling (2006), found, “The PE teacher educators’ lack of a theoretical understanding of gender unwittingly leads them to perpetuate a discourse which discriminated against many young female and some male students in PE” (p. 248). Likewise, the study (2006) concluded that, “...gender equality was not perceived to be central to these PE teachers...PE teacher educators in this study constructed their own gender identities within traditional notions of masculinity and femininity” (p. 258).

It is clear that this issue of gender bias and potential gender equity issues that I experienced is common to the Physical Education field as the school environment is a social construct though which stereotypical norms are often unintentionally perpetuated. As argued by Davis (2004), “...masculinity and femininity are not inherent properties of individuals; they are inherent or structural properties of our society; that is, they are both condition and arise from social processes” (p. 137). With this considered, in aiming to prevent this gender bias from surfacing in future teaching, I concur with Lampert, (2005) who elucidates, “Transformative education requires ongoing critical reflection on one’s self and one’s work as a teacher; education is a work in progress...teachers should deeply want to uncover the reasons why they act and think as they do” (p. 89).

***NOTE: See reference list in post below***

#Banking model of education #Gender issues in education #Generative pedagogies #Habitus #Hetronormativity #Paulo Friere #Social class #Socio-cultural politics of education #Transformative Pedagogies #Virtual school bag #SCPE

Conclusion and Reference List

So what have I learnt from this reflection and analysis?

All considered it is evident that the profound moment that I experienced at the end of that lesson result from the employment of numerous (sometimes unintentionally) pedagogical techniques. The main of which include: the use of mind mapping and discipline specific literacy’s; the implementation of formative assessment; and elements of generative and transformative pedagogies. Likewise, it is evident when looking at the lesson critically through the lens of Literacy Across Disciplines, Socio-Cultural Politics of Education and Curriculum Pedagogy and Practice 3, that there are several limitations of the lesson. These included: an adjustment to specific mind mapping processes; more timely and effective student feedback; and a recognition/readjustment of the characteristics of the ‘virtual school bag’ that I bring into the classrooms in which I teach. As such, reflection and research has highlighted several alternatives and additional actions for future teaching.

REFERENCE LIST

Banta, T. (2005) Leaders’ Views on Engaging Stakeholders in Assessment. Assessment Update, 17, 6, 3-16. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=47d28d24-7bd2-4afe-b3ff-60dec254254f%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=126

Bourdueu, P. (2004). The forms of capital (Ch. 1). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in: sociology of education. (pp. 15-29). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/32049/bourdieu.pdf

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2012). Chapter 4: Strategies for assessing student achievement in the classroom. Assessment and Reporting: Celebrating student achievement. Frenchs Forest: Pearson. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/618452/mod_page/content/8/Brady%20%20Kennedy%202012.pdf

Buzan, T. (2006). Use your head: Innovative learning and thinking techniques to fulfil your mental potential. (7th Ed). Harlow, Essex, England. BBC Active

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy and learning: Twenty years of inquiry. Reading Teacher. 49. 182-191. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5c6c6368-ad83-49ba-9e17-8d56587178a0%40sessionmgr112&vid=2&hid=119

Churchil, R; Ferguson, P; Godinho, S; Johnson, F; Keddie, A; Letts, W; Mackay, J; McGill, M; Moss, J; Nagel, M; Nicholson, P; and Vick, M. (2011). Teaching: Making a difference. (pp. 388-432). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.

Cochaud, G. (1984). The word association test in the classroom. Research and education features: technology, development and educational futures. 103-109. Retrieved from http://cunningham.acer.edu.au.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/inted/aare/AARE1984vol1part3.pdf

Cunneen, R. (2012). Unit 8827 Socio-Cultural Politics of Education SEC, Week 6 lecture and moodle page content, Topic six: Sexuality and Gender. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=433433

Davis, B. (2004). The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school settings (Ch. 6). In S.J.Ball (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in sociology of education, (pp. 128-139). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/26352/davies.pdf

Davis, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? 62. 279-301. Retrieved from http://tlu.fbe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/martinpubs/mind_concept_argument_mapping.pdf

Dollman, J., Boshoff, K., & Dodd, G. (2006). The relationship between curriculum time for physical education and literacy and numeracy standards in South Australian primary schools. European Physical Education Review. 12. 151-163. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=e2c06faf-4a0e-46e3-86c6-82dcb498cab7%40sessionmgr104&vid=3&hid=127

