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***