Primary Archives - Page 3 of 5

Supporting Learning Through COVID-19

Rani Fairbairn and Belinda Gibbs were involved in Schooling for a Fair Go as a classroom teacher and coach respectively at Grassland Public School. Rani investigated her own teaching practices by asking a research question, gathering evidence and discussing if the changes were making a difference to students’ engagement in learning with her coach. As coaches, Rani and Belinda supported others in their own learning journeys focused on a practice-based research question. Katina Zammit was the school’s academic critical friend and co-researcher. In this article, we reflect on the influence of the Fair Go Program (FGP) on our roles, our teaching and coaching practices, and the challenges and successes during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Background

Belinda and Rani work at Grassland Public School in south-west Sydney. Both were involved with the Schooling for a Fair Go project – one as a coach and the other as a classroom teacher who then became a coach respectively. Their involvement with the Fair Go Program (FGP) started that particular learning journey. The coaching model initiated as part of the project (see Katina’s article on the history of Fair Go in this Special Edition) has continued to support individualised teacher professional learning which includes teacher-coach conversations that are research-informed and action-oriented through co-planning of activities focused on teaching for improved student engagement in learning. The coaching model especially supports those teachers within their first five years of teaching. Working directly with teachers, coaches emphasise the importance of learning from each other, developing both collective wisdom and collegiality. Engagement is the key for teachers and students as is evident in the statements below from Rani and Belinda:

It’s that collegial discussion and using research to inform what we’re doing so we can’t just make it up. Something has to be the basis – where did you get this information from? Then we trial it in our classrooms then we talk about what worked, what didnt work and how we can make it a sustainable practice.
Rani

We have behaviours that we have to deal with, but when we’re in the classroom we are focussed on teaching and learning, the majority of teachers will say that behaviours are happening in the playground not in the classroom. It’s just sort of second nature to staff now.
Belinda

However, in 2020, COVID-19 added a new complexity to their role in supporting learning as the teachers moved to remote learning for eight weeks and then returned to school, albeit with the restrictions in place that meant the community was not allowed on site.
These are their stories:

Rani: My many different roles supporting quality learning experiences

As a coach, I try to always ask questions that come down to, ‘How can we make teaching work?’. Before COVID-19, I had started with a new coachee and I noticed, through observation, that some lessons were quite ‘low cognitive’. I felt the students were not being challenged and I asked the teacher, ‘How can we make the lessons more high cognitive?’. I use that [FGP] language consciously and deliberately with the teachers. We were about to start looking at this issue of how we could make our lessons ‘high cognitive’ and we were collecting data to reflect upon and discuss when everything had to stop as we were forced to adapt to an unexpected new situation with our students trying to learn from home.

During remote learning, my role was technical to begin with: providing parents with technical support in launching Google Classrooms and Zoom over the phone and sometimes they would even drop into school for support. To begin with, Stage 3 and then Stage 2 needed to be set-up with Zoom classes. However, our focus quickly moved into asking, ‘How can we facilitate more engaging classes through Zoom?’

There were also issues of access and the school loaned iPads to students so that they had the individual technology to undertake learning from home, this was especially necessary where there was more than one child in the home. We found that access to the Internet was not such an issue for the majority of homes. However, sometimes there were situations where a Zoom session had only five students and so we were concerned we were not seeing everyone each day. It was also evident that it was difficult for parents to support their children as they may have been at work, had other commitments or had four children at home. In some cases it was necessary for a few children to come back to school to do their work.

The Kindergarten teachers were another of my designated teams. They did a really good job with our newest learners. The whole team put lessons on Seesaw and then wrote feedback comments and also left voice comments so the students could hear or read these and load their work back up after editing using the feedback.

For Year 6 students, my role was to provide support around the learning tasks their teachers had provided. To provide scaffolding to help students complete the work, I learned to make ‘scaffolding videos’ using screen-recording to explain and differentiate the lessons. We talked about the level of difficulty in each lesson as a team. It was exhausting, as I spent a lot of time writing comments and feedback. Frequently, I couldn’t tell when my day started and ended as sometimes I worked until six or seven o’clock at night because that was when the students were online working, and I wanted to give them feedback while they were online.

Just as we got into the swing of things with remote learning, students came back to school. However, the challenges continued as, due to the restrictions on visitors, we were still unable to meet with the parents. At this point, my work returned to the Kindergarten teachers who observed of the parents that:

I talk to them on the phone but I haven’t ever seen them.
I don’t know them.
It’s an unusual feeling not to see them. You always see them.

We felt we wanted to welcome parents in and say: ‘Come and have a look. This is our community. This is where your children are spending six hours a day, five days a week’. We wanted to have them here.

It was challenging to return to school as a lot of teachers felt like they were back to day one of the school year. However, at the same time, teachers have continued some of the practices with their class that were established during the remote learning phase, such as Stage 3 teachers sharing their programs through Google Drive with each other.

As we moved towards the end of the year, my role stayed with Kindergarten and moved to organising Kindergarten Orientation. This was another challenge, as parents still could not come on site. Our idea was to have Year 6 make a multimodal text (a video) to showcase our school for new students and parents. The approach was that I “hired” the students as video editors, and they promoted our school. They interviewed teachers and the leadership team and did a school tour. The class had to think about their audience even though they had not met that audience of all those parents. There was a lot of script writing, looking at visual literacy, for example, looking at fonts, using images and understanding how the images correspond with the text. These lessons were built on the knowledge I had from Schooling for a Fair Go, where I completed a documentary project in which students learnt about visual techniques and used a green screen app. I knew that if the students wanted to create quality work then they had to be challenged, take risks, learn together, provide and take feedback, and revise their texts.

Through this project we all learned a lot about film making, often through trial and error. For example, when they initially started to film teachers, they were not using tripods to keep the camera still and they were asking questions that were not resulting in the answers parents needed for the purposes of new parents and students beginning at the school. In some cases, they needed to go back and film again, up to four times for the Principal, and so they learned a lot about what they would do differently next time. The project was about getting feedback and refining their work. Feedback was provided by the whole class when they watched the videos together, which in itself was building a community of learners. All the students participated. We concluded that we would also want to get feedback from a professional videographer.

Throughout my planning of this orientation video and the other technology-based work to support learning to continue outside the classroom, I asked myself the same questions which came from my experience in the Fair Go Program, ‘How can I make learning relevant to them? How can I make this challenging? What will we learn together? How can I make students really care and be motivated?’

And they were; students and teachers alike. They were just so motivated to do it well.

Belinda: Supporting student voice and choice

The main ‘takeaway’ for me from Schooling for a Fair Go was about the importance of investing in the teacher through the coaching model, which I have continued even during COVID. When we invest in the teacher, we are improving classroom practice, which is ultimately improving student engagement and student outcomes. It is about reflecting on teacher pedagogy, but it is also about new learnings and what we can try to do differently. Teachers were, and still are, really happy to open their classrooms up and have anyone walk in come and help. Investing in the teacher is heightening their own enthusiasm and their engagement.

Setting goals and reflecting on learning with students is certainly something that I have continued to try to embed and work with other teachers to embed. As a coach or instructional leader, I do not pretend to have all the answers, but we go and find these answers together. I have questions of them, they have questions of me, and then we find out about them together. The focus is on engagement, not behaviour, providing students with a range of different, high operative activities and opportunities which emphasise student voice and choice.

During remote learning, coaching continued with off-class coaches, instructional leaders and Assistant Principals all aligned to a grade to support the teachers on that grade to try to ensure that we were making things as engaging as possible. Of course, it was different because we were working with a team via Zoom. I would join teachers’ Zoom sessions with their students and we would do a bit of team teaching. In these situations, the whiteboard was used to demonstrate a specific skill or concept that we were introducing or revising with the students. It allowed them to see and engage with the explanation while the teacher (or me) were talking. We also used the screen-sharing feature of Zoom. This allowed us to share what was on our screens with the students and parents in the Zoom meeting to assist with explanations, to run activities and consolidate learning. For example, I would share my screen and prepared slides with questions such as, ‘Which one doesn’t belong?’ We would use these slides to promote discussions with the students who were in the Zoom sessions (and to teach them some Zoom etiquette such as taking turns to talk and share by muting and unmuting microphones). I also created some Kahoots (quiz activities) for some classes based on what they were learning, to try to assess their understanding of the content. These were shared via screen sharing and allowed us to know what we needed to cover again or at greater depth, while also being engaging for the students.

In terms of technology, the school had one-to-one devices, so we were very fortunate because we could loan iPads to our community for them to be able to engage in the online learning. If we did not have that, we simply would not have had the engagement that we did in online learning. The school providing access to the technology was essential.

If teachers needed support, or they wanted to chat, or wanted to talk, we would talk via Zoom or talk via phone about their teaching practices and activities. Teachers did feel stressed through the whole process of getting the work out to students, monitoring the work, evaluating the work and getting the next day’s work prepared. It was a really stressful time.

In my role, I was working with the Year 1-2 (Stage 1) and Year 3 (Stage 2) cohorts. I was supporting the Assistant Principals and teachers of these Stages. I was assisting with the work that they were putting up on Seesaw and Google Classroom, offering ideas and suggestions. I would also provide feedback to students on their work by commenting, such as making ‘where to next’ suggestions to improve their work. Also as part of such follow-up to their writing, I might develop specific Seesaw activities for specific students, sometimes as a response to a teacher’s request. For example, for some students, I created Seesaw activities on using capital leters, for others on the correct use of homonyms, for others on specific uses of pronouns or adjectives. Teachers would assign these activities for the class, or for groups of students that needed that particular focus, as part of a day’s work. I also created short videos explaining features of writing. Stage 1 were focusing on informative writing, so I created videos on paragraphing, using key words to write sentences and pronouns. I created exemplars of published pieces of writing using different platforms, such as Google Slides, Pic Collage and Book Creator, so that teachers could use these to show students and parents different ways to publish work. The Kindergarten and Stage 1 classes were mainly using Seesaw as the platform whilst our Years 3-6 used Google Classroom. The work I saw on Google Classroom and Seesaw was really amazing. The teachers worked tirelessly to best support students and to provide timely feedback so that students and parents could grasp concepts and have questions answered almost immediately.

It was evident that the teachers were trying to keep things as normal as possible for the students. For example, they had their usual morning routines and did their literacy and numeracy sessions and these were on Google Classroom or through Seesaw. Each day, teachers uploaded slides which would be different from the previous day. For example, in literacy sessions, some of the tasks included students reading to themselves, or to someone else. Then they would make reflections on what they had read, or on what the person they read to had said in response, for example, the feedback they had given to them. This feedback was then written up by the student. Alternatively, students might complete a comprehension activity, in which they would read a passage and the teacher would ask levelled questions to differentiate for the students in K-2. We were also using the PM Online reading program. The students also recorded themselves reading and uploaded it for the teacher to hear; then there would be different sorts of activities, or a writing task related to that and some spelling or other activities.

Students would submit their morning’s work and teachers would provide feedback, so that students could go in and make changes or do things a bit differently. This did not always happen, but nevertheless, teachers did have the facility to provide immediate feedback in real time through Google Classroom and Seesaw to keep the students engaged. Frankly, students were not given a lot of voice and choice during remote learning time and this is something that could be improved for future online work (see the Motivation and Engagement Framework article by Geoff Munns for more explanation on these). However, the strategies described above did help to keep students engaged because they knew their teacher was there, was present for them, helping them and providing them with feedback. For Stage 2, we introduced Fun Friday, in which all activities were oriented towards fun, while being linked to a KLA, for example, Science or Art, and this was popular.

When we returned to school it did not take long to get back into the swing of things. We were all exhausted and it took a little while to get some of the students completely back on track. However, teachers have changed how they do things now as a result of their experiences. For example, in Stage 2 they are continuing to do reading groups through Google Classroom because these worked very well during remote learning and the students were really interested. Students also loved using the iPads, so we are using these more now. Their engagement levels were high as the technology was a bit of a hook for them and teachers went onto design more lessons around collaboration between students using the iPad.