Dowling, F. (2006). Physical education teacher educators’ professional identities, continuing professional development of gender equality. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(3), 247-263. Retrieved from http://zh9bf5sp6t.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/directLink?&atitle=Physical+education+teacher+educators%27+professional+identities%2C+continuing+professional+development+and+the+issue+of+gender+equality&author=Dowling%2C+F&issn=17408989&title=Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy&volume=11&issue=3&date=2006-11-01&spage=247&id=doi:10.1080%2F17408980600986306&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article

Dupree, J. (2002). An introduction to mind mapping. SPELD. 33. 12-13. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/fullText;dn=118963;res=AEIPT

English, R. (2009). Selling Education Through “Culture”: Responses to the Market by New, Non-Government Schools. Australian Education Researcher. 36. 89-104. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&hid=127&sid=e2c06faf-4a0e-46e3-86c6-82dcb498cab7%40sessionmgr104

Falk, B; Ort, S; and Moirs, K. (2007). Keeping the Focus on the Child: Supporting and Reporting on Teaching and Learning with a Classroom-Based Performance Assessment System. Educational Assessment, Vol. 12 (1). 47-75. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0b282de9-f14d-4b9b-939c-6ea57dce0d62%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=126

Fischer, J., & Mazurkiewicz. (2011). Expeditionary teaching and learning: One means of authentic education. Social Educator, 29, 5-11. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/fullText;dn=189289;res=AEIPT

Greene, M. (1997). Teaching as Possibility: A Light in Dark Times. The Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism & Practice. Retrieved from http://www.lesley.edu/journals/jppp/1/jp3ii1.html

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (4), 290-294. Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_haberman.pdf

Hall, M., Hartmann-Tews, I., Pfister, G., Messner, M., & Harris, J. Review Article: Gender issues in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 42. 217-221. Retrieved from http://irs.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/content/42/2/217

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2001). Towards Expert Thinking: How Case-Writing Contributes to the development of Theory-Based Professional Knowledge in Student Teachers. Retrieved from https://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/25703/hammernessetal.pdf

Hattie, J, (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? In Australian Council for Education Research Annual Conference on building teacher quality, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Building-effective-learning-environments/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Education al Research. Vol 77 (1). 81-112. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/Direct.asp?AccessToken=95959IQ8X1519MUXKM9PXI55PP448XJJIX&Show=Object

Holmes, D. (2012). Class. Australian Sociology: A changing Society (3rd Ed., pp. 55-78). Frenches Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia

James, A. (2004). Instructional Alignment: A Three-Step Process. Teaching Elementary Physical Education. 15 (1). 30-32. Retrieved from http://zh9bf5sp6t.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/directLink?&atitle=Instructional+Alignment%3A+A+Three-Step+Process&author=James%2C+A&issn=10454853&title=Teaching+Elementary+Physical+Education&volume=15&issue=1&date=2004-01-01&spage=30&id=doi:&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article

Kamler, B., & Comber, B. (2005) Turn-around pedagogies: Improving the education of at-risk students. Improving Schools. 8. 121-131. Retrieved from http://imp.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/content/8/2/121

Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Standards-Driven Reform Years 1-10: Moderation an optional extra? Australian Educational Researcher. (37). 21-39. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aa481852-9f0a-400a-9e1a-2a0db7bd660c%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=127

Krause, K., Boucher., Duchesne, S. & McMaugh, A. (2010). Assessment & reporting (Ch. 12). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (3rd ed., pp 458-503). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.

Ladwig, J., & Gore, J. (2003) Quality teaching in NSW public Schools: Discussion paper. NSW Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from https://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/17159/quality_teaching_discn_paper.pdf

Lampert, J. (2005). The teaching the matters: merging our personal beliefs with our professional practice in the classroom. Introductory Indigenous Studies in Education (pp. 83-100). Frenches Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia

McMillan, J. (2008). Assessment Methods, Items, and Techniques. Assessment Essentials for standards-based Education. Thousand Oakes: Sage. Chapter 5. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/618452/mod_page/content/8/McMillan%202008.pdf

Meadmore, D. (2004). How do social class and education make the great divide? New questions for contempory teachers. (pp. 73-86). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Retrieved from http://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/21812/meadmore.pdf

Mills, C. (2006). Reproduction and transformation in disadvantaged communities: a Bourdieuan perspective on improving the educational outcomes of students. Australian Association for Research in Education. 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mil05061.pdf

