Response to Module D-Teaching All learners by Rhiannon

http://caonie.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/module-d-teaching-all-learners/#comment-19

This post raises some very interesting ideas in regards to the disconnect between Stan’s teaching style and his students learning style. Your inclusion of Harris’s theory was particularly effective and made me reflect on the idea of self-efficacy. If students are stuck on the ‘behaving’ level as you suggested, then the students’ self-efficacy would be very low. This leads to further problems as Snowman suggests “…students who do not have happy and productive learning experiences in school disengage, disrupt and dropout.”(Snowman, 2009, p236) Stan’s overall prejudice for the community and the school in general does nothing to fight the cycle. Instead Stan needs to recognise the rich source of culture and intelligence in every class, and embrace it within his lessons. If he attempted to move from a behaviourist approach towards constructivist learning, Stan may see improved engagement within his classroom as students will feel more connected to the experience (Snowman, 2009).

                Your reference to Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligence is effective. I feel this could be further explored through Bloom’s Taxonomy. The six areas “remembering, understanding, applying, analysis, evaluating and creating” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp.67-68) provide a basic scaffold for learning which can be particularly useful in classrooms with large gaps in differentiated learning.  This would allow students to engage with content in a structured environment that builds on previous learning.  By combining the two theories within the classroom, Stan could provide a rich scaffold whist allowing for the different intelligences amongst his students.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete Addition. [Longman: New York}

Snowman J., et al. (2009).Behavioural Learning Theory: Operant Conditioning (Chapter 7). In Psychology Applied to Teaching. (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.223-261

Snowman J., et al. (2009). Constructivist Learning Theory, Problem Solving and Transfer (Chapter 10). (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.334-371

Response to journal entry 2: education foundations by Lisa Hutchison

http://lisahutchison.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/journal-entry-2-education-foundations/#comment-7

I found this post to be very thoughtful and it engaged with Stan’s situation on many levels. I though your identification of the social and cultural change within the school was excellent and made me contemplate this idea further. Stan is a complex character that appears to be unable to let go of the past and approach the future with a fresh attitude. I would suggest that he is prejudice towards the new culture of the school encroaches on his ability to teach his classes effectively. He expects his students to change instead of recognising the various learning styles and cultural difference within the classroom. I would suggest that Stan probably uses a formulaic approach to learning in the classroom, but as Sonbucher suggests, “people do not learn in the same way, according to a single formula.”(Sonbucher, 1991) Instead Stan should apply Bandura’s theory of Triadic Reciprocal Causation, to allowing for the connections between the students social environment, personal characteristics and behaviours within his classroom (Snowman, 2009, ch.9). If he understands that his students are not ‘Tabula Rosa’s’ but instead rich sources of cultural, social and intellectual knowledge he will ultimately improve self-efficacy and engagement within the classroom.

Snowman J., et al. (2009). Socail Cognitive Theory. In Psychology Applied to Teaching. (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.302-333

Sonbucher, G.M. (1991) Help Yourself: How to take advantage of your learning styles [New Readers Press: Syracuse NY]

Final Response: Stan

The situation of ‘Stan’ is complex and an understanding of learning theory is important when analysing the problems presented in the scenario. Stan has been teaching for over 20 years at the same school and in that time he has seen the school transition from a “reasonably affluent Anglo community” into a largely mixed cultural and socioeconomic area. Stan has identified disruptive and antisocial behaviour throughout the school and within his classroom as significant issues. This scenario raises the questions “What will students want and need from me?” and “should we teach students or subjects?”

As Churchill states “learning is not always easily measured and a one-size-fits-all production line of learning and teaching does not adequately address the range of individual learning styles and learners in one classroom, let alone one school.”(Churchill et al., 2011,p71) This statement represents the enormity of Stan’s problems within his classroom and school. I would suggest that as the schools’ cultural and socioeconomic mix has changed, Stan has not. As he says “the students are just not what they used to be”. Instead of recognizing the complex mix of learning styles that needs to be accommodated for successful engagement and learning to occur, he instead blames the student’s inherent bad behaviour, a lack of school community and guidance from leaders.

It would appear that Stan has a behaviourist orientation to learning, as his main grievances are connected to students acting out and off task behaviour with which he must “battle”. Overall, the school and Stan’s own classroom do not sound like positive environments and as research indicates “students who do not have happy and productive learning experiences in school disengage, disrupt and drop out.” (Snowman, 2009, p236) I would assume that this is the case for some of the students. As he has been at the same school for over 20 years and can only comment on the decline of the school this could cause a lack of progressivism within Stan’s teaching sequences. Stan appears to be overly preoccupied with teaching his subject instead of identifying what his individual students need to aid their learning.

Stan has not stated any attempt to alter his lessons to accommodate students from different cultural and family backgrounds, instead he harps back to the ‘good old days’. A lack of scaffolding and situated learning could impact upon his students who may struggle to make lasting connections between the content and their own lives (Snowman, 2009, ch. 10). This also links to Bandura’s theory of Triadic Reciprocal Causation, whereby the “interaction between personal characteristics, behaviours and social environment” (Snowman, 2009, ch. 9) impact upon the individuals learning journey.