Despite the problems raised by COVID and lockdown, there were lasting lessons not just for students, but for teachers as well.

Find A Place Where You Can Do Your Best Work

Julie Fendall is a classroom teacher currently in Sydney’s Blue Mountains. She has been a teacher-research assistant on the Schooling for a Fair Go project and an Honours student at Western Sydney University. For her Honours thesis, she wrote a study of Brooke Newton’s classroom. This article is an extract from that thesis. Brooke Newton is an AP in Sydney’s South-West. She was an early career teacher when her involvement with Fair Go began, both in a classroom being observed by Julie, but also later in Schooling for a Fair Go. In the latter, she was both a mentee and a mentor carrying out action research on her own practice. Brooke became involved in the Fair Go Program because she wanted to develop a deeper understanding of how to engage students and also because she wanted to continually reflect on her own practice to help every student succeed.

The classroom space: First impressions

1K’s classroom is found in a large multicultural public school located in the outer suburbs of Sydney. The room, located deep in the school grounds, is on the first floor at the end of an open-air veranda overlooking a grass playing field (see Figure 1.1).

The classroom’s external windows and the walls lining the veranda are welcomingly decorated by smiling ‘student-faced’ buzzy-bees. These photographed student faces hover in the window adjacent to the bold statement “1K loves to learn” (Figure 1.2). The windows display numerous photographs of students engaged in a variety of learning activities and a number of work samples. The effect visually suggests that learning is the core business of this classroom.

Tracking along the veranda wall, the display ends in a ‘Parent Board’ to communicate with 1K’s families (Figure 1.3). As expected, messages are displayed in the form of school notices and upcoming events. However, additionally, three sets of shiny white laminated posters attract attention. Each poster uses a sentence starter: ‘In writing we are learning… This is because…’ These notices display learning intentions to send a clear and important message home to 1K’s parents and families: in 1K, learning is explicit, purposeful and connected to the world outside the classroom.

Next to the classroom door sits a Science table that currently displays the silkworm box accompanied by a chart, “How to look after your silkworm” (Figure 1.1). The Science table is worth mentioning as an indicator of teaching and learning styles in 1K. The central teaching approach offers hands-on experiential learning opportunities. The table is covered in laminated white A3 paper for students to record their observations in black marker, encouraging thought and reflection through flexible learning spaces.

These noteworthy observations of the classroom’s physical presentation from the veranda offer a sense of what is important in 1K: students, learning, communication and community.

As I enter through the door, the room appears substantially larger than a standard classroom. An expansive floor space spreads out towards the centrally located furniture (Figure 1.4). More correctly, there is a noticeable lack of furniture: three desks and six chairs. Questions spring to my mind about where the students sit to work.

Looking more closely around the room, attention is drawn towards the classroom edges, walls and windows. The spaciousness of the first impression is in complete contrast to the crowded walls. The surfaces are adorned with words, information, photographs of students, work-samples, post-it notes and black-marker comments on white, laminated paper. It is relevant at this point to re-consider the context of this classroom where every student has a language background other than English, and to be reminded that these Year 1 students are 6 to 7 years old. Within this context, the metalanguage used to support higher-order meta-cognitive learning experiences in the classroom seems extraordinary. A visitor to the classroom might mistakenly question the ‘wordiness’ of the crowded classroom walls for its English as an Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) students. But these are the students’ words: their work and their reflections.

There has been just a moment to consider the physical and structural learning environment in 1K before the bell rings and the school day starts. The teacher, Brooke, and the 23 students of 1K enter the classroom; their pace is comfortable, calm and purposeful. The classroom hums with student conversation and laughter and it looks and feels different already.

As standard practice in 1K, Brooke uses a visual learning goal to explain the lesson she is presenting to the students. She employs tools, such as traffic lights, to gauge students’ understanding of the task and provides students with marking criteria for self-assessment and peer-assessment to scaffold their learning.

Brooke’s final instruction is to “Find a place where you can do your best work” (Observation). Significantly, each student chooses where she or he wants to work.

Observations and interviews reveal that student choice is an integral component of 1K. Three students choose to sit at the available desks whilst the remaining students are either on the floor working with Brooke or have chosen to lie on the floor by themselves or in small groups (Figure 1.6). Two students collect a small soft couch and a beanbag and go outside onto the veranda (Figure 1.7). Four students find stools and a small table at the back of the classroom to work together. One student enters the tent, another lies outstretched from the green caterpillar tunnel (Figure 1.8). This small detail of choice in student placement within the classroom space speaks volumes of the teacher’s trust in her students and the students’ self-regulatory capacity to be responsible for their learning. Consequently, choice enables students to work independently or collaboratively whilst sending empowering messages of ability, place and control to the learners.

iPad reflections

One student, who has completed the assigned task, moves to the reflection wall and takes an ‘iPad pass’ lanyard (Figure 1.9), places it over her head and approaches Brooke to ask, “Please, can I use the iPad?” (Observation, student comment). The teacher, without hesitation or further instruction, directs the student towards the iPad located on her desk.

Working in partnership with another student wearing an ‘iPad pass’, one student reflects on her learning whilst the other video records the reflection. “I felt proud of myself because I used adjectives and similes…” (Observation, student comment). After describing her learning, the students reverse roles and the second student conducts her learning reflection, and this is also recorded. The students watch their video clips with great interest, laughing and talking. This simple, high affective, high cognitive reflection system is a great example of an interactive self-regulatory learning resource. Replaying the videos act as reflection mirrors for students to see themselves as learners who think about, and reflect upon, their learning. In addition, the video files are stored in the students’ folders to share with their families at any given opportunity.

“The kids in my classroom help me learn”

Beyond the classroom’s appearance as a physical, flexible learning space, Brooke’s considered pedagogical application of the MeE Framework’s ‘e’ngagement processes cultivated high affective spaces (see article by Geoff Munns on the MeE Framework in this Special Edition). When asked for their feelings towards their classroom, all of the participants became animated in their speech and expressed strong, affective connections to their classroom and their class. The students commonly identified themes of fun, friendship, aesthetics, space, ownership and choice (Fendall, 2014).

1K felt that friends played a key role in their learning, making connections between working with friends and improving their learning. One student commented, “When I work with my friends I concentrate and have more energy to write” (Fendall, 2014, p. 60). A second student linked his affective response to learning through peer-assessment: “I like working with my friends, they help me correct my work” (Interview, student E). Several students identified talking with their friends as an important part of their learning. This is significant as many teachers perceive talking between students as a distraction from learning. When describing his drawing, in which a large speech bubble hovers over the classroom next to a colourful rainbow (Figure 1.10), the student said, “I am talking to my friends because they get their ideas and they help me” (Interview, student B).

Figure 1.10. Moving helps me learn because I can concentrate.
Drawing artefact by student B. Copyright 2013 by J. Fendall.

Student interviews and drawing responses clearly indicated that 1K experienced their classroom as a community of learners, neatly expressed by one student as, “The kids in my classroom help me to learn” (Fendall, 2014, p. 67 Interview, student A).

Creative spaces and ‘e’ngaging experiences

At a glance, this case study classroom brings to mind the exemplary teachers who use ‘creative processes’ and design ‘creative spaces’ to facilitate imaginative, creative and high intellectual quality learning experiences for students in low socio-economic status communities (Cole et al., 2013; Orlando & Sawyer, 2013). This classroom buzzed with activity, movement, and discussion. Observations suggested that 1K were engaged, confident, self-regulatory and reflective learners. At one level, the workings of this class appeared to be a straightforward task for the teacher. Yet, as another teacher, experienced in Fair Go pedagogy, observed: “An untrained eye would walk into that classroom and think ‘Oh, aren’t these kids wonderful!’ It doesn’t just happen like that. There is a lot of thought process behind each of those practices” (Fendall, 2014, p. 44). Those observations capture the image of ‘teacher as a conductor’, waving arms in time with the music so that, “the orchestra produces glorious sounds, to all appearances quite spontaneously” (Bransford et al., 2007, p. 1).

As the skilled classroom ‘orchestra conductor’, Brooke coordinates “a total environment where tools, spaces and mindsets are stimulating creativity and thinking” (Ferrari et al., 2009, p. 46). Students in 1K employed classroom systems (for example, success criteria, traffic light cards, iPad reflections) and a range of developing micro-skills (a learning meta-language and taking on a learning disposition) to question, make connections, explore options and reflect on their learning, in an authentic way. These scaffolding features structured a high-operative space: where students as self-regulatory learners were given agency to remove scaffolding when they judged themselves to be ready. The interplay here is significant as students receive positive messages around voice, ability, knowledge, control, and ownership, and hence appear to understand themselves as independent, successful learners.

Brooke’s reflections on these experiences

I can remember in my first few years of teaching, whilst being involved in the Fair Go Program, I would drive home from work thinking about the different ways that I could encourage students to discuss their learning individually and with each other. Being a part of the research project inspired me to think deeply about each student in my class and the environment, that as their teacher, I needed to create in order to engage them in their learning.

During the time of this project I was continually challenged by my colleagues to think of creative ways to get each child to reflect on their learning and therefore reach a deep understanding of what was being taught. The experience taught me how to solicit feedback and to be open to alternative perspectives and ideas. The project enabled me to take risks and it guided my planning for student engagement. I learnt how to effectively evaluate the purpose and impact of each lesson I taught and I developed a greater understanding of what motivated each student to connect with the content.

The different practices I implemented as an early career teacher to create a classroom where student voice was not only encouraged, but celebrated have been ingrained into my pedagogy. Being involved in this project, as well as having my teaching observed for research, enabled me to build continual reflection into my daily practice and gave me the desire to actively search for and investigate the most effective ways to meet the learning needs of my students. It made me aware of the messages I was giving to students and highlighted to me the importance of building a classroom where the students and I played a reciprocal role.

The experience built my confidence to give a range of teaching ideas ‘a go’, since I always had the students at the centre of all of my decisions. Through the lenses of many colleagues in the project, I was able to broaden my understanding of how to engage students in their learning and it is an experience that I fondly look back on as foundational to my pedagogy.

References and Readings:
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2007). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). Jossey-Bass.

Cole, B., Mooney, M., & Power, A. (2013). Imagination, creativity and intellectual quality. In G. Munns, Sawyer, W, Cole, B., & the Fair Go Team, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 123-135). Routledge.

Fendall, J. D. (2014). The creative space: Student engagement and creative learning [Unpublished Master of Teaching (Honours) thesis]. University of Western Sydney.

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R. & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching: Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU member states (ICEAC). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Munns, G., & Sawyer, W. (2013). Student engagement: The research methodology and the theory. In G. Munns, Sawyer, W, Cole, B., & the Fair Go Team, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 14-32). Routledge.

Orlando, J., & Sawyer, W. (2013). A fair go in education. In G. Munns, Sawyer, W, Cole, B., & the Fair Go Team, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 1-13). Routledge.

‘It’s What Makes A Perfect Class’: Conversations In The Classroom

Rebecca Rivers graduated from Western Sydney University with a Masters of Teaching (Primary) and began teaching at Lansvale Public School. Whilst studying, Rebecca was introduced to the Fair Go Program student engagement frameworks (MeE) and became interested in applying these principles to her classroom. As an early career teacher, Rebecca was involved in the Fair Go Program’s Fair Go from the Get Go and continued this research to complete her Masters of Teaching Honours (First Class) for which she was awarded a Dean’s Medal for academic excellence. This article provides a summary of this research.