Miller, G. (1998). Chapter FOUR: Friere’s Radicalism (Ch. 4). Negotiating Toward Truth. 53-91. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b7b50df5-9b7e-48e2-9d91-dd2ef01120ea%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=126

Moje, E. (2008). Forgrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for Change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 52(2). 96-107. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=200a81c9-1461-4154-993d-5538e27a1df9%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=126

Nilsson, P. (2009). From lesson plan to new comprehension: exploring student teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in learning about teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education. (32). 239-258. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=afad971c-45c4-4678-964c-24f08c974036%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=119

O’Connor, K., & Wormeli, R. (2011). Reporting Student Learning. Educational Leadership, Vol. 69, (3). 40-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=de4caa5f-a119-4ecf-9d9f-b536059b8ac0%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=126

Quinten, J. (2001). Characteristics of successful HSC teachers. 1-24. Retrieved from Education Research Complete (EBSCOhost).

Roberts, P. (2012). CPP3 Wks 5 & 6: The Challenges of Formative Assessment. Unit 8859 Curriculum, Pedagogyand Practice 3. Moodle post Week 5. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=432985

Shann, S. (2012). Unit 8836 Literacy Across Disciplines, Week 3 lecture and moodle page content. Week 3: Literacy: goal or gateway? & the importance of mental modelling. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/course/view.php?id=7878#

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 57. 1-22. Retrieved from http://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/28491/shulman.pdf

Symes, C., & Preston, N. (1997). Education in context (Ch. 3). Schools and classrooms: a cultural studies analysis of education. (2nd ed., pp. 37-60). South Melbourne, Australia: Addison Wesley Longman Australia. Retrieved from http://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/34850/symes_1997_ch3.pdf

Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading? : content comprehension, grades 6-12. Markham, Ontario: Stenhouse Publishers

Tranter, D. (2007). Becoming self-conscious: exploring habitus. Australian Association for Research in Education. 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/tra06173.pdf

Tyler, S. (2011). Transforming inequality in the classroom: Not as easy as it sounds, Journal of student Engagement: Education Matters, 1 (1), 21-28. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=jseem

Van Kraayenoord, C., Beinicke, A., Schlagmuller, M., & Schneider, W. (2012). Word identification, metacognitive knowledge, motivation and reading comprehension: An Australian study of Grade 3 and 4 pupils. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 35. 51-68. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a5306234-829b-4c64-980f-549c28ff8d2d%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=119

Wilson, G., & L’Anson, J. (2006). Reframing the practicum: Constructing performative space in initial teacher education. Teacher & teach education. 22. 353-361. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/S0742051X05001459/1-s2.0-S0742051X05001459-main.pdf?_tid=9036c4fb325ad8d160193014d0ef5495&acdnat=1344474704_ad5c284c2bf97fad8b6a4cb9bdcd8f1d

Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed, pp. 1-157). Upper Saddle River, USA: Pearson.

Winkle-Wagner, R. (2010). Foundations of Educational Inequality: Cultural Capital and Social Reproduction. ASHE Higher Education Report, 2010, 36, 1-21. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0f22e87a-bef0-4adc-b223-4e77e6d04c31%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=126

Woolfolk, K., & Margetts, K. (2010). Assessment & reporting (Ch. 14). Educational psychology. (pp. 538-576). Frenches Forest, Australia: Pearson. https://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/docs/34924/woolfolk.pdf

Wu, M. (2010). Measurement, sampling, and equating errors in large-scale assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 29. 15-27. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00190.x/abstract;jsessionid=9885F46839B44BCB332E2E6485455A53.d03t03

Zyngier, D. (2003) Connectedness – Isn’t it time that education came out from behind the classroom door and Rediscovered Social Justice. Social Alternatives, 22, 41-49. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7a2e012d-485a-49c8-b072-8f85e66eae06%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=126

Zyngier, D. (2003). “Hanging Out – Hanging On – Hanging in” or is it “Elect Out, Drift Out and Driven Out.” What works for “At-Risk students – how a Connedted or Generative Pedagogy improves student educational outcomes for all but in particular for marginalised students. Deakin West: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. 717-750. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/zyngier_-_hanging.pdf

Zyngier, D. (2007). (Re)conceptualising Connectedness as a Pedagogy of Engagement. Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/zyn06865.pdf

#Reference List #Conclusion

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

"Mr.L"-@SecEdUC