I too find it interesting how different the restrictions are between both countries. I had assumed we would be far more similar in terms of prescribed texts. The openness of the UK list is in one way exciting as a future teacher as it allows for more exploration and diversity in the content. But also daunting in its openness. The same can be said of the Australian Curriculum but obviously in a reverse scenario. Interesting too how poetry is the one obvious constant between the two nations and, at least in my opinion and experience, the less beloved and appareciated by students. I often wonder why such significance is placed on the study of poetry in the english classroom, and its interesting to see its presence in curriculums abroad as well. 

Learning Log 4

This week, rather than look deeper into a countries curriculum, the texts required in an English unit were the focus. The QCAA’s recently released syllabus and text list were the basis for this investigation. Are the texts which students of Australian English similar to those from other countries? Or are we heading in a completely different direction? 

It seems first prudent to state the requirements of the Queensland syllabus first. These are that during a student’s final year of Senior English they must study four texts:

“ one complete play 

one complete prose text (novel or non-fiction or a collection of short stories) 

 a selection of poetry (at least five poems) 

 a multimodal text (film, television program, documentary)

Other types of texts that students could study include: 

 essays 

 interpretations of literary texts 

speeches 

 mass media texts and social media texts, such as news and current affairs, advertising, YouTube, social commentary, blogs, vlogs, podcasts

popular culture texts 

 journal and feature articles 

 live performances

 graphic novels and digital stories.

Unit 3 must include a study of media texts. “

                                                                       -(QCAA, 2018)

 These requirements are then placed upon new prescribed text list, narrowing the field of texts that a teacher/ subject coordinator can choose from.

 Starting with the United Kingdom, similarities as well as major differences can be noticed. The United Kingdom has not set an official text list for the entire country, leaving teachers with free reign on the exact texts.

 Like the QCAA, they have left rules for which the texts must fall in to. There is no set amount of texts, where QCAA insists upon four. The necessities for Senior English in the United Kingdom are:

 “at least one play by Shakespeare 

works from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries 

 poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry.”                                                                - (Department of Education, 2014)

 There are far less requirements instilled here, with the exception of the strict ruling on a play by Shakespeare and the implied “at least one”, which assumes that people could study multiple in a year. (Perhaps torture has not been outlawed in the United Kingdom yet.)  This is also very narrow in terms of TYPE of text. There is no explicit mention of multimodal or multimedia texts, or whether the works should be fiction or non-fiction or short stories.

 Despite the similarities, the QCAA has been far more strict on the text types and texts that can be presented. While this seems like it could be a downfall, my personal opinion is that by doing this, students of Senior Australian English are advantaged by the wide variety of text types that are expected from the curriculum.

References

 Department of Education. (2014). English programmes of study: key stage 4. National curriculum in England. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331877/KS4_English_PoS_FINAL_170714.pdf 

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority. (2018). English 2019 v1.3. General Senior Syllabus. Retrieved from: https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/portal/syllabuses/snr_english_19_syll.pdf

I wish I could say I was surprised by the lack of a national curriculum in the US, but I cannot. So often I discover they are lacking governmental oversight and continuity, and when it comes to education I suppose they are no different. I have to agree with you that the idea of an absent national curriculum is detrimental to the school system and therefore students. 

The presence of a national curriculum in the UK, and one similar to our own, makes sense also. The idea of researching other english-speaking, commonwealth nations education policies is an interesting avenue to follow, to identify difference and similarities between us at the schooling level could explain key differences between our societies in other ways.

Learning Log 1

 My chosen topic for this inquiry is about comparing our Australian Senior English curriculum to that of other countries. 

Are our graduates equal to those overseas?

The first step in comparing curriculum and syllabus across multiple different countries is to locate the curriculum of these other countries. This week, I focused on finding the curriculum for Senior English in both England/United Kingdom (U.K.) and America/ United States (U.S.). I had chosen the U.K. and the U.S. as the both of these countries, in my opinion, have similar classroom settings to Australia. This was due to the fact that English is the main spoken language in those countries, while still having a variety of people from other cultures and potentially other language backgrounds.