Introduction

Sitting in the first staff meeting of my second full year of teaching, I tackled my sleepy holiday brain to form three goals for the year ahead. Communication, Perspective, Enjoyment – three things I felt were lacking in my class the previous year and that had left a mark of guilt on my memories of an otherwise successful year. After all, as an ‘early career’, ‘new scheme’, ‘targeted graduate’, ‘inexperienced’ teacher, surely my passion and dedication should not be disintegrating already. Considering that the majority of the bilingual and multilingual students in my current Stage 3 class (in a south-western Sydney ‘priority school’) received tutoring outside school and were achieving Stage level outcomes, it would have been easy to be content with my teaching and feel comfortable that 29 students would pass through the year without a single head turning. However, it was clear to me that my students were capable of more than just passing tests, and as their teacher I was the number one factor influencing their experience of education (Hayes et al., 2006). Coupled with this was the widespread compliance that was clearly evident inside my classroom walls and which I understood needed to be challenged in order for my students to be substantively engaged and to reach their highest potential (Munns, 2007). This article is a first-hand account of how I responded to that challenge. It documents research exploring the relationship between the nature of classroom discourse and the engagement of learners from a low socio-economic status (SES) background community. As their regular classroom teacher, I implemented pedagogical changes with a focus on student engagement to encourage greater and more in-depth conversations with students about content, pedagogy and assessment.

Researching using Fair Go ideas

This project was undertaken as part of the Fair Go Program. An action research approach was taken using qualitative methods of data collection and analysis – observations, focus group interviews, student-written reflections, and the researcher’s diary. The research utilised a number of themes that explore the relationship between teacher pedagogy and student engagement. First, it took up the Fair Go Program’s (Fair Go Project Team, 2006; Munns & Sawyer, 2013) definition of ‘substantive’ student engagement – high cognitive (thinking), high operative (doing) and high affective (feeling). This was a position that could also challenge student compliance. Second, the research focused on the nature of classroom talk as it impacted on the social and academic outcomes of the students. Cazden’s work was important here. She recognises that “the task for both teachers and researchers is to make the usually transparent medium of classroom discourse the object of focal attention” (Cazden, 2001: p. 4). Classroom talk was the specific research focus and this focus was located within ideas about student engagement, teacher pedagogy and Fair Go’s notion of the ‘insider classroom’ (Fair Go Project Team, 2006). The ‘insider classroom’ concept is from the overall MeE Framework (see the article by Geoff Munns in this edition) and focuses on the need for students to play a crucial role in the learning environment. The argument is that when an insider classroom is achieved, the messages being received by students are positive and lead to higher levels of student engagement (Munns & Sawyer, 2013). The aim of this research was to open up opportunities for conversations about learning to be the dominant classroom discourse, in the belief that this would challenge passive classroom compliance and increase student engagement.

The journey

The students who had walked through the classroom door on the first day were quiet, shy and identified ‘real’ work as sitting in silence, listening to the teacher and doing repetitive rote learning tasks. This classroom was not an ‘insider classroom’ and the students were not substantively engaged. In front of me sat 29 students whose idea of education, learning and their role as students needed to be challenged using the MeE Framework.

First steps: a shared focus on learning

The first step was to prove to the students that their opinion was legitimately valued. The students were asked to describe what they thought a good classroom looked like, sounded like and felt like. We then began to formulate a class philosophy that would act as a benchmark for students’ behaviour in class and replace the traditional set of rules. I also realised that my attitudes needed to be challenged. My own teaching philosophy aligned with ideas that ‘learning trumps behaviour’ (Munns, 2013: p. 47). However, I realised I had not articulated this to the students. Now, I allowed students to sit where they could ‘learn best’ and to talk to their friends whenever needed ‘for learning’. The students started to pick up on these engaging messages and one noted that, ‘She cares about our work’ (reflective journal entry). The students also started to make choices for themselves, take responsibility for their actions and play a role in the learning environment by no longer relying exclusively on me.

Blogging

I set up an online blog and the results were encouraging. The most withdrawn students in the class immediately became the most active on the blog, and all students began to be more open with each other and myself. They gave feedback on each other’s writing and encouraged each other to do their best. The blog gave me the opportunity to pose reflective questions on my own teaching and allowed students to respond openly in a forum that they were comfortable with. I was able to have ‘teacher inclusive conversations’ and provide students with a voice and control in their learning environment. It provided a back-door entry to encouraging student dialogue and forming an ‘insider classroom’.

Drama towards confidence

Using drama also played a major role in developing my students’ confidence to speak. Freeze frames, sculpting and questioning-in-role were used on numerous occasions to encourage talk and develop speaking and listening skills (Hertzberg, 2012). Through these activities it was evident that students were:

affectively engaged, as they smiled and laughed with each other,
operatively engaged, as they were actively involved, and
cognitively engaged, as they formulated ideas and discussed how to present them physically.

As one student wrote: ‘Things that could make me think harder is more freeze frames. Freeze frames make me think harder because they make me imagine and explain things’ (student reflective journal). As a response to comments like this, I integrated them into our regular reading cycle.

‘Teacher free’ lessons

I began to think about how students might become more independent. On the first occasion, in what amounted to a handing over of control, I gave one student a whiteboard marker and set the class on the task of editing a poorly written sentence whilst I stood back and observed. What I saw was breathtaking. There was not a student in the room who was not focused on making the sentence better. The classroom was buzzing, noisy and productive. The lesson went on for twenty minutes before I stepped back in. It was truly amazing to observe the students cognitively, operatively and affectively engage in the task whilst undoubtedly receiving positive messages about their voice, control and ability. It was clear that in order for substantive conversations to take place, I needed to set up tasks with clear purposes that were understood by the students and which required them to talk to each other. The success of this lesson dared me to hand over control more often to the students for sustained periods of time, and so I set them open-ended tasks where they had to look for solutions to problems. It would not be honest of me if I implied that in these sessions the class always ran efficiently or was a perfect picture of quality teaching. However, I have no hesitation in suggesting that every student listened to, engaged in, and participated in, conversations about the content and that they did so much more than would have been likely if I had taken the sole leadership role.

Group projects

Group projects also provided a successful framework for substantive conversations. Students worked in collaborative groups to research, plan and present information and were given choices about the content they investigated, the way they organised their group and how they presented their work. As the teacher, I needed to be continually engaging in ‘insider classroom’ strategies – substantive conversations with small groups of students, posing questions and problems before leaving them to continue the discussion. The change I observed was shy students, unwilling to participate, who became talkative and passionate learners engaged in tasks. Students’ feelings about themselves as learners (and teachers) shone through. Towards the end of the year, one student wrote in response to the question, ‘What is the most valuable advice that you can give to students who are involved in group projects?’:

My advice would be to work together, help each other and when someone has an idea you should listen and take their idea … give suggestions to the group. Don’t be shy or scared and let yourself speak clearly, and if someone is shy, help them talk and tell them to share their idea with the group. If you do that from now you will be a good and big part of your group (reflective journal entry).

Shifts in attitude

Over time, I continued to receive feedback from the students about their classroom. The change of focus was evident and students valued stronger outcomes from their education. There was evidence that students could see themselves using new skills for learning in the future: ‘The most important thing I learnt this week is to be prepared for something even if you’re not up for it’ (reflective journal entry). There was also a shift in the view of who was in control and who should dominate talk time. In response to the question, ‘How could changes to this week’s learning make you think harder?’ one student replied, ‘To talk more in class than the teacher talking all the time. So we can talk about the ideas in our heads.’

Results – engaging messages

What was learnt? As a result of the students participating in engaging experiences and being a part of an ‘insider classroom’, at the end of the year the conclusion was that engaging messages had been sent and received. These can be summarised in terms of the Fair Go ‘message’ framework concepts of control, voice, knowledge, ability and place as described below.

Control

The class, over time, demonstrated a highly focused and shared control, with respect to student responsibilities and participation. Students were given chances to think about, discuss and look after their own behaviour. They readily shared and worked in pairs, in groups and as individuals, with the choice of configuration being handed over to the students on numerous occasions. Students expressed their appreciation of being able to work together and make decisions: ‘She wants us to cooperate well with other people and wants us to share our ideas in our brains so she knows what we’re thinking about’ (student interview). In my classroom there was no break in the focus on learning over behaviour. ‘It never stops’, as one student put it (student interview). It was evident that by my taking a non-dominant stance during classroom discussions, I had communicated messages about control to the students, and in turn, these messages on control had given students more opportunities to talk and become engaged in their learning.

Voice

Within the school context, encouraging students to have a voice was initially a difficult task given some initial tensions between their parents’ views and my views on learning. It would be reasonable to conclude that many parents of the students in my class believed learning involved students quietly listening rather than collaborating and talking. Yet, all parents gave permission for their children to participate in the research. As the year progressed, the classroom discourse was characterised as ‘a series of conversations between students, their teacher and each other’ (observation notes) through mini-conferences, paired work, small-group work and whole-class discussions. In each of these situations, the students were encouraged to contribute and feel confident about sharing their opinions and ideas. The encouragement of talk in the classroom was indicated by students as being a point of difference between myself and other teachers. Critically important to the engaging message of ‘voice’, students commented that I listened to their opinions and made changes to classroom processes and tasks in response.

Knowledge

One student articulated in an interview, ‘Miss … doesn’t put everything … straight into one thing; she takes things step by step so we understand it more clearly, and she doesn’t just have one lesson on it, she has several on it’ (student interview). This statement, along with the observation that knowledge in the classroom was presented as something dynamic, suggests that the students were receiving engaging messages around knowledge. As increased knowledge is closely tied to high cognitive experiences, it is not surprising that the students initially had difficulty speaking about what they had learnt, considering their earlier opinions that hard work was not fun. This highlighted the need for me to make challenging, high cognitive experiences a focus in the classroom, and to encourage students to see the enjoyment they experienced when the work was challenging.

Ability

Through different levels of scaffolding, students of varying academic levels were able to participate in the tasks and feel capable. Higher-order, open-ended questions were used as extension tasks that provided students with an opportunity to explore the content more deeply and initiate new explorations. Through these tasks, students demonstrated knowledge and alternative learning strategies to each other.

Place

The atmosphere and appearance of the classroom became light and vibrant, with students’ work, advice and learning goals published on the walls. The students moved around the room comfortably and freely used resources according to their learning needs. Students had a sense of belonging in this classroom. As one student said, ‘I feel confident because sometimes your work is on the wall and when visitors come, you’re like, “Hey this is my piece of writing on the wall, I wrote that!”’ (student interview).

The changes implemented in my classroom throughout the year of this study resulted in an increased level of substantive conversation amongst the students. It would be reasonable to conclude that through the encouragement of a discourse-intensive environment, lessons became cognitively, affectively and operatively more engaging, and students’ mere compliance had been challenged.

Conclusion

It is not uncommon for me to have people question my desire to change the processes and practices of my classroom when my students appeared to be working well, sitting quietly and achieving Stage level outcomes. However, as discussed throughout this article, my aim was to have students develop an attitude towards lifelong learning, to see themselves as independent, capable thinkers and to engage with their learning on a level that surpasses a focus only on the achievement of grades. My view is that it is only when this occurs that students will achieve their highest potential in social and academic outcomes. As a teacher, I value learning more than behaviour. At the beginning of the year I had 29 students who behaved wonderfully. At the end of the year I had 29 students who considered themselves learners and reflected on the year as being successful due to the experiences we had had together, the knowledge they gained and their ability to achieve learning goals. As one student wrote in a Christmas card to me: ‘I’ll remember the times we laughed, shared ideas and solved problems together. It’s what makes a perfect class.’

References:

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Fair Go Project Team. (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student engagement. NSW Department of Education and Training.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers & schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Allen & Unwin.

Hertzberg, M. (2012). Teaching English language learners in mainstream classes. Primary English Teaching Association Australia.

Munns, G. (2007). A sense of wonder: Pedagogies to engage students who live in poverty. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 301-315.

Munns, G. (2013). Learning and behaviour. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, B. Cole, & the Fair Go Team, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 47-51). Routledge.