I would suggest that Stan’s students have low level self efficacy. They believe that are not capable of completing the tasks and therefore act out (Krause, 2010, p104). The students’ low self efficacy could also be caused by the lack of school community and the apparent disinterest of parents. Stan should work to turn his own classes into communities whereby students feel that they contribute positively to the classroom environment.  

Therefore Stan needs to reflect upon his own teaching style in relation to the changing mix of students entering his classroom. He needs to apply real world learning to increase student engagement and use positive reinforcement techniques to improve the classroom environment and student self efficacy.

References:

Churchill et al. Teaching: Making a Difference. 2011. [John Wiley & Sons Publishing: Australia]

Krause, K.L. et al. (2010). Social, Emotional and Moral Development (Ch. 3) In Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching (3^rd Ed) [Cenegage Learning] pp.98-146

Snowman J., et al. (2009). Behavioural Learning Theory: Operant Conditioning (Chapter 7). In ‘Psychology Applied to Teaching’ (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.223-261

Snowman J., et al. (2009). Social Cognitive Theory (Chapter 9). In ‘Psychology Applied to Teaching’ (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.302-333

Snowman J., et al. (2009). Constructivist Learning Theory, Problem Solving and Transfer (Chapter 10). In ‘Psychology Applied to Teaching’ (1^st Australian Ed.) [John Wiley & Sons: Australia] pp.334-371

Comments on other blogs

I have posted comments at
http://am505.wordpress.com/
http://hgeddip.wordpress.com/

Module A: Tracy

 The scenario of ‘Tracy’ reflects the importance of understanding our personal philosophy and history of education when embarking on a teaching career. It lies at the core of the nine provocations, especially, “What kind of teacher do I want to be?”, “Will I be allowed to be the teacher I want to be?” and “To whom am I accountable?”

In the scenario it appears that Tracy finds it difficult to align her own teaching philosophy or pedagogy with the school’s priorities. For Tracy cross-curricular learning, rich learning tasks and cultural clubs are an important part of education whilst the schools main focus is NAPLAN test results. Tracy’s approach to education reflects the work of Connell as, “teaching is not only the training of young people in defined practices, it is about the creation of capacities for practice.”(Connell, 1995) The school follows a traditionalist or essentialist philosophy, which is apparent in their NAPLAN focus as “Essentialists argue that schools and teachers must be committed to their primary academic mission and not be diverted into nonacademic areas.” (Ornstein et al.,2011, p189) Whist Tracy’s holistic approach indicates progressivism where “for progressives, children's readiness and interests rather than predetermined subjects shape curriculum and instruction”. (Ornstein et al., 2011, p196.)

As a recent graduate many of Tracy’s teaching philosophies align with professional standards but I would question whether her teaching evolution is in a progressive order. With professional standards comes restriction. It can be assumed that Tracy’s lack of experience in starting programs is why she has not been given the opportunities to work outside her classroom. Tracy is still in the learning process and is classified as a competent teacher, while her aims reflect the work of an accomplished or leader teacher (Council on Education, 2003, p9). Tracy needs to self assess her role and competencies, and if she can be instrument in the success of her own students she may receive more extra-curricular responsibility.

Since the Industrial Revolution, education has transitioned from a social good to an economic good with “schools considered as firms competing with each other.” (Connell, 2009, p218) Tracy teaches in the private system but the newness of the school means that the teachers are still working towards establishing a reputation. Although there has been a recent “middle class flight” to the private system, Margaret Vickers is quick to point out that it is the “high academic and behavioural standards” that can boost enrolments, which is something that a new school needs (Vickers, 2008). This may be the reason that the school is focused on achieving exemplary results in NAPLAN rather than establishing cultural clubs and cross-curricular learning. This should come with time, once the school has an established name and respectable level of enrolments. For Tracy, parents are also a problem, but in the private system this is unavoidable and something that teachers must be willing to work with. With the heightened publicity of NAPLAN in recent years it is only natural that parents consider this test as a priority and ignore the holistic view of education. Tracy should attempt to work with the parents as their disunity may prevent funding for the programs that she wants to introduce that may promote awareness of less prioritised areas of education.

This raises the provocation “Will I be allowed to be the teacher I want to be?” Tracy may need to consider that the school may not be the right fit for her and may be able to pursue her dreams in a more liberal school. This is a natural process, which comes through self-awareness, personal exploration and experience.

References:

Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-229

Connell, R. (1995). Transformative labour: theorizing the politics of teachers’ work. In M.B. Ginsburg (Ed.), The politics of educators’ work and lives (pp. 91–114). New York: Garland Publishing.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2003). A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching.  Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_framework_file.pdf

Ornstein, A.C…[et al.] (2011). Philosophical Roots of Education (Ch.6) In Foundations of Education (pp.165-205). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Vickers, M. (2008). Comprehensive Secondary Schools: a comparative perspective. Manning Clark House. Retrieved from http://www.manningclark.org.au/html/Paper-Vickers_Margaret-Comprehensive_Secondary_Schools.html