 However, very quickly I discovered an issue.  The U.S. does not have a nation wide curriculum.  In fact, the concept of a National Curriculum is illegal there due to Federal law. This was quite surprising to me as standardised testing in the U.S. is quite prevalent and is run by the Department of Education in the U.S.  It is expected that teachers in America, for all subjects, including English, will be teaching similar things, but the government cannot lay out a distinct set curriculum or legally control what is taught in schools due to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the No Child Left Behind Act (Pioneer Institute, 2012).  These acts are apparently designed to keep education accessible to every student in the U.S. and to not give an advantage to any particular child or to disadvantage any child.

 Personally, I think having a National Curriculum does the opposite to those, and DOES provide the equal field. 

 Unlike the U.S., I was able to locate the National Curriculum of the U.K.  Just like the Australian Curriculum, the U.K.’s is equally as annoying to navigate. The U.K. also calls the subject ‘English’ but, they do not categorise ability by ‘grade’ but rather by ‘Key Stage’. Senior (graduating English) is known as key stage 4. According to the official document, the aim of the U.K.s key stage 4 in English is “to promote high standards of language and literacy by equipping pupils with a strong command of the spoken and written word, and to develop their love of literature through widespread reading for enjoyment”(Department of Education, 2014). 

Now that I have located at least one curriculum from overseas, I will be able to compare it to our Australian Curriculum in further detail.  I may also have to look into Canada or New Zealand, as my search of the U.S. ended quite abruptly.

REFERENCES

Department of Education. (2014). English programmes of study: key stage 4. National curriculum in England. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331877/KS4_English_PoS_FINAL_170714.pdf

 Pioneer Institute. (2012). Is the US Department of Education violating Federal law by directing standards, tests and curricula? Public Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://pioneerinstitute.org/education/is-the-us-department-of-education-violating-federal-law-by-directing-standards-tests-and-curricula/

It was really interesting viewing this from a male perspective. I for one can attest to the impact of gendered stereotypes on engagement and attitude of males in the English classroom. Many of my friends throughout high school, and myself at time fell for the restricting trap that masculinity can be. The practice allocating specific texts based on gender is interesting and makes sense just at face value. I think as future educators we would like to imagine a classroom where all students are capable of finding relevance and meaning from a singular text, but the reality is far from this.

Boys and Literacy

While researching different aspects that contribute to student disengagement in school, I came across something interesting that I was genuinely surprised to learn was a contributor - and that’s gender. In previous units in previous years throughout my degree, I learned of the impact aspects of race and socioeconomic status plays in student engagement and success. How did gender not register as a factor that impacts student engagement in the English classroom?

For a while now, girls have been outperforming boys academically, and this is clear by looking at NAPLAN results, and university enrollment statistics. According to Kehler & Craig (2005), educators have not been attentive to the complexity of boys, literacy and schooling. The ideas society have about masculinity and what it means to ‘be a man’, have created a rigid, stereotypical set of rules that males feel pressured to attend to. These rules infiltrate every aspect of their lives, and this affects how males interact and engage with the curriculum. Keep in mind, I am not implying that all males are similar, and that they all adhere to these stereotypes. However, the research shows that males are disadvantaged in academic literacy due to the curriculum not meeting their interests (Milner & Milner, 2008). Milner & Milner (2008) encourage the use of non-fiction texts in the classroom to engage male students. Why non-fiction texts? As stated by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2004), boys are more successful when they’re reading for functional reasons, and won’t gravitate towards narrative texts as much as their female peers.

References:

Kehler, M. D., & Greig, C. (2005). Reading masculinities: Exploring the socially literate practices of high school young men. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(4), 351-370. O'Beirne Milner, J., & Morock Milner, L.F. (2008). Bridging English (4th ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2004). Me Read? No Way! Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

I love the idea of curating an entire unit on the subject of ‘othering’. I think it’s vital that young Australians are exposed to ideas of identity and culture, especially those outside of the homogeny, in a school setting. If we want to progress socially and culturally as a nation we really need to ensure that our emerging generations are equipped with the knowledge, sensitivity and appreciation for everyone in our society. The idea of leaving assessment open for delivery in a number of different modes is also really cool as it allows for some diversity (and a break from the monotony in the class) and allows students to express themselves in a manner that suits them. 