Munns, G., & Sawyer, W. (2013). Student engagement: The research methodology and the theory. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, B. Cole, & the Fair Go Team, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 14-32). Routledge.

Critical Literacy in English and History: Stages 3 & 4

Kathy Rushton and Joanne Rossbridge explore the important concept of Critical Literacy. They explain why it is essential for teachers (in both primary and secondary classrooms) to use critical literacy to ensure student engagement, to teach our students how to properly analyse all text and to allow them to develop a wider view of, and critical understanding of, the world . . .

The aim of critical literacy is a classroom environment where students and teachers together work to (a) see how the worlds of texts work to construct their worlds, their cultures, and their identities in powerful, often overtly ideological ways; and (b) use texts as social tools in ways that allow for a reconstruction of these same worlds.

Luke (2000) Critical Literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent and Adult literacy. Vol. 43/5 448-461 p.453

Teachers in the middle years, Stages 3 & 4, are supporting students in their transition from the primary to secondary years. This transition often requires students to interrogate more challenging texts and respond to and compose more sophisticated texts of their own. Teachers, therefore, need to develop their own critical analysis and curation of texts for use in the classroom and to develop a range of appropriate teaching and learning strategies to support the development of critical literacy for their students. The theoretical perspectives that inform this perspective relate to issues of race, gender and ethnicity and also how these issues impact on language choices.

Designing learning with a critical literacy perspective

Defining critical literacy can be facilitated by reviewing the four reading resources (Freebody & Luke, 1990) particularly the Text Analyst role which supports students to question and analyse texts. Students can be supported in the development of critical literacy if teachers are able to identify links to critical literacy in English and History Syllabus documents. These links can then be exemplified for students by, for instance, elaborating on cross curriculum priorities and general capabilities.

In practice teachers can analyse features such as context, author background, date and place of publication and then support their students to discuss different perspectives and contestability. This is most easily done in a modelled reading lesson accompanied by strategies to support students before, during and after reading. Before reading, viewing and analysing images can support the development of field knowledge and provide a starting point for developing vocabulary related to the subject. Strategies such as verbal ping pong, which is often used to develop debating skills, can engage students in developing arguments for or against a topic as an initial strategy for developing field knowledge or following a modelled reading to elaborate on aspects of the topic. Similarly, a drama strategy such as conscience alley can be used before, during or after reading to help develop empathy for a character, historical or imaginary, when they face a critical event. (Dutton et al, 2018; Rossbridge & Rushton, 2011 & 2015)

By encouraging a focus on language choices, students are also supported in their analysis of perspectives. Some students may find that they are excluded from the texts which they are required to read or produce in the school (Bishop, 2003). Alton-Lee (2000) exemplifies this by reporting an incident in which a teacher in New Zealand accidentally excluded an Indigenous student “from the ‘we’ of the classroom” (p.26). It is easy to see how this situation could be replicated in any English or History classroom if the texts that are used do not analyse the “we” and identify the perspective from which they are written. For instance, texts written from the perspective of Aboriginal Australians may position non-Aboriginal readers as visitors to sites or ceremonies or as outsiders or invaders in events from the past rather than as actors ‘discovering’, ‘describing’ or ‘evaluating’ the same sites and events.

Selecting texts to develop critical literacy

If texts are viewed from a critical literacy perspective, a range of texts can be selected to represent a variety of perspectives in contemporary Australian society. Especially in History, texts should be considered in terms of contestability and empathetic understanding as well as how they develop and challenge understandings about contemporary issues and the past. To support students to engage critically in response to texts, teachers can identify, deconstruct and analyse language features to support critical analysis. In particular questioning perspectives based on context, author background, date and place of publication will support this process. In this way students will be supported to describe and assess the motives of individuals and groups within historical contexts and in literary texts. Supporting students to develop the ability to interpret, explain and identify perspectives in a range of texts in both English and History will support the understanding of subject matter and literacy. Intercultural understanding will also be supported through comparison of texts especially those written from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective. The table below suggests some questions which could be used to interrogate and analyse a text and to develop the role of the Text Analyst.

Table 1. (click here to view table)

Guiding questions for selecting and curating texts: Developing the Text analyst role
How do you interpret the perspective of this text? How does the context of the text differ from your own context? What assumptions does the author make about the audience? What perspective is assumed by the author? Who do you think might disagree with the author’s stance? Why? Is the text relevant to contemporary Australia? Why? Is the text authoritative or does it explore the subject and allow you to think critically about it? Whose voices are silent or whose interests absent?

Guiding questions for selecting and curating texts: Developing the Text analyst role

How do you interpret the perspective of this text?

How does the context of the text differ from your own context?

What assumptions does the author make about the audience?

What perspective is assumed by the author?

Who do you think might disagree with the author’s stance? Why?

Is the text relevant to contemporary Australia? Why?

Is the text authoritative or does it explore the subject and allow you to think critically about it?

Whose voices are silent or whose interests absent?

Working with texts to develop critical literacy

Developing a critical literacy approach to teaching is truly dependent on the curation of a range of texts that define perspectives such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or Asian perspectives and texts which also promote intercultural understanding. To develop empathetic understanding, teachers can identify and compare features from a range of texts. A sequence of teaching and learning strategies to support critical responses to texts can also be developed by critically analysing perspectives and making connections. Reading and writing in the subject area will also be supported if the critical literacy practices outlined in the English and History Syllabus documents and the cross-curriculum priorities and general capabilities are properly considered.

Writing from a critical literacy perspective

Writing is a way of investigating perspective and interpretations of History and responding to ideas and representations in texts in English. After exploring multiple texts across the English and History subject areas with a focus on historical events and perspectives, students can then be supported in writing. Of great importance is the establishment of a context for writing. As when reading form a critical literacy perspective, writers will also need to consider the identity or role of the writer, the audience, the mode of publication, the time of writing and the values and beliefs of the time. This will determine whether the writing is to be imaginative or more informative or argumentative as well as the overall purpose of the text. A focus on historical content might be based on significant historical events or significant individuals. Consider the contextual choices below and how they might construct different perspectives and empathetic understanding regarding the subject matter.

(click here to view table)

Subject matter	Time of publication	Author	Audience	Mode of publication
early contact between Indigenous people and the colonisers	1788	journalist	colonisers in the Sydney area	newspaper article
daily life of a free settler	1795	female free settler	writer/family discovering diary 125 years later	diary
friendship between an Indigenous British child	2020	Australian author	children in contemporary Australia	comic or picture book

These contextual features will influence the language choices of a text. Any shift in these features will impact on the text features. Consider how a newspaper article about early contact between the Indigenous people and the colonisers would differ when published in 1788 compared to 2020.

Once a clear context for independent writing is established, teachers will need to think about similar texts to use as models to show students how to develop a critical literacy response through written language. Models for writing may be selected from those texts that students have already investigated from a critical literacy perspective or models can be written by teachers. Students will need to see such models and be guided through how text choices create or challenge a particular perspective. This will involve an explicit focus on language choices. For example, if writing an historical narrative, a focus could be placed on choices related to whose voice is included, how people are named and described and who is constructed as an actor or sensor (Rossbridge & Rushton, 2015). After modelling students could then participate in a joint construction where the writing process, development of ideas and talk of language choices is handed over to students with the teacher taking on the role of facilitator. The teacher will need to continue to support students in thinking about how their choices construct a particular perspective often through thinking aloud during the text construction. Once students are confident with discussing texts using modelled metalanguage they may move in to independent construction. The provision of clear criteria around perspectives and empathetic understanding will support them in drafting and reviewing their texts with a critical literacy approach.

References:

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis.
Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959

Bishop, R. (2003) Changing Power Relations in Education: Kaupapa Māori Messages for “Mainstream” Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Comparative Education, 39, 2, (27), 221-238Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099882.

Dutton, J., D’warte, J., Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2018) Tell me your Story. PETAA: Sydney

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990) Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect,5.pp /7-16

Luke, A. (2000) Mediating Adolescent Literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43:5,448-461

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2015) Put it in Writing. PETAA: Sydney.

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2011) Conversations about text 2: Teaching grammar using factual texts.

Newtown: PETAA

Kathy Rushton has worked as a literacy consultant, ESL and classroom teacher with the DoE (NSW), and in a range of other educational institutions. She is interested in the development of literacy, especially in socio-economically disadvantaged communities with students learning English as an additional language or dialect. Kathy is currently a lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney.

Joanne Rossbridge is an independent literacy consultant working in both primary and secondary schools and with teachers across Sydney. She has worked as a classroom and ESL teacher and literacy consultant with the DoE (NSW). Much of her experience has involved working with students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Joanne is particularly interested in student and teacher talk and how talk about language can assist the development of language and literacy skills.

Practical Creativity with Tangible Outcomes

Graham Sattler suggests an approach to combining music, emotion, language and technology in your classroom using the NSW Music Syllabus…

It is widely accepted that music pre-dates speech (Botha, 2009; Mithen, Morley, Wray, Tallerman & Gamble, 2006; Storr, 1993). Investigations of all cultures that have ever existed, and have been documented, indicate that music played and plays an essential part in cultural, individual and group (community) human development (Harvey, 2017).

While human speech developed, and continues to develop, to impart information, music exists to communicate emotion. Music acts as a social and emotional glue, connecting and comforting, inspiring, motivating, uniting and enthusing people. Even motivational speeches, whether to small groups of people or whole populations, rely on prosody; that is, the discipline of emphasising and exploiting the proto-musical elements of speech (rhythm, phrasing and intonation), to achieve a compelling and impactful result. Think of significant speeches throughout history, expressions such as hanging on every word and music to my ears exist for a reason.

The arts (and specifically, creativity) as a learning area is becoming compromised. The requirement of teachers to engage students in the understanding of (and expression through) artistic concepts, brings with it a need to develop tools, resources and strategies to facilitate student creativity and confidence in their capacity to create, appreciate and connect creative capacity and experience to their lives, their learning, community and cultural meaning. The good news is that tools and resources are easily, and in many cases freely, available. This article proposes a practical solution, called Music Emotion Language & Technology (MELT), to the third element of the equation; it offers a strategy, by way of a project plan for students to engage in the creative process, satisfy syllabus outcomes, and integrate with other Key Learning Areas while affording awareness and appreciation of cultural and language diversity.

Although the plan proposed herein for stages 4-6, it is both practical and scalable for students of any age and stage from early stage 1 upwards. For a list of NSW 7-12 syllabus outcomes integrated through this process please see Attachment 1.

While the project can be tailored to run across any number of sessions, here we consider an eight-week or session ‘course’. The number of sessions, however, is not a critical consideration; it is the staging of the process across the course that is important.

Outline

Across the (say, 8) class sessions, students identify and explore the musicality and emotional impact of everyday language and transform information-weighted text into emotion-weighted music.

To do this, students bringing a line of text to the session, and using music notation apps (ScoreCloud or similar), chart the expressive inflection in their own vernacular, language, or dialect (elements of pitch, emphasis and rhythm) and transform the inherent intonation of speech into musical patterns, creating a musical composition or compositions.

The melody, melodies, or sets of melodic fragments that result can be interwoven, creating counterpoint (separate melodies played in conjunction with each other). Harmonies and instrumentation (both acoustic and electronic, and potentially including the use of tablet and/or smartphone technology) can be explored and applied in relation to the emotional and dramatic meaning that emerges from the melodies and the texts.

Using available music technology programs or apps, such as Garageband or Logic, the composition(s) can be assembled and recorded with all participants having contributed to the development and performance outcome. While this sounds complicated, it need not be. Simple compositions can ‘emerge’ from one simple line of text from the youngest student. Two simple lines, or more, from as few or many students in the class as desired can be woven into original compositions and recorded on whatever devices (smartphones/mp3 recorders) are available. The music notation app or program comes into play in notating the pitches and rhythms inherent in the intonation of the recited text.

This is the point at which students’ emotions present as music!

