Assignment Cover Sheet

Student name: Ethan Green

Student number: 18498514

Unit name and number: 102096 Researching Teaching and Learning 1

Tutor: Evelyn Hibbert

Tutorial day and time: Wednesday 2:30pm

Unit Coordinator: Jacqueline Ullman

Title of assignment: Report

Length: 2198 words

Date due: 27/5/2019

Date submitted: 27/5/2019

Campus enrolment: Kingswood

Introduction

Part of education involves researching best practice in the altruistic interest of others (Kervin,
Vialle, Howard, Herrington, & Okely, 2016). Research and pedagogy become further intertwined as
professional policy reflects a need for teachers to be familiar with a range of student contexts (AITSL,
n.d.). This connection is explored through a critical analysis of, “Enabling exemplary teaching: a
framework of student engagement for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds with
implications for technology and literacy practices” by Callow and Orlando (2015). The articles
recommendations are applied to a science lesson to address the significance research has in
improving pedagogy.

Educational Issue

Student success relies heavily on their engagement in school (Kagan, 1990). Engagement, however,
is impacted by student background factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) (Auwarter &
Aruguete, 2008). Historically, students with low SES have overrepresented underachievers (Sever,
2012) with research once finding SES to more reliably indicate success than measures of intelligence
(Rist, 1970). More recent work has found the problem still propagating throughout education, with
PISA results indicating more impoverished students were up to three years behind their peers
academically (Thomson, Bortoli, Nicholas, Hillman, & Buckley, 2010). Resultantly, teachers have
often reduced expectations for low SES students, decreasing opportunities to participate in class and
creating oversimplified curriculums (Burnett & Lampert, 2018; Dusek, 1975). Similarly, ignoring the
challenges faced by these students, whether unintentionally or due to naivety, has also served to
create opposition to schooling (Lingard & Mills, 2007). Such disengagement has been found to lead
to maladaptive motivational processes (Dweck, 1986) and increases the likelihood of dropping out of
school (Wehlage & Rutter, 1985). Given teachers cannot control student SES, pedagogical strategies
that promote student involvement play a role in working towards equitable education (Lingard &
Mills, 2007; Wittrock, 1987).

Positive student-teacher relationships promote student engagement and success (Stronge, Ward, &
Grant, 2011). As such, teachers can work towards remedying inequalities through avoiding deficit
perceptions (Burnett & Lampert, 2018) and providing room for all students to make contributions to
the curriculum (Devlin, Kift, Nelson, Smith, & McKay, 2012). Positive differentiation does not involve
acting authoritarian (Dusek, 1975) but instead introducing equity initiatives prompted by getting to
know the students (Devlin et al., 2012). For example, providing flexibility for time poor students
reflects contextualised practice for respecting difference. Other key aspects include fostering
community within the classroom and implementing intellectually stimulating learning activities
(Alton-Lee, 2003).

In trying to address engagement, technology has often been used as a solution. ICT use has been
recognised as a timely method to increase student involvement and encourage peer collaboration
(Dawson, 2008). Regarding achievement, technology is seen as a way to enhance student literacy
(Sefton-Green, Nixon, & Erstad, 2009). Conversely, simply using technology is not enough to improve
learning, given literacy encompasses a complexity of skills (Cope & Kalantzis, as cited in Sefton-Green
et al., 2009). Furthermore, research has often found ICT use in schools to be limited in relation to
practical considerations (Dawson, 2008), such as access to computers in school and teacher
implementation (Cox et al., 2004). Using technology in the classroom does little to elevate learning
unless teachers consider that interactivity requires altered planning and guidance (Cox et al., 2004).
Moreover, school and home use of technology are contributors to student’s digital literacy (Sefton-
Green et al., 2009). Because low SES students are less likely to have computer access outside school
or have digitally competent parents (Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008), teachers once again need to
differentiate activities for disadvantaged students.

Subject Relevance

The importance of recognising student diversity is acknowledged by both teaching standards

(AITSL, n.d.) and the Australian curriculum (ACARA, n.d.-b). In recognising challenges low SES
students may face, educators may work towards strategies that better engage such impoverished
students (Devlin et al., 2012). Student engagement and the related self-regulation and student
direction are also recognised as aspects in the NSW quality teaching model (Gore, 2007; NSW DET,
2006). The incorporation of these elements in both policy and practice guidelines highlights their
importance to all subjects.