Good work Bek :)

Engaging the disengaged

This week I have been investigating educational studies that dive into the subject of disengaged students and different methods teachers have used to re-engage them.

When looking at how to reignite students’ interest in their studies, we need to assess what the possible causes are. Assunta Knight (2009), documented the process an unnamed secondary English teacher from South Australia went through to make sure her students didn’t give up on school. In this study, Assunta notes that this class, in particular, was made up of students with varying cultural backgrounds and that many of them failed to see how English made a connection to their lives. As each class is a melting pot of different backgrounds, experiences, and voices, it’s important that each semester allows each student to thrive (Zompetti, 2006). Taking this information into account, the teacher wanted to find a way to connect English to the students’ lives, and thus the unit on ‘Othering’ was conceived.

When planning a unit on Othering, it’s important to include a wide variety of texts from voices apart from their own, their peers, or the teachers. Using a wide variety of articles on topics such as refugees in Australia (from the point of view of the refugees) can assist in opening a dialogue between students and forces them to confront Othering in different contexts. As proven by this study, having a unit that focuses on Othering can be resourceful, open, inclusive and incredibly informative. Students can choose to perform their summative assessment pieces using a variety of modes that will no doubt tap into their personal interests and skills.

The conclusion of this study found that the unit on Othering successfully found a way to open students up to the idea that English could be approached. Having a classroom where students find themselves as the main contributors, and not just subordinate bystanders can really impact how they view education as a whole.

References:

Knight, A. (2009). Re-ngaging students disengaged with English: A unit of work on othering. English Teaching, 8(1), 112-124.

Zompetti, J. (2006). Embracing a critical communication pedagogy: A radical examination of the common communication course. Radical Pedagogy, 8(2).

Log 5: Authentic Learning for ESL students

Through my research and reading over the past weeks, I have identified many different forms of practice and pedagogy that can be implemented into my future classroom.

However this week I have stumbled across something I am finding quite uniquely powerful and interesting in terms of ESL student engagement.

The practice of ‘authentic learning’ stems from the social-constructivist theories of education.  Its main purpose is to adapt in class content and pedagogy to suit the cultural, ethnic background of non-English speaking students.

Because the hegemonic culture within Australian schools is that of a the white, Anglo-Saxon archetype, many ESL students from vastly different backgrounds are isolated from the content and practices and therefore restricted from thriving and progressing in mainstream schools. 

What authentic learning practices is the concept of utilising the prior knowledge of ESL students and combining it with relevant, real-world text and materials.

Relevant content and materials are defined as resources that are culturally, ethnically, religiously, politically, and environmentally relevant to the ESL student’s past, background, and experiences.  Through utilising these resources, it is believed that students are more engaged with the work set out for them. If engagement is increased this means that authentic meaning is found within the work.

Once students find meaning and relevance within the content they are studying, they become empowered and are far more likely to progress and achieve at a higher standard. 

References / Bibliography

Burridge, N. (2009). Addressing the challenges of cultural diversity in our schools, Curriculum & Leadership Journal. (7) 25.

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language . London: Longman

Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (4), 269-283.

Zwahlen, C. P. (2017). Authentic learning: Boosting ELL language and academic proficiency development. The International Schools Journal, 36(2), 37.

Log 4: Importance of high-order, intellectually challenging work for ESL students

In previous logs discussion has centred on methods that have been found to be beneficial for ESL students attempting coursework in mainstream classes. They have had a micro-orientated focus, and this log will instead look view the issue of ESL engagement through a macro lens.

Historically the practice for engaging ESL students has centred on coursework that is of a typically lower-order of intellectual engagement (Newman, 1996). This practice stemmed from the incorrect notion that in order for ESL students to develop consistently throughout their schooling experience, they must have attempted work aimed below the estimated cognitive ability (Hammond, 2008). This practice is an artifact of many social issues and problematic beliefs surrounding immigrant students and their overall intelligence and ability to adapt to new surroundings and classroom practices (Gibbons, 2002). What is now known is that the exact opposite form of pedagogy should be implemented, and for ESL students to flourish in mainstream Australian schools they must be challenged with high-order, dynamic and engaging intellectual coursework (Hammond, 2008).