There may or may not be a lyrics component in the final work or works. To some degree, outcomes demonstrate the primacy of music in expressing emotional meaning and drama over ‘language’ as a medium for communicating information. Shared ownership of the compositions means that the pieces, or sections/fragments thereof, would be available for students to incorporate into other workshops and learning activities across animation, game development, filmmaking and so on.

Initiating the process

Students would only be required to bring one or two lines of text to the process. The text(s) should not be from existing song repertoire, and should ideally be of the student’s devising. There is no requirement for rhyme, sophistication or poetic quality, and the inclusion of texts in more than one language, reflecting the cultural and language diversity of the school or class, is encouraged. The line(s) of text should be in some way meaningful to the student, and the student should be able to articulate, in simple terms, what that meaning is. Click here to view or download table.

The plan

Creating musicians

Through the process outlined above, students will create, record and perform a composition that is meaningful to them, is culturally relevant and, that explores both awareness and appreciation of diversity. Through thoughtful investment and engagement in the creative process from the first step, you can lead them to participate in making their own music, regardless of their age and stage, while developing facilitated collaborative practice and identity. Placing students in control and supporting them to use existing, found, and developed materials, also develops the skills to be creative, innovative, thoughtful, confident and informed musicians. Through our lessons, we can encourage our students to express themselves and their cultures; and consider and engage with the cultures, cultural values and practices of others.

And, isn’t that what a comprehensive public education is all about?

References:

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2019), The Australian
Curriculum, F-10 Curriculum, The Arts, Music
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/the-arts/music/

Botha, R. (2009). On musilanguage/“Hmmmmm” as an evolutionary precursor to language.
Language & Communication, 29(1), 61-76.
Harvey, A. (2017). Music, evolution, and the harmony of the souls. Oxford University Press, UK: Oxford.
Mithen, S., Morley, I., Wray, A., Tallerman, M., & Gamble, C. (2006). The singing neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind and body. Cambridge Archaeological Journal,16(1), 97-112.
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2003). Music 7-10 Syllabus. Sydney: NSW Government. http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/creative-arts/music-7-10
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2009). Music 1 Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney: NSW Government. http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-creative-arts/music-1-syllabus
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2009). Music 2 Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney: NSW Government. http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-creative-arts/music-2-syllabus
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2018). Australian professional standards for teachers. Sydney.
Storr, A. (1993). Music and the mind. New York: Ballantine.

Dr Graham Sattler has extensive music teaching experience in primary, secondary and adult education settings. He has been involved in course design and delivery around concepts and strategies for both pre-service and existing teachers, writing and delivering K-6 and secondary Music courses in partnership with the NSWTF CPL since 2014, and is committed to the principles of access and equity and student-focused learning experiences. Graham presents regularly at international music education conferences, drawing on his PhD research in the field of socio-cultural development through group music activity in marginalised communities. He is currently Executive Director, Mitchell Conservatorium and Casual Academic, Central Queensland University.

“The Way of Words”: Understanding and Teaching Reading in Primary Classrooms

Robyn Ewing makes the case for teaching reading that considers the individual needs, background and abilities of each child and cautions against trying to follow a prescriptive recipe for all students…

The way of words, of knowing and loving words, is a way to the essence of things, and to the essence of knowing.

John Dunne

How should reading be defined?

Controversial discussions about the best way to teach reading have ebbed and flowed for well over a century (Ewing, 2006) and sometimes fail to consider how individual differences shape the process. In an early consideration of the reading research, Huey (1908) concluded that “human variation” must always be considered and that learning to read defied a prescriptive recipe for all children.

Nevertheless, many continue to search for a reading recipe for all children. The arguments that continue to rage over the teaching of reading — and how children can be best assisted in learning to read — have much to do with the way different theorists understand the reading process (Davis, 2012, 2013). In addition, they relate to differing ideologies and understandings of pedagogies. As Moss and Huxford (2007) assert, it is essential that literacy issues are not addressed using a single paradigm’s field of reference. Rather, before making critical decisions, policymakers in educational systems need to carefully consider evidence from different paradigms and disciplines.

The process of learning to read has often been conceptualised as developing a set of cognitive skills to crack the print code. Learning to read has thus been seen as involving the development proficiency in a hierarchical set of simple and discrete skills, then moving to more complex skills through a range of activities, including recognition of sound-symbol relationships about letters or groups of letters, at the same time encouraging students to memorise most commonly used sight words. Once competency in these skills has been achieved, students would then also answer questions about what they read to check their comprehension. In fact, Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” advocated a clear differentiation between word recognition processes and language comprehension processes because they asserted this allowed teachers to assess word recognition and comprehension performance separately, and then plan different kinds of teaching for each. Reading tests over the years have often consisted of merely asking children to read lists of words (see examples, Daniels and Diack, 1983; Schonell, 1971).

However, the Language and Reading Research Consortium (2015) has suggested that too often these simple models of reading are problematic and conflated when defining what it means to read, and when assessing reading ability.

For the purposes of this review, a far more expansive understanding of reading has been adopted. Reading is defined as a process of bringing meaning to and constructing meaning from texts (text is defined in its broadest sense to include visual and digital). It is not merely about deciphering a written code: it is about understanding the world and opening up new possibilities for being in the world. In Australia, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (2009) asserts that reading development is part of children’s social, emotional and physical growth and that it is essential to acknowledge that children develop at different rates and stages and that different learning experiences will also impact when children will be ready to read. The Australian Curriculum: English (2018) defines reading as:

Processing words, symbols or actions to derive and/or construct meaning. Reading includes interpreting, critically analysing and reflecting upon the meaning of a wide range of written and visual, print and non-print texts.

Some useful definitions

Etymology: The study of the origin and history of words and how their form and meaning changes over time.

Decoding: Working out the meaning of words in text.

In decoding, readers draw on contextual, vocabulary, grammatical and phonic knowledge. Readers who decode effectively combine these forms of knowledge fluently and automatically, and self-correct using meaning to recognise when they make an error (The Australian Curriculum: English).

Grapheme: A single letter or combination of letters that represent a phoneme. Graphemes occur within morphemes and can represent more than one phoneme. In English, 44 sounds and 26 letters offer more than 120 grapheme choices.

Graphophonic knowledge: The knowledge of how letters relate to the sounds of spoken language.

Morphemes: The smallest units of meaning-bearing structures of words (bases or affixes — prefixes, suffixes and connecting vowel letters).

Morphology: The system-enabling morphemes that combine to represent the meaning of words. Every word is either a base, or a base with another morpheme fixed to it.

The morphophonemic principle: Refers to the fact that morphemes can vary widely in their phonological representation across related words. English orthography has evolved to favour consistent representation of morphology over phonology to mark connections in meaning across words.

Onset and rime: Children learn to identify the sound of the letter or letters before the first vowel (the onset) in a one-syllable word, and the sound of the remaining part of the word (the rime).

Orthography: The writing system that represents the meaning of a language.

Phonemes: The smallest units of a spoken language which can be combined to form syllables and words. In English, there are 44 phonemes but only 26 letters (although accent can play a role here).

Phonemic awareness: An auditory skill, the ability to focus on and manipulate individual sounds in spoken words.

Phonics: Matching letters — the symbols of the written language (graphemes) to the sounds (phonemes). In the classroom, there may be an overlap; teachers may use various aspects of these approaches based on the children’s needs rather than a one-size-fits-all recipe.

Synthetic phonics: A part-to-whole approach that begins with focus on individual letters and emphasises teaching students to convert letters (graphemes) into sounds (phonemes).

Analogy-based phonics: Teaches children to use similar parts of known words (word families) to identify and decode words with similar parts. Onset and rime also used (for example, once “meat” is recognised, this can be used to identify beat, feat, heat, neat, seat, treat, etc).

Analytic phonics: Refers to larger-unit phonics programs that tend to start with children’s known language and introduce shared reading. An explicit focus on words from these sources follows, including teaching children letter-sound correspondences and analysis of words into their component parts. The emphasis is on the larger sub-parts of words (i.e. onsets and rimes, spelling patterns) and phonemes.

Embedded phonics: Children are taught letter-sound relationships during the reading of connected text. Since children encounter different letter-sound relationships as they read, this approach will not be a preconceived sequence, but can still be thorough and explicit.

Phonology: The system by which speech sounds of a language represent meaning.

Phonological awareness: A broad understanding of the sounds around us that provide the basis for understanding phonics. Includes awareness of spoken words and syllables; rhymes; sounds; and phonemes.

Recoding: Translating sound to print, with no associated meaning. Compare with decoding, defined above, which includes meaning.

Semantic information: Refers to meanings used when reading. Includes a reader’s prior knowledge, as well as the meanings embedded in text. Semantic meaning assists in decoding a text.

Syntactic knowledge: The way sentences are created using words, phrases and clauses.

What factors are most important in helping children learn to read successfully?

There are many factors that contribute to learning to read successfully, beginning with the opportunities young children have to talk and listen to their parents, older siblings and other caregivers, and also to engage in storying (Lowe, 2004).

Oral language development and shared reading

As Wolf (2007, page 85) cogently reminds us:

Each aspect of oral language makes an essential contribution to the child’s evolving understanding of words and their multiple uses in speech and written texts.

From birth, children develop strong associations between talking, hearing stories and being loved. During these opportunities, and as their early language develops, they learn names for things. Children delight in making discoveries about language. Time for children and their loved ones to engage in serious play with sounds and words is critical (Ewing, Callow and Rushton, 2016).

However, this is not always the young child’s experience. Many researchers suggest huge differences in the vocabularies and language processing of children who are linguistically advantaged by more opportunities to talk with their parents and caregivers rather than just overhearing talking (for example, Fernald and Weisleder, 2015). Research led by Hirsch-Pasek (for example, 2015) concludes the quality and diversity of one-on-one interactions between parent and child is critical. How much children are read to and read themselves is also an important predictor for success in reading. Wolf (2007, page 82) asserts:

Decade after decade of research shows the amount of time a child spends listening to parents and other loved ones is a good predictor of the level of reading attained later.

This is discussed in more detail below.

Social and economic factors

Closely related to opportunities for the development of linguistically rich oral, and shared opportunities for young children, other well established predictors of children’s reading success include parents’ education and socioeconomic status (Mullis et al, 2007; OECD, 2010a) and cultural orientations to reading (Williams, 2000; Bernstein, 1990; Heath, 1983). Bernstein’s (1990) work on restricted and elaborated codes is critical to our understanding of the socially constructed language barriers that can impede disadvantaged children’s success in learning. These factors are strongly connected to how language is used at home and how — or perhaps if — reading for different purposes is valued in the home and immediate community. Bernstein’s research concluded that children from more advantaged social backgrounds were more likely to use elaborated language codes. Williams’s (2000) study of mothers reading to four-year-old children identified huge differences in the use of language across different socioeconomic areas in Sydney, NSW.

Ensuring young children have easy access to a range of books in the home can be extremely difficult for those at risk or living in poverty. Given that one in six Australian children are living in poverty (Australian Council of Social Services, 2016), this is a very real issue. PISA (2009) indicates that almost 70 per cent of the gender gap and 30 per cent of the socioeconomic gap in reading attainment is associated with disparities in the breadth and depth of reading (OECD, 2010a). Therefore, ready access to libraries is important (Krashen et al, 2012).

Purcell-Gates’s (2007) research reported profound differences between five-year old children who were frequently read to at least five times a week compared to children who were not. Those who were read to often were more capable storytellers and used more sophisticated language and syntax, enabling the transition to reading.

Children from disadvantaged or vulnerable backgrounds require a much higher level of support in early childhood contexts and at school. At times, diversity of language use in the home is not realised or addressed sufficiently when a child begins preschool or school. Therefore, schools that have higher enrolments of disadvantaged children need the best resources and teachers, and require access to the most up-to-date research and professional learning to understand the challenges some children face.