For science, inquiry is a core aspect of literacy and this includes the use of ICT for research and
collaboration (McFarlane & Sakellariou, 2002). Diverse SES may hamper student inquiry, particularly
when school activities include elements learners have little experience in (Cuevas, Lee, Hart, &
Deaktor, 2005). Additionally, much of the variation in science achievement has been attributed to
background factors, including SES (Secker & Lissitz, 1999). Since scientific literacy encompasses a
number of skills, such as assessing implications of new discoveries for society (McFarlane &
Sakellariou, 2002), improving scientific capabilities among all students is essential, given that equal
but inequitable learning further disadvantages low SES students.

Critical Summary
 Issues of low SES student engagement are expertly summarised by Callow and Orlando. A nuanced
discussion of the issue is provided by keeping dialogue in a broader sense brief, followed by a more
in depth contextualised review of the literature regarding key ideas. Focusing on low SES students in
relation to technology, literacy and a quality teaching framework provides a needed expansion from
discussing the issue, to a commitment to solve the issue (Shank, Pringle, & Brown, 2018). An
argument could be made about the lack of opposing views present, such as there being only one
framework for quality teaching presented (Kervin et al., 2016). The paper at least supplements this
by providing numerous sources to justify the model. This remains true for other sections of the
introduction and each maintains coherency by relating back to the core issue of low SES student
engagement (Shank et al., 2018).

The research question, “What practices are used by teachers to successfully engage students who
live in poverty with their education”? (p. 353) met quality criteria by being concise and easily located
within a brief section (Shank et al., 2018). Although the question does not mention ICT, literacy or a
framework, both the methodology and discussions incorporate these aspects and draw back to the
initial question. This broader but still focused approach works because questioning is an ongoing
process (Agee, 2009). Questions may change as new understandings emerge and the design helps
keep the researchers open to elements not previously considered (Creswell, 1998).

With regards to their methodology, their description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Participant selection involved several steps to ensure quality candidates were selected. Such an
approach would help to gather exemplary teachers, an important design characteristic given
participants should reflect the most important aspects of the research question (Sargeant, 2012).
There is, however, no mention of how the programme used to gather candidates worked to select
schools which would help the reader determine any bias (Kervin et al., 2016). A lack of clarification
as to who exactly reviewed nominee writing pieces causes similar concerns.

Teachers who were eventually selected as participants were invited to be researchers as well. This
choice helps to reduce bias and adds triangulation, increasing validity (Shank et al., 2018).
Incorporating the participants as researchers has other benefits not mentioned in the article. The
involvement of stakeholders affected by the issue creates more authentic research, “For the people”
(Stringer, 2013, p. 213) and increases the likelihood of producing more realisable recommendations
(Agee, 2009). Given the importance of including stakeholders as active participants, it is interesting
that the research minimised the role students played in answering the research question. Students
are key stakeholders in education (Janmaat, McCowan, & Rao, 2016; Ricci, St-Onge, Xiao, & Young,
2018) and much work is done by Callow and Orlando to define authentic measures of student
engagement, so it should be logical to include their perspectives in discussing effective pedagogy.
Instead, the paper focused on teacher’s practicing the provided framework as markers of student
engagement and not, “Individual student achievement and motivation” (p. 358). Such design undoes
the benefits of their question and again fails to incorporate alternative perspectives.

Focusing on the scope of the experiment set out by the authors, the methods and discussion both
work to justify the recommendations provided. The breakdown of each component of the
framework is supported with examples of exemplary practice and an analysis of one lesson using the
framework and coding methods of the study. Coding looked for aspects similar to prescribed
curriculums and to the provided framework, maintaining relevance to the question and broader
educational context (Kervin et al., 2016). In using their framework to provide analysis in the paper,
they visualise for the reader their recommendations of contextualising ICT practices for the literacy
of low SES students. In concluding, they encourage teachers to incorporate: high cognitive strategies
to drive learning the curriculum; high affective environments to nurture a learning community; and
high operative tasks to scaffold learning.