Students learning English as an additional language must be exposed to intellectually challenging coursework in order to develop and grow more effectively as learners (Ramsey, 2000). This is in part due to the need for individuals who are undervalued and underappreciated to feel a need responsibility and tangibility in the work that they are completing (Gibbon, 2006). Coursework must be engaging, age-appropriate and most importantly relatable to their lives and the experiences they are likely to be going through (Newman, 1996). High order, intellectually challenging work has been consistently shown to result in better academic outcomes for diverse background students (Hammond, 2008). Hammond (2008) states that “programs characterised by higher order thinking and deep understanding, substantive conversation and elaborated written communication result in overall improved students’ academic performance”. A consistent theme throughout research surrounding the implementation of high-order programs for ESL students is the need for appropriate frameworks and scaffolding for educators as well.

In order for these new programs to be successful, it is claimed that classroom practices and pedagogy must be representative of highly-structured, highly-supportive learning environments (Gibbons, 2006). Teachers must undergo consistent and quality professional develop of these skills (Hammond, 2008., Ramsey, 2000) and work towards using interactive, collaborative practices that utilise content related to the lives and interests of all their students (Gibbons, 2006., Hammond, 2008)

References

Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. London: Continuum.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching ESL      children in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth US: Heinemann.

Hammond, J. (2008). Challenging pedagogies: Engaging ESL students in intellectual quality.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, the, 31(2), 101-105.

Newman, F. M., & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring         schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical   choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education. Sydney: NSW             Department of Education and Training.

Log 3: Reading comprehension and critical literacy in EAL/D students.

The practice of teaching to students who are acquiring a second language, and often still building skills in their original dialect, is complex and multifaceted. Not only is it necessary to tailor pedagogy to additional needs, teachers must also consider how diverse these needs will be among their EAL/D learners. In modern Australian curriculums where emphasis on literacy exists, future educators must find a way to connect new language comprehension (reading particularly) to new language literacy in the most effective way possible.

If history is anything to judge from, the English classrooms of the future will still have a dependence on the skill of reading. Reading comprehension for EAL/D  students is a present issue, as debate continues around how comprehension should be generated. Comprehension is so important as Alford and Jetnikoff (2011) point out, as “the issue of literacy in the new language becomes critical for their academic success and social integration”.  Miller (2013) states that for EAL/D students “research has identified the need to combine literacy strategies with second language principles to scaffold students’ comprehension of texts”. This equates to students learning principle concepts such as vocabulary, grammar, and syntax parallel to critical thinking and literacy skills.  It is established that literacy cannot exist without comprehension (Hutchinson et al, 2003) and Miller (2013) again points out that comprehension is developed through meaningful engagements with concepts and vocabulary. Burgoyne et al (2009) discussed that meaningful engagement with concepts rests with the teachers ability to connect the experiences and value systems of students with relatable and current content in the classroom.  Miller (2013) backed this by claiming that that “connecting textual meanings to students’ lives is both necessary and possible in communicative literacy pedagogy”. If we consider that reading in an additional language requires an engagement with new social and cultural understandings, ensuring that content and texts are socially relevant and current will stand to benefit students greatly (Miller, 2013. Burgoyne, 2009). As for the importance of vocabulary, Aliharbi (2015) stated that “lexical competence is the main difference between language learners and native speakers of the target language”. Future educators must do away with the archaic notions of vocabulary drills and exercises that stripped all learning of context and consequence, and instead should be meaningful, authentic, and contextualised (Miller, 2013). Aliharbi (2015) reaffirms this concept; “language learners need to master both spoken and written forms of vocabulary and distinguish its meaning and context to craft successful meaningful connections socially and mentally”.

Contextual comprehension leads to critical literacy.  And these concepts are vital for learners to connect  and find meaning in their new world. Hutchinson et al. (2003) determined that “Comprehension of text is paramount for facilitating vocabulary learning and expanding world knowledge and critical thinking”.  In relation to EAL/D learners, the attainment of comprehension and critical thinking skills has a heightened importance. Alford & Jetnikoff (2011) state critical literacy means examining texts and their semiotics choices to reveal power relations and ideologically-motivated reader positioning. Critically literate EAL/D learners have the best opportunity to engage and find meaning in the new languages and home.