How do children learn to read?

Three important sources of information in text are meaning, grammar and letter sound relationships — often referred to as semantics, syntax and graphophonic relationships respectively (Emmitt, Hornsby and Wilson, 2013, page 3).

Meaningful use of spoken and written language in a range of play-based and child-centred activities in different contexts lays a firm foundation for learning to read and write (Campbell, 2015, page 13). Sharing stories with young children helps lay the foundation for them to become good readers. Listening and responding to stories builds vocabulary and grammar knowledge and encourages children to read regularly, which is by far the best way of developing reading ability, writing competence, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling (Meek, 1988). What children attend to in reading lessons depends on what they and those around them think reading is for and how it can be used. Children will have a very different view of reading if it is mainly used as a quiet or settling time before bedtime rather than if a child is actively engaged in making meaning, asking questions and sharing related experiences (Williams, 2000; Meek, 1988; Chambers, 1985; Brice Heath, 1983).

The interaction between a child’s oral language and learning-to-read process has been emphasised by many researchers, including Holdaway (1979), Ashton-Warner (1986), Clay (1979) and Cambourne (1988). Reading with young children should involve much discussion about images and context as well as sounds and symbols. Children delight in making their own discoveries about words and images on a page. Building a strong oral base around storybook language (Fox, 1993) and vocabulary, exploring the ideas in stories, relating them to personal experiences and asking questions are part of what Scott Paris (2006) has described as the development of unconstrained reading skills. Singing, exploring rhymes, chants and all sorts of oral language play also help establish reading as an enjoyable and creative learning experience, as well as establishing the foundations for phonological awareness.

When children focus on letters and sounds as they engage in shared reading experiences, associated writing activities enable them to demonstrate their developing knowledge and skills — they begin to write their name, see the relationships between letters and sounds, make short lists, create labels and re-tell events. Paris’s (2005) constrained skills theory is an important reconceptualisation of how children learn to read. He proposes a continuum of skills, some highly constrained and more easily measured (such as writing your name, letter knowledge, phonic knowledge), some moderately constrained (phonological awareness, reading fluency), and others unconstrained (vocabulary development, comprehension) that are learned over many years, and perhaps even a lifetime. While constrained skills are necessary, they are insufficient for the development of complex reading (Stahl, 2011).

Stahl also points out that if highly constrained skills are overemphasised, unconstrained skills can be compromised.

Emerging findings from Transforming Literacy Outcomes (TRANSLIT), a major research project at the University of Wollongong (Jones, Kervin, Mantei, 2018), explore Stahl’s continuum of constrained to unconstrained literacy practices students encounter as they transition from early childhood settings to primary school and then to secondary school. At a recent symposium at the University of Sydney, Jones, Kervin and Mantei shared their emerging findings. The project is investigating the nature of students’ literacy experiences at key points in schooling, from foundation to senior secondary (preschool to school, primary to secondary school).

In particular, the research examines how teachers teach “constrained skills” (Paris, 2005), including alphabet knowledge, word lists and phonics, and how they allow for “unconstrained skills” to develop. One aspect of their research highlights increasing parental pressure on early childhood educators to introduce more constrained skills and code-based practices, including phonics, in preschool curriculum in readiness for school. These demands can threaten to overshadow broader literacy repertoires that are so important for emergent readers. Further findings will be valuable for all teachers of literacy and for schools in developing their literacy programs and policies, and will also help those outside the teaching profession understand how isolated instructional experiences can be integrated into rich, engaging and meaningful literacy programs.

Becoming a fluent and accurate reader means learning to use all the cue systems: semantic, graphophonic and syntactic cues, as well as having an understanding of Freebody and Luke’s (1990, 1999) reader roles (code breaker, participant, user and analyst). Developing graphophonic knowledge is part of an approach to reading that focuses on meaning, purpose and enjoyment (Ewing, Callow and Rushton, 2016). Graphological and phonological aspects of decoding print are a part of the reading process, not the first or the most or least important. Therefore, there is an important interrelationship between a reader’s thinking, language and reading. The role of any of the cues in learning to read must be understood with other predictors of reading success. These include the centrality of:

a language and story-rich home environment where reading and writing for different purposes is modelled and shared (Heath, 1983);
frequent and diverse linguistically-rich parent/child oral interactions;
the provision of a range of books; and
quality, literacy-rich preschool experiences.

It must also be emphasised that readers of different languages use different pathways for reading different scripts (for example, Chinese and English), and these different pathways are used in the same brain. Children learning straightforward alphabets, such as German or Greek, gain fluency more quickly than those learning more challenging codes, such as English (Wolf, 2007). It is within this complex context, with its inter-related set of factors, that the current debate about synthetic-versus-analytic phonics and a phonics check for all six-year old Australian children must be considered.

The complexities of what it means to “read” and the challenges for some children in learning to read must be understood. Policies that address these complexities need to be accompanied by much needed resourcing and professional learning. Views of reading research that suggest one approach will provide answers for every child are unhelpful for teachers, parents and children.

Robyn Ewing AM is Professor of Teacher Education and the Arts at the University of Sydney. A former primary school teacher, she teaches, researches and writes in the areas of curriculum, English and drama, children’s literature, language and early literacy development. Her current research interests include teacher education, especially the experiences of early-career teachers and mentoring; sustaining curriculum innovation; and the role of reflection in professional practice.

Robyn was president of the Primary English Teachers Association Australia (PETAA) from 2001-2006 and the Australian Literacy Educators Association (ALEA) from 2011- 2015. She currently chairs the Academic Board of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS), is an honorary associate with the Sydney Theatre Company, a board member of WestWords, and visiting scholar at the Barking Gecko Theatre Company. She enjoys working collaboratively with classroom teachers interested in innovative curriculum practices, and, since 2009, has worked in partnership with the Sydney Theatre Company on School Drama, a co-mentoring teacher professional learning program that focuses on the use of educational or process drama with literature to develop students’ imaginations, creativities and critical literacies.

This article is extracted from Robyn Ewing’s report, Exploding SOME of the myths about learning to read: A review of research on the role of phonics, (2018). Read the full report and references here.

Preparing for the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education in Australia

Kalervo Gulson, Sam Sellar, Andrew Murphie and Simon Taylor argue we can act now to ensure the Australian experience of artificial intelligence in schools can be positive…

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a central part of contemporary life. However, AI is being introduced into education policy areas, specifically K-12 systems and schools, much faster than either research on its effects or regulation on its use.

In this article we will highlight some key areas relevant to education[i] including the connection between skills and AI, and possible ways to respond to, and prepare for, AI not only in schools but in broader society. We conclude with recommendations and links for helping students and citizens to learn more about AI.

AI broadly refers to autonomous computer systems that employ algorithmic networks to learn from patterns in large data sets in order to improve predictive abilities (Russell & Norvig, 2016; Walsh, 2016). The application of AI in combination with ‘big data’ promises new opportunities to solve complex and intractable social and political problems (Elish & boyd, 2017), but along with the opportunities AI brings there is a need for caution.

Education, skills and AI

There is consensus that automation that is part of Artificial Intelligence will substitute for some tasks and workers, although the nature and extent of this substitution varies. Furthermore, Hajkowicz et al. (2016) argue that to meet future workforce challenges Australian society will need to provide young people with the right skills for current and future demands, as well as providing workplace and lifelong learning to facilitate re-training.

In one of the first reports on AI in education, Luckin et al. (2016) warn against being seduced by new technology and argue for sustaining a strong focus on pedagogy. When it comes to what have been termed ‘21st century’ skills, Heckman (2011) emphasises the need for focus on ‘attentiveness, perseverance, impulse control, and sociability’ (p. 33).

Many frameworks of skills have been identified in the research literature and in national curricula. However, there appears to be some agreement regarding the broad categories of skills that are important, which include the kinds of cognitive skills that have traditionally been emphasised in formal education along with non-cognitive skills (both inter- and intrapersonal) and skills that enable people to interact effectively with information and communication technologies (ICT).

As Campolo et al. (2017) observe, the ‘[e]thical questions surrounding AI systems are wide-ranging, spanning creation, uses and outcomes’ (p. 30). In what follows we focus on: the ethical development and use of AI; preparing citizens for an AI world, which in this article can include students of all ages; and the application of AI in public policy areas like education.

Ethics and AI

It is important to broaden the types of professionals involved in developing AI (Campolo et al., 2017). Lack of diversity among developers will need to be addressed through strategies for improving the gender imbalance in STEM education (OECD, 2018). Luckin (2017) has also called for educationalists to work with AI developers, writing that ‘everyone needs to be involved in a discussion about what AI should and should not be designed to do’ (p. 121). As Campolo et al. (2017) observe, ‘training data, algorithms, and other design choices that shape AI systems may reflect and amplify existing cultural assumptions and inequalities’ (p. 4).

Education, health and other social policy areas are ‘high stakes’ domains for the implementation of AI and it will be important to take measures to avoid biases in decision-making in relation to determining capacity to learn, risk of disease, medical diagnoses and so on.

Regulation and data privacy

As machine learning and algorithms are increasingly embedded in the mediated infrastructure of everyday life, we will need mechanisms to increase transparency, regulation and algorithmic literacy, and also ways to monitor what algorithms are doing in practice and create effective accountability mechanisms (Ananny, 2016). This will include identifying areas of regulation that either need revising or creating.

As corporations provide and manage data systems in education (Williamson, 2017), key questions are: what happens to student, parent and other forms of data when it is used in systems, including who owns data?; and who has access (Zeide, 2017)?

Some suggestions point to the importance of individual ownership of data and opt-in rather than opt-out programs (Tene & Polonetsky, 2012). We might look at the use of Google Mail in schools as one example where opt-in could be trialled.

Use of AI in public agencies like schools

Much of the provision of automated systems is done under the proprietary knowledge of corporations and there has been a call for core public agencies, such as those responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, and education (for example, “high stakes” domains) ‘…[to] no longer use “black box” AI and algorithmic systems’ (Campolo et al., 2017, p. 1). What is meant by ‘black-box’ is that the workings of these systems is either secret (due to proprietary knowledge) or cannot be known, due to the ways in which calculations are made by some forms of Artificial Intelligence.

It is clear that as some decision-making becomes automated, there needs to be an acknowledgement of the narrowness that can emerge from automation if it lacks context. That is, system and school-based administrators ‘will need to rethink how they formulate goals and use data, while acknowledging the limits and risks of automated systems’ (Campolo et al., 2017, p. 13), especially the possibility of missing important contextual details that go into making complex social areas like education.

Additionally, educators have expressed concerns about the de-humanising effects of introducing robots into classrooms, as well as potentially encouraging authoritarian or dependent attitudes among children. There will be a need to consider whether new forms of AI-driven pedagogies may work at cross-purposes to curricula focused on human values, including the question of ethical uses of AI itself (Serholt et al., 2017).

Conclusion: What should we learn in an AI society?

Debate about how AI will reshape society in the next few decades focuses upon the question of whether technological change will be different this time, as compared to previous periods of significant disruption.

One of the most important things for those who work, teach and learn in schools is to become aware of how AI works, and what it can do and just as importantly cannot do. In the absence of all people becoming computer scientists, there are already attempts by national governments to provide avenues for citizens to become informed not just about what AI might mean for society, but to become informed about how AI works.

While anyone could do some of the well-known Coursera courses on AI, the Finnish government has provided an online course with the aim of teaching the basics of AI to 1% of the population, approximately 55,000 people[ii]. Anyone with access to the internet can enrol and complete this course, available here. In Australia, the NSW Department of Education has begun to commission reports, hold events and provide relevant resources, including an interesting free collection available here.

For educators and regulators alike, it is important to examine issues such as those outlined above whenever new proposals for automation and AI are put forward. It should not be assumed that AI providers or the creators of algorithms will do this work. The teaching profession and education authorities will need to invest resources and time into learning about, understanding and developing these new technologies together, preferably before they become too widespread in our education systems and schools.