Lesson Plan Assessment and Revisions

The article’s recommendations will be used to adapt, “What kind of rock is that? A science
(geology) lesson for year 8” (Cook, 2017). The task is built upon content for Year 8 from the
Australian Curriculum with respect to the natural Earth (ACARA, n.d.-a). Students begin by viewing a
PowerPoint, completing a worksheet (Figure 1) and then creating posters based on researched facts.
With respect to the framework, the lesson incorporates affective elements by having students
present their work. Operative elements include the use of technology to research facts. These
literacy elements, however, lacked markers for higher cognitive, affective and operative practices,

Figure 1: Worksheet and example slide. Limited discussion of media presentation is provided.
due to a limited discussion of resources and mostly individual work being given (Callow & Orlando,
2015, p. 365). As such, revisions will be given to improve the lesson plan with respect to the
framework’s three elements.

Rather than creating a poster, students work as a class or in groups to create a shared digital
resource, such as a free website or online PowerPoint. Students or groups are allocated a type of
rock to research which would then translate to a section of the online resource. Such a change
incorporates the high affective element of the framework that nurtures a learning community, by
incorporating a more collaborative environment where technology allows texts to be created with
other peers (Callow & Orlando, 2015). Enabling students to support each other in the creation
process has been recognised to enhance achievement, productivity and social competence (Johnson
& Johnson, 2009). Other benefits from collaborative learning include the ability to create support
groups, enhance diversity understanding and reduce anxiety felt in class (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).
Group activities such as this also assist with student’s self-management and prepare them for more
collaborative experiences, while also providing opportunity for teachers to assess how students
perform in these tasks (Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).

The shared online resource that students create also serves to elevate the operative aspects of the
lesson by increasing the range of learning experiences available (Callow & Orlando, 2015). While use
of computers and the internet can vary greatly between students of different economic
backgrounds, ICT use that is collaborative creates more equitable involvement for a range of
students (Heemskerk, Brink, & Volman, 2005). Students are then opened up to the greater range of
educational opportunities recommended through the framework. For low SES students that may
lack the computer skills of other learners, enabling them to work with expert students provides for
peer scaffolding (Ge & Land, 2003), enriching self-confidence and support (Gillani, 2000). By
encouraging peers to enhance each other’s learning in creating digital assets, the literacy marker of
shared control of technology is emphasised (Callow & Orlando, 2015). The importance of individual
strengths is also not forgotten, as student preferences for digital resources and prior ICT experience
can be utilised. This in turn provides demonstrations for other students and promotes equitable
learning environments (Heemskerk et al., 2005).

An additional task involves using rock samples so students can then assess the effectiveness of their
creation by seeing if they can use it for classification. This extra task is designed to target the high
cognitive aspects of the framework. Students are made to see how their selection of resources
supports their literacy in the topic area, thus incorporating the desired discussion of artefacts
(Callow & Orlando, 2015). Given a literacy marker is teaching to read and comprehend multimodal
texts (Callow & Orlando, 2015, p. 365), it could be argued that this activity expands upon the
framework by incorporating higher order cognitive skills. Students must create new materials and
evaluate their group work, both tasks reaching the top of Bloom’s taxonomy (Conklin, 2005;
Krathwohl, 2002). Synergised ICT and group work such as this provides for intellectually engaging
work, avoiding the oversimplified curriculums teachers often trap low SES students in (Burnett &
Lampert, 2018). Lastly, encouraging exposure to similar ICT use can foster higher critical thinking
skills for students who may lack opportunities at home (Fu, 2013).

Conclusion

In applying the framework provided by Callow and Orlando, significant improvements have been
made to the lesson plan by Cook (2017). Applying research enabled two modifications to have
significant differentiated contributions to low SES student engagement. Furthermore, changes
worked to incorporate existing student strengths while allowing for equitable participation in the
curriculum. Here the important professional requirements of teachers have demonstrated the value
of research in addressing such issues of student diversity entrenched in education.

References:

ACARA. (n.d.-a). Science Year 8. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/

ACARA. (n.d.-b). Student diversity. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal

of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512

AITSL. (n.d.). Teacher standards. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis.