References

Alford, J., & Jetnikoff, A. (2011). High challenge teaching for senior English as an additional language learners in times of change. English in Australia, 46(1), 11–20.

Alharbi, A. M. (2015). Building vocabulary for language learning: Approach for ESL learners to study new vocabulary. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 501-511.

Burgoyne, K., Kelly, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., & Spooner, A. (2009). The comprehension skills of children learning english as an additional language. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 735-747

Hutchinson, J., M., Whiteley, H., E., smith, C., D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 19–32.

Miller, J. (2013). Communicative literacy pedagogy : Engaging EAL students in reading comprehension. English in Australia, 48(1), 36-45.

Effectively engaging ESL students

Upon reflecting on my own classroom experiences as a pre-service teacher, the process of engaging ESL learners proved most challenging. The importance of cultivating an equitable classroom for all my students is paramount, so further research and a deeper understanding of how to create such an inclusive learning environment is vital as a future educator.

The tribulations faced by ESL students cannot be ignored before designing processes that aim to better educate them. It is well established that immigrant students face a range of obstacles that prevent them from succeeding in mainstream systems (Lee & Walsh, 2015). Isolation due to language barriers, as well as stark cultural and social distinctions limit ESL learner integration. The reality is that due to their economic standing, many attend under-resourced and ill-prepared schools, meaning they face deficit perspectives which result in their cultural, linguistic, and academic identities being further marginalised (Lee & Walsh, 2015). As it stands there is a plethora of literature and recommendations instructing educators how to properly accommodate their most vulnerable students. A leading example from this is the idea of collaborative assessment with non-ESL learners (Case, 2015).

The practice of designing and setting tasks and assessment instruments wherein groups of students, made of a mix of English fluent and ESL, are made to work together collaboratively and creatively has proven highly successful. As Case (2015) highlights, the direct benefits from approaches like this include “linguistic development and awareness, support in academic learning, cross-cultural understanding, and friendship”. His studies also ask that when asking ESL learners to participate in activities with their peers, that teachers supply linguistic and cultural scaffolding, and structure lesson plans around the collaborative and creative process (Case, 2015).

Another recommendation asks teacher to expose their students to concepts of social justice and injustice. These expansive areas of study often include marginalised voices, their efforts to gain recognition activates emotional responses in learners. By exposing students it is understood that their interest and willingness to participate increases greatly (Lee & Walsh, 2015). Themes across a social justice pedagogy may include; the provision of meaningful and challenging academic content, focus of multicultural relevance and an emphasis on developing critical dispositions that lead to student action and autonomy (Lee & Walsh, 2015).  Cochran-Smith (2004) adds that the introduction of a social justice pedagogy encourages teachers to engage in social action, to challenge larger education and social inequities and therefore lead to a greater understanding and appreciation for the identities of their ESL students.

Finally, Bee et al. (2013) suggests that most importantly there needs to be a shift from traditional educational focuses to a more Habit of Mind (HoM) centred pedagogy. This involves moving from standardized ‘teach and test’ pedagogies to something far more fluid and individual. HoM views knowledge as something that is co-constructed through interaction among peers, leading to elaboration and greater understanding of yourself and those around you. Students negotiate meaning through collaboration and exploration and arrive at a shared understanding (Bee et al., 2013).

These are just some broad idea’s that when effectively implemented, may lead to ESL students in mainstream classes achieving more and feeling far more comfortable with themselves and their peers.

 References: 

Bee, M. S. H., Seng, G. H., & Jusoff, K. (2013). Habits of mind in the ESL classroom. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 130.

Case, A. (2015). Beyond the language barrier: Opening spaces for ELL/Non-ELL interaction.Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 361-382.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. NY: Teachers College Press.


Lee, S. J., & Walsh, D. (2015). Teaching (in)justice: One teacher's work with immigrant english learners. The Urban Review, 47(1), 45-66.