References

Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Policy pathways for twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 293-310). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Ananny, M. (2016). Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 93-117.

Campolo, A., Sanfilippo, M., Whittaker, R., & Crawford, K. (2017). AI Now 2017 report. New York: AI Now. Retrieved from https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2017_Report.pdf

Elish, M. C., & boyd, d. (2017). Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 1-24.

Hajkowicz, S., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., & Boughen, N. (2016). Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. Brisbane: CSIRO. Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-documents/16-0026_DATA61_REPORT_TomorrowsDigiallyEnabledWorkforce_WEB_160128.pdf

Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood education. American Educator, 35, 31-47.

Luckin, R. (2017). The implications of Artificial Intelligence for teachers and schooling. In L. Loble, T. Creenaune, & J. Hayes (Eds.), Future frontiers: Education for an AI world (pp. 109-125). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press/ NSW Department of Education.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson-dot-com/files/innovation/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf

OECD (2018). PISA 2015: Results in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S., & Paiva, A. (2017). The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI & Society, 32(4), 613-631.

Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology, 11(5), 239-273.

Walsh, T. (2016). The singularity may never be near. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06462.

Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. London: SAGE Publishers.

Zeide, E. (2017). The structural consequences of big data-driven education. Big Data, 5(2), 164-172.

Kalervo N. Gulson is Professor of Education Policy in the School of Education, University of New South Wales.

Sam Sellar is Reader in Education Studies in the School of Childhood, Youth and Education Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Andrew Murphie is Associate Professor in Media Studies in the School of Arts and Media, University of New South Wales.

Simon Taylor is a PhD candidate in Media Studies in the School of Arts and Media, University of New South Wales.

[i] This article is based on a report provided for the Gonski Institute of Education.
ttps://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/EDUCFile/Gonski_AIEd_Final_Aug2018_Formatted.pdf

[ii] https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612762/a-countrys-ambitious-plan-to-teach-anyone-the-basics-of-ai/?utm_medium=tr_social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=site_visitor.unpaid.engagement

What is Going Wrong with ‘Evidence-based’ Policies and Practices in Schools in Australia

James Ladwig explains why teachers should be aware of centrally pre-determined practices masquerading as ‘evidence-based’ advanced, innovative curriculum and teaching…

Scholars of school reform in particular are used to seeing paradoxes and ironies. But the point of naming them in our work is often a fairly simple attempt to get policy actors and teachers to see what they might not see when they are in the midst of their daily work. After all, one of the advantages of being in ‘the Ivory Tower’ is having the opportunity to see larger, longer-term patterns of human behaviour.

Here I would like to point out some contradictions in current public rhetoric about the relationship between educational research and schooling – focusing on teaching practices and curriculum for the moment.

The call for ‘evidenced-based’ practice in schools

By now we have all seen repeated calls for policy and practice to be ‘evidence-based’. On the one hand, this is common sense – a call to restrain the well-known tendency of educational reforms to fervently push one fad after another, based mostly on beliefs and normative appeals (that is messages that indicate what one should or should not do in a certain situation).

And let’s be honest, these often get tangled in party political debates – between ostensible conservatives and supposed progressives. The reality is that both sides are guilty of pushing reforms with either no serious empirical bases or re-interpretation of research – and both claiming authority based on that ‘research.’ Of course, not all high quality research is empirical – nor should it all be – but the appeal to evidence as a way of moving beyond stalemate is not without merit. Calling for empirical adjudication or verification does provide a pathway to establish more secure bases for justifying what reforms and practices ought to be implemented.

There are a number of ways in which we already know empirical analysis can now move educational reform further, because we can name very common educational practices for which we have ample evidence that the effects of those practices are not what advocates intended. For example, there is ample evidence that NAPLAN has been implemented in a manner that directly contradicts what some of its advocates intended; but the empirical experience has been that NAPLAN has become far more high-stakes than intended and has carried the consequences of narrowing curriculum, a consequence its early advocates said would not happen. This is an example of where empirical research can serve the vital role of assessing the difference between intended and experienced results.

Good research can turn into zealous advocacy

So on a general level, the case for evidence-based practice has a definite value. But let’s not over-extend this general appeal, because we also have plenty of experience of seeing good research turn into zealous advocacy with dubious intent and consequence. The current over-extensions of the empirical appeal have led paradigmatic warriors to push the authority of their work well beyond its actual capacity to inform educational practice. Here, let me name two forms of this over-extension.

Synthetic reviews

Take the contemporary appeal to summarise studies of specific practices as a means of deciphering which practices offer the most promise in practice. (This is called a ‘synthetic review’. John Hattie’s well-known work would be an example). There are, of course, many ways to conduct synthetic reviews of previous research – but we all know the statistical appeal of meta-analyses, based on one form or another of aggregating effect sizes reported in research, has come to dominate the minds of many Australian educators (without a lot of reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of reviews).

So if we take the stock standard effect size compilation exercise as authoritative, let us also note the obvious constraints implied in that exercise. First, to do that work, all included previous studies have to have measured an outcome that is seen to be the same outcome. This implies that outcome is a) actually valuable and b) sufficiently consistent to be consistently measured. Since most research that fits this bill has already bought the ideology behind standardised measures of educational achievement, that’s its strongest footing. And it is good for that. These forms of analysis are also often not only about teaching, since the practices summarised often are much more than just teaching, but include pre-packaged curriculum as well (for example, direct instruction research assumes previously set, given curriculum is being implemented).

Now just think about how many times you have seen someone say this or that practice has this or that effect size without also mentioning the very restricted nature of the studied ‘cause’ and measured outcome.

Simply ask ‘effect on what?’ and you have a clear idea of just how limited such meta-analyses actually are.

Randomised Control Trials

Also keep in mind what this form of research can actually tell us about new innovations: nothing directly. This last point applies doubly to the now ubiquitous calls for Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). By definition, RCTs cannot tell us what the effect of an innovation will be simply because that innovation has to already be in place to do an RCT at all. And to be firm on the methodology, we don’t need just one RCT per innovation, but several – so that meta-analyses can be conducted based on replication studies.

This isn’t an argument against meta-analyses and RCTs, but an appeal to be sensible about what we think we can learn from such necessary research endeavours.

Both of these forms of analysis are fundamentally committed to rigorously studying single cause-effect relationships, of the X leads to Y form, since the most rigorous empirical assessment of causality in this tradition is based on isolating the effects of everything other than the designed cause – the X of interest. This is how you specify just what needs to be randomised.

Although RCTs in education are built from the tradition of educational psychology that sought to examine generalised claims about all of humanity where randomisation was needed at the individual student level, most reform applications of RCTs will randomise whatever unit of analysis best fits the intended reform. Common contemporary forms of this application will randomise teachers or schools in this or that innovation. The point of that randomisation is to find effects that are independent of the differences between whatever is randomised.

Research shows what has happened, not what will happen

The point of replications is to mitigate against known human flaws (biases, mistakes, and so on) and to examine the effect of contexts. This is where our language about what research ‘says’ needs to be much more precise than what we typically see in news editorials and other online commentary. For example, when phonics advocates say ‘rigorous empirical research has shown phonics program X leads to effect Y’, don’t forget the background presumptions. What that research may have shown is that when phonics program X was implemented in a systemic study, the outcomes measured were Y. What this means is that the claims which can reasonably be drawn from such research are far more limited than zealous advocates hope. That research studied what happened, not what will happen.

Such research does NOT say anything about whether or not that program, when transplanted into a new context, will have the same effect. You have to be pretty sure the contexts are sufficiently similar to make that presumption. I am quite sceptical about crossing national boundaries with reforms, especially into Australia.

Fidelity of implementation studies and instruments

More importantly, such studies cannot say anything about whether or not reform X can actually be implemented with sufficient ‘fidelity’ to expect the intended outcome. This reality is precisely why researchers seeking the ‘gold standard’ of research are now producing voluminous ‘fidelity of implementation’ studies and instruments. Essentially fidelity of implementation measures attempt to estimate the degree to which the new program has been implemented as intended, often by analysing direct evidence of the implementation.

Each time I see one of these studies, it begs the question: ‘If the intent of the reform is to produce the qualities identified in the fidelity of implementation instruments, doesn’t the need of the fidelity of information suggest the reform isn’t readily implemented?’ For more on this issue see Tony Bryk’s Fidelity of Implementation: Is It the Right Concept?

The reality of ‘evidence-based’ policy

This is where the overall structure of the current push for evidence-based practices becomes most obvious. The fundamental paradox of current educational policy is that most of it is intended to centrally pre-determine what practices occur in local sites, what teachers do (and don’t do) – and yet the policy claims this will lead to the most advanced, innovative curriculum and teaching.

It won’t. It can’t.

What it can do is provide a solid basis of knowledge for teachers to know and use in their own professional judgements about what is the best thing to do with their students on any given day. It might help convince schools and teachers to give up on historical practices and debates we are pretty confident will not work. But what will work depends entirely on the innovation, professional judgement and, as Paul Brock once put it, nous of all educators.

James Ladwig is Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle and co-editor of the American Educational Research Journal. He is internationally recognised for his expertise in educational research and school reform.

Find James’ latest work in Limits to Evidence-Based Learning of Educational Science, in Hall, Quinn and Gollnick (Eds) The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning published by Wiley-Blackwell, New York (in press).

James is on Twitter @jgladwig

This is an updated version of a blog which was first posted as ‘Here’s what is going wrong with ‘evidence-based’ policies and practices in schools in Australia’ by the Australian Association for Research in Education’s EduResearch Matters Blog at http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=2822

“I Want to Get Physical, Physical”: Spatial Technologies Inside and Outside Your Geography Classroom

Lorraine Chaffer encourages you to confidently use spatial technologies in your classroom…

What is Geography like in your classroom?

With the new K-10 Geography syllabus implemented in all schools from 2017, it may well be timely to stop and ask ourselves a couple of reflective questions such as: What have the students been doing? What have we been doing? Is it working? What should we try next?

I have been looking inside many Geography classrooms across NSW and I have noticed students using spatial technologies to create digital tours, plot information from fieldwork activities, create digital elevation profiles, contribute to citizen science projects and examine or analyse real-time data.

The students like it. Increasingly, I think their teachers do too.

Outside the classroom, governments, organisations and individuals are using spatial technologies to analyse spatial data, create visual representations and make predictions in fields as wide ranging as urban planning, disaster management, agricultural production and climate change.

Spatial technology is creating significant and interesting employment opportunities in many industries

Spatial technology is creating significant and interesting employment opportunities in many industries, leading to a growing demand for trained technologists with spatial analysis skills. Geography has always been the subject that is relevant to all other fields. Now, the skills of geographers in both the humanities and technical industries are in increasing demand.

Spatial technologies include any technology that enables us to collect data about a location (place) and organise that data to show spatial patterns, usually on a map or satellite image.

We may not realise it but this technology has become an integral part of our lives through the devices we use, such as our computers, tablets and smartphones. All online programs, including social media applications, maps and games, have spatial components built into them.

Despite the prevalence of spatial technologies in our daily lives there remains a range of impediments to their use in the classroom. These include software and data access, hardware availability, computer room access and teacher expertise. This article seeks to build confidence and awareness of some of the practical applications teachers are using successfully now, whilst acknowledging that improved resources will also be essential for effective teaching of many of the positive aspects of our new syllabuses.

What does the Geography K-10 syllabus have to say about spatial technologies?

In the NSW Geography Syllabus 7-10, spatial technologies is one of the tools students use in geographical inquiry to gather, interpret, analyse and communicate geographical information.

The syllabus glossary states:

Spatial technologies include any software or hardware that interacts with real world locations. Examples include, but are not limited to, virtual maps, satellite images, global positioning systems (GPS), geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing and augmented reality. Spatial technologies are used to visualise, manipulate, analyse, display and record spatial data.