Retrieved from Ministry of Education website:

http://intra.bay.net.nz/Learning_objects/datas/quality.pdf
Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on

teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 242–246.

https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246

Burnett, B., & Lampert, J. (2018). Destabilising privilege. In T. Ferfolja, C. Jones Diaz, & J. Ullman

(Eds.), Understanding sociological theory for educational practices (2nd ed., pp. 85–101).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Callow, J., & Orlando, J. (2015). Enabling exemplary teaching: a framework of student engagement

for students from low socio-economic backgrounds with implications for technology and

literacy practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(4), 349–371.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2015.1066678

Conklin, J. (2005). [Review of the book A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision

of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives complete edition, by L. W. Anderson, D.

Krathwohl, P. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. Pintrich, J. Raths, & M. C. Wittrock].

Educational Horizons, 83(3), 154–159. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Cook, N. (2017, April 8). What kind of rock is that? A science (geology) lesson for year 8. Retrieved

May 15, 2019, from Australian Curriculum Lessons website:

https://www.australiancurriculumlessons.com.au/2017/04/08/kind-rock-science-geology-

lesson-year-8/

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., Rhodes, V., Watson, D., & Turnbull, M.

(2004). ICT and pedagogy-a review of the research literature. Retrieved from:

http://mirandanet.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ict_pedagogy.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design : Choosing among five traditions.

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=nlebk&AN=63251&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary

students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053

Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information communication technology by early career science teachers in

Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203–219.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601175551

Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of

students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for teaching staff.

Retrieved from

http://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/Practical%20Advice%20for%20Teaching%20Staff.pdf

Dusek, J. B. (1975). Do teachers bias children’s learning? Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 661–

684. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045004661

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–

1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for

contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194. Retrieved from

JSTOR.

Fu, J. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of

Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 9, 112–125.

Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task

using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 51(1), 21–38. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Gillani, B. B. (2000). Culturally responsive educational web sites. Educational Media International,

37(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980050184754

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers toward higher levels of

quality teaching. In making a difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher

education (pp. 15–33). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Heemskerk, I., Brink, A., & Volman, M. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in education : a focus on gender,

ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00106.x

Janmaat, G., McCowan, T., & Rao, N. (2016). Different stakeholders in education. Compare: A Journal

of Comparative and International Education, 46(2), 169–171.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1134956

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social

interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Kagan, D. M. (1990). How schools alienate students at risk: A model for examining proximal

classroom variables. Educational Psychologist, 25(2), 105–125.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2502_1

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2016). Research for educators (2nd ed.).

South Melbourne: Cengage.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4),

212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

Lingard, B., & Mills, M. (2007). Pedagogies making a difference: Issues of social justice and inclusion.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 233–244.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701237472

McFarlane, A., & Sakellariou, S. (2002). The role of ICT in science education. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 32(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147568

NSW DET. (2006). A classroom practice guide. Sydney, N.S.W.: Dept. of Education and Training,

Professional Learning and Leadership Development Directorate.

Ricci, M., St-Onge, C., Xiao, J., & Young, M. (2018). Students as stakeholders in assessment: How

students perceive the value of an assessment. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(6), 352–

361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0480-3

Rist, R. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto

education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411–451.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.3.h0m026p670k618q3

Sargeant, J. (2012). Qualitative research part II: Participants, analysis, and quality assurance. Journal

of Graduate Medical Education, 4(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00307.1

Secker, C. E. V., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student

achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110–1126.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1110::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T

Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “digital

literacy.” Pedagogies, 4, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800902741556

Sever, M. (2012). A critical look at the theories of sociology of education. International Journal of

Human Sciences, 9(1), 650–671.

Shank, G., Pringle, J., & Brown, L. (2018). Understanding education research (2nd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action Research. SAGE Publications.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case

analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal

of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241

Thomson, S., Bortoli, L. D., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K., & Buckley, S. (2010). PISA in brief: Highlights

from the full Australian report: Challenges for Australian education: Results from PISA 2009:

The PISA 2009 assessment of students’ reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. OECD
 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA Australia). Retrieved from

https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/8

Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer

self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education,

51(3), 1392–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.003

Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1985). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the

problem? Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED275799

Wittrock, M. C. (1987). Teaching and student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 30–33.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800606