Geography K-10 Syllabus

In the Continuum of Tools, examples of spatial technologies are listed to provide teachers with options when selecting technologies that are content and stage appropriate. For instance,

Stages 1 to 3 – virtual maps, satellite images and global positioning systems (GPS);
Stages 4 and 5 – virtual maps, satellite images and global positioning systems (GPS); remote sensing, Augmented Reality (AR) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Over time it is expected that students will experience a range of these spatial tools in the context of asking and answer key geographical questions. By the end of Stage 5 students should feel confident enough to independently choose a spatial technology application for geographical inquiry tasks.

We still need to ask important questions

At Stage 1, students might experience spatial technologies when examining a digital map or using Google Earth to find their suburb or their house. The aim is not only to have students play with the technology but to learn its value in answering questions they have about their world. These questions may include: Where is it? How are places organised?

Continuing with this rationale in mind, by Stage 4, students could be using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to answer questions such as: What patterns can be observed? How can these spatial patterns be explained? What relationships can you see between features?

The aim is not only to have students play with the technology but to learn its value in answering questions they have about their world.

The technology can then be used to represent their data as layers of information on a map or image. The layers can be turned on and off, allowing choices to be made about the information relevant to a geographical investigation. For example, a layer that shows areas susceptible to flooding in a local area or where rice is grown on a map of the world could help students understand and plan for questions around water as a resource or the impact of hydrological hazards.

At a basic level, a student will use data sets which already exist in an application such as the different layers in Google Earth or Geographic Map Maker. At a more sophisticated level, students will add their own data to create a layer on a map or image using programs such as Esri Story Maps or Google My Maps.

The big five spatial tools

GPS – a global navigation system that uses satellites and ground monitoring stations to locate places using a system of geographic coordinates. The most common application is the use of GPS in cars.

GIS is the system that captures, stores and manipulates geographical data linked to geographic coordinates. It creates data layers in a visual format, such a map, for analysis. In your car, the GPS data collected from the satellite is plotted onto a map that shows where you are.

Remote sensing is a way of obtaining information about places from a distance, usually using aircraft or satellites as well as instruments such as drones, remote cameras, thermal scanners, atmospheric balloons and ocean buoys.

Augmented reality (AR) provides an enhanced version of reality in which computer-generated images (virtual elements) are superimposed onto real world views. In the Geography classroom, the use of AR allows students to obtain extra information about a place or environment from the augmented image. A good example is an Augmented Reality Sandbox in which contour lines are superimposed over landforms created in the sandbox and rain can be simulated to allow a study of runoff and river flow.

Virtual reality (VR) is a digital recreation of an environment or situation. Users feel like they are experiencing the place or event. In the Geography classroom, the use of VR allows students to experience real environments they may never visit in person by using a headset (goggles) and a smartphone.

Real time data visualisations show environmental change as it happens. Satellites capture and analyse global data instantaneously. This data is used to create real time visualisations. Examples include applications that show the movement of fishing vessels and container ships at sea and monitor weather systems as they occur.

Introducing spatial technologies in the Geography classroom

Confidence is the key to the successful use of spatial technologies in a classroom, but it is also the reality that many students will pick up the skills they need to use these technologies very quickly. For teachers and students, there are free online tutorials for most spatial technology applications used in Geography classrooms worldwide.

My suggestion is to select one spatial tool at a time to develop your skills, and integrate that tool into as many places in your curriculum as possible. Do not feel you need to learn everything a spatial technology tool can do at once; build your skills over time. Most importantly, have a ‘Plan B’ for those days the technology is not working or a problem arises during your lessons.

Importantly, student activities integrating the use of spatial technologies should have a purpose, be planned and have clear links to the syllabus content and outcomes. Use an inquiry question to focus student learning and provide clear instructions for students to follow. A planning template can be useful when developing activities that could be used as Assessments ‘as’ or ‘for’ Learning.

See Attachment 1 for Spatial Technology Activity Planning Document

Getting started or moving forward

To develop your own confidence, try getting together with colleagues to experiment with some of the following examples, beginning with some real-time data visualisations first, then moving on to creating maps using programs with inbuilt layers of data. When your team is more confident, start using applications that require you to add your own data layers. Try one at a time and get ‘bang for your buck’ by trying out your new ideas across your classes for 7-10 or possibly across KLAs for K-6.

And, have some fun together!

1. Real-time data visualisations

2. Applications with inbuilt layers of geographical data:

Google Earth, to create an elevation profile
Geographic Mapmaker Interactive
Global Forest Watch
The Story Map Gallery

3. Application to create a GIS map:

Scribble Maps
Google Tour Builder
Story Map
Getting started with Story Map
Visualize your data on a custom map using Google My Maps
GIS for schools ESRI Australia

The foundations of successful Geography teaching remain a strong emphasis on inquiry and skill development to better understand and affect our world. When we keep strong pedagogy and content knowledge at the heart of our teaching, including a little new technology to investigate some very big questions could well be the next thing we should try.

Lorraine Chaffer has 38 years’ experience as a Geography teacher in NSW public schools and has been heavily involved in the professional development of teachers. Lorraine was a consultant in the development of the NSW Geography Syllabus K-10, has written textbooks for the Australian Curriculum Geography and the NSW Geography Syllabus K-10 and has worked with K-6 teachers across NSW to unpack the new syllabus and develop the essential knowledge, understanding and skills to deliver the syllabus effectively. Lorraine is the President of the Geography Teachers Association of NSW (GTANSW) and a board member of the Professional Teachers Council, and she provides professional learning for teachers of K-10 Geography Syllabus and Stage 6. Lorraine is editor of the GTANSW Geography Bulletin, has written articles for the CPL and presented on the new Geography Syllabus for CPL in 2017.

Follow Me into the Butterfly Garden

Neil Bramsen explores butterflies while teaching Mathematics and Science…

I am always keen to have my students undertake at least one major project based learning (PBL) experience each year.

In mid-2016 I had my stage two class work on revitalising an overgrown and neglected garden area into a ‘Butterfly Garden’. I was inspired by my visit to High Tech High in Chula Vista a few years ago where I saw a comprehensive PBL program in place, with a butterfly component including garden, plant propagation, egg collection and breeding, all supported by student-generated text and a website.

Talk about comprehensive!

Beginnings

Exploring regional butterflies and appropriate feeder plants introduced a strong environmental and biodiversity perspective as students considered the ecology of a butterfly habitat. Over the course of six months it was rewarding to document and reflect on the process that covered a multitude of learning areas, such as measurement and science and information reports, as well as the physical tasks of gardening and assembling materials.

Of course, PBL is a terrific way to ‘access’ this type of learning, and each student was able to achieve success through various entry and exit points that they could identify with. Key Learning Areas (KLA) such as Mathematics, Science, English and PDHPE came into play and offered a broad scope of learning opportunities.

I have found with any PBL that backward mapping to outcomes is the pragmatic and practical approach. I consider the activities that may be undertaken and then explore the relevant KLA scope and cross reference to the syllabus involved.

Measuring up

There was extensive use of measurement, both through aerial photography via a DJI Phantom Drone and scale and grid tasks that calculated the area of the garden and path. See a photograph below of the original site taken by the drone.

This measurement work then evolved into a volume activity for more capable students, and the depth of mulch and crushed concrete was calculated. It is important to note that while all students had an introduction or refresher to area and square metres for example, I then targeted students that were stretching themselves to explore volume and cubic metres.

The students used websites to source local materials, cost the materials and then ring the landscape company to place the order. They actually used the school credit card under my supervision (I had the CVV number) to ring and talk to the supplier and arrange the delivery. The students mapped access to the area.

Becoming alive

Highlights of the project included in-depth research into local butterflies and suitable host plants. The class explored colour and the types of colour needed to attract butterflies. Interestingly, while we initially focused on local plant species and native butterflies, the monarch butterfly and the need for the milkweed plant to support it were identified. We sourced milkweed, and this aspect has been the most successful, albeit with some winter wind damage to the milkweed. Propagating more milkweed plants would become an ongoing focus.

Importantly, as the image above demonstrates, the project all came together as students physically engaged with and enjoyed the gardening, from clearing weeds and moving barrow loads of mulch to pouring crushed aggregate to make the path. The area came to life as the seedlings and young plants began to mature.

A little organisation

Students also followed a product procedure to assemble timber benches so that the area was a welcoming learning space. A daily watering regime was added to the class task list, and deep saucers were added for birds and to provide water for butterflies.

The photograph above shows that, as the area established, it was then used for nature sketching, quiet time, reading and sensory awareness activities by the class.

Rewards worth working for

By late summer and autumn, we began to see monarch butterflies in the garden, just like the one in the photograph below. With some of the students that participated in the PBL project, we carefully examined the milkweed plants, which act as a host for egg-laying and monarch caterpillars. Not only did we find quite a few eggs on the leaf tips but also fifteen or so caterpillars in varying stages of maturity.

The kids were totally over the moon with the evidence of success and at seeing a natural life cycle occurring in the habitat that they had helped create. We are looking forward to monitoring the health of the garden and the number of monarch butterflies that mature. The garden has continued to be popular with my classes for nature sketching and quiet time and has now been dedicated as a special Year 6 Quiet Area during breaks.

Now, back to the syllabus

The project was an engaging opportunity to introduce teaching points from both the Mathematics and Science syllabuses. Some relevant outcomes are listed below.

Mathematics Stage 2 and Stage 3 outcomes

selects and uses the appropriate unit and device to measure lengths and distances, calculates perimeters, and converts between units of length MA3-9MG
measures, records, compares and estimates areas using square centimetres and square metres MA2-10MG
selects and uses the appropriate unit to calculate areas, including areas of squares, rectangles and triangles MA3-10MG
selects and uses appropriate mental or written strategies, or technology, to solve problems MA2-2WM
selects and applies appropriate problem-solving strategies, including the use of digital technologies, in undertaking investigations MA3-2WM
uses simple maps and grids to represent position and follow routes, including using compass directions MA2-17MG

Science Stage 2 and Stage 3 outcomes

shows interest in and enthusiasm for science and technology, responding to their curiosity, questions and perceived needs, wants and opportunities ST2-1VA
describes ways that science knowledge helps people understand the effect of their actions on the environment and on the survival of living things ST2-11LW
investigates their questions and predictions by analysing collected data, suggesting explanations for their findings, and communicating and reflecting on the processes undertaken ST2-4WS
describes that living things have life cycles, can be distinguished from non-living things and grouped, based on their observable features ST2-10LW
describes how people interact within built environments and the factors considered in their design and construction ST2-14BE
describes some physical conditions of the environment and how these affect the growth and survival of living things ST3-11LW

Keys to success

Before attempting your own special learning experience, consider and plan for the following:

Identify suitable project opportunities in the school grounds or local community;
Consider the teaching and learning outcomes and prepare to backward map the obvious outcomes while allowing for the unexpected. The opportunities for differentiated learning are extensive and every student can achieve success and growth in some aspect of learning;
Allocate sufficient time; PBL takes time, usually more time than you might think!;
Allocate resources and funding if needed;
Communicate to other classes, teachers and supervisors the aims and progress of the project to generate community and school ‘buy in’.

We can nurture many positive blooms through our school garden projects. Once your project has concluded, remember to celebrate the successes and share your experiences and new knowledge with your school and community.

Neil Bramsen is an Assistant Principal at Mount Ousley Public School, Wollongong. He actively engages with ‘the outdoor classroom’ and enjoys citizen science and space science. He is the recipient of the 2017 Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Primary Science Teaching.

To follow Neil further use: @galaxyinvader and neilbramsen.edublogs.org.au

This is an updated version of the article published in STANSW Science Education News, 2017 Volume 66 Number 4, http://joom.ag/nTUL/p58. Visit STANSW’s website at: www.stansw.asn.au