2H

2019

Research Teaching and

Learning 2
ASSESSMENT TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
LIAM CULHANE 18361777
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

How do low socio-economic status (SES) students’ experiences affect their engagement
in class, and what accommodations do teacher to make to engage students in
successfully achieving outcomes?

Table of Contents
Review of Literature: ........................................................................................................ 2
Action Research Protocol: ................................................................................................. 5
Research Documentation: ................................................................................................. 7
Analysis Methods..................................................................................................................... 7
Thematic Analysis Scaffold: ...................................................................................................... 8
Consent Documentation ........................................................................................................ 10
References...................................................................................................................... 12

1
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

Review of Literature:
The literature constructs a broad understanding of low SES student daily experiences, and the
internal and external factors that inform their interactions with the world. Karimshah et. al.
(2013), Ryan (2017), Callow and Orlando (2015), and Kailo, Kaippinen and Erola (2016) all
directly refer or allude to the experiences of low SES students as defined by persisting social,
cultural or economic disadvantage and deprivation. This disadvantage is closely tied to the
home environment and the patterns that emerge there from the interaction of structures and
past events, which are subsequently internalised by students. This discourse affirms that low
SES student’s identities are informed by histories of social issues, family conflict and
complications, financial difficulties, unemployment and housing complications. Additional
contributing risk factors suggested by authors include experiences of: geographical isolation
(Callow and Orlando, 2015), persisting personal or family health problems (Karimshah et. al.,
2013), physical and verbal abuse (Realy, 2002), low-educated single parent homes, and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage (Ryan, 2017). In response to past research
trends and judgements which have traced singular disadvantage factors and yielded
commentary contemporary research judges as either overestimated or underestimated, the
above authors all recognise the multi-dimensional, interconnected and persistent nature of
disadvantage within low SES student circumstances and how the interplay of factors
develops student cultural capital. The persistent multidimensionality of disadvantage and its
impact on cultural capital is exemplified by Kailo, Kaippinen and Erola (2016), who
highlight how family reliance on welfare and parental indifference toward status maintenance
through education, can become internalised learned expectations in students – aggravating a
poor education outcomes cycle. However, it must be noted that the authors do risk devaluing
low SES student’s cultural capital as inherently deficit (Zingier, 2017). These factors do
contribute to literature’s reference to low SES students as ‘at risk’ – referring to their social
and psychological health and its close relationship with their academic performance and
future (Zingier, 2017). While their ability to perform academically statistically is negatively
impacted, their cultural capital remains worthy of being valued.

Research links these experiences of disadvantage as observable predictive factors negatively

impacting the likelihood of low SES students finishing secondary school (Kailo, Kaippinen &
Erola, 2016). More specifically, this trend is emblematic of the lower level of education,
lower quality of education and lower access to education experienced by low SES students,

2
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

as a direct cause of disengagement with the classroom and the education system as a whole
(Ryan, 2017). This disengagement can stem from low or little educational support from
family, who might value early entry into the workforce as a resilient response to poverty or
feel an intergenerational distrust of the education system, in comparison to a context with the
resources to foster a supportive-learning environment and the improvement of family status
(Kailo, Kaippinen & Erola, 2016; Karimshah et. al., 2013). While this is a likely dimension
of influence, Callow and Orlando (2015) support Zammit’s (2011) observation that
engagement in school is linked to feeling connected to the school community, particularly
having positive relationships with students and teachers, while Reay (2002) emphasises the
importance of low SES students identifying classwork as relevant. Therefore, disengagement
is the alienation of students from class and school (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway,
2014). Academic literature agrees that this alienation exists at an institutional level, which
manifests in contemporary neoliberal high stakes-based pedagogy, curriculum and
assessment’s lack of valuing or engagement of low SES student’s cultural capital. Excluding
low SES students from representation in knowledge building and school discourses ensures a
growing divide in student perceptions of content relevance, but by ignoring their learning
needs, low SES student’s willingness to engage is exacerbated as their belief in their ability
to succeed diminishes (Karimshah et. al., 2013; Zammit, 2011). In response, negative student
behaviours develop as a needs-concealment strategy to avoid work and therefore failure,
which breeds further negative relationships as teachers enforce their power (Sullivan,
Johnson, Owens & Conway, 2014). Even in the context where low SES students desire to
learn, their identity is caught within this deficit dichotomy: their internal emotional world
defined by their low SES context and their own beliefs about their ability, competing with the
external structures deficit expectations and reputation imposed on them (Reay, 2002).

Understanding the multiplicity of factors impacting low SES students and informing their
experience of education, emphasises the teacher’s place at the centre of these internal and
external barriers to low SES student’s belonging and success. Zingier (2017) cautions against
the view of school engagement being both problem and solution to student disadvantage,
stating it chances ignoring individual student risk-factors. While an older source, the
relevance of Reay’s (2002) case study and contribution to this caution cannot be ignored, as it
models this tension between Shaun’s personal desire to achieve academically and respect
female teachers based on his single mothers’ expectations, with his physical identity and
subsequent racial and gendered social expectations of his male peers. While a teacher or

3
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

school cannot always compete with the overwhelming social pressures on low-SES student
identities, a teacher’s ability to recognise and navigate these external risk-factors in order
meet the needs of the classroom ecology is certainly a strong protective factor (Sullivan,
Johnson, Owens & Conway, 2014). Zammit (2011) and Callow and Orlando (2015) insist
that the delivery of pedagogy, curriculum and assessment imbued with engaging messages
requires explicit instruction and student-responsive framing, focalised through situated
learning connected to place community. Education practice authentically framed around
student needs inevitably include students in pedagogical discourse, thus privileging and
aligning their cultural capital and self-concept with their education (Zammit, 2011; Zyngier,
2017). With students co-creating the ‘what’ of pedagogical knowledge, a teacher-facilitated
devotion to critical framing, scaffolding and professional reflective practice is agreed to
ensure the ‘how’ of practice is supported – a key learning element which traditionally
alienates low-SES students from success (Zammit, 2017). The importance of this inclusive
discourse in making the low SES student and therefore learning relevant, is exemplified by
‘The Fair Go Pedagogy’ framework (Callow & Orlando, 2015). This framework prioritises
high cognitive, high affective and high operative experiences at school, supported by
community reflective processes involving teacher-student reflection, teacher feedback and
student self-assessment. This acknowledges and challenges Zyngier’s (2017) criticism of
transformative practice offering low intellectual stimulation for the sake of student
engagement, while promoting student equity and self-efficacy (Karimshah et. al., 2013).
Ultimately, this framework is emblematic of reflective paradigm shifts in pedagogy and
curriculum by individual teachers and faculties, in the face of broad instructional barriers
which limit transformative practice (Zyngier, 2017).

4
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

Action Research Protocol:

While literature offers multiple perspectives regarding the ways low SES student’s
experiences affect their engagement in class, and pedagogical considerations for teachers
involved in working with them – the education frameworks available are limited to
theoretical discussion without guiding questions or examples of success. The collection and
analysis of teaching and learning artefacts, therefore acts as a strategy to collect practical
teaching data that clearly reflects the planning, instruction and assessment considerations and
strategies used by teachers in low-SES schools. Artefact analysis is widely agreed to provide
rich insight into the cultural capital and experiences of specific environments while reflecting
accurately the considerations and time taken to create them (Kervin et. al., 2016). Artefacts
may include planning documents designed in response to low SES student academic and
engagement needs, work samples that reflect this planning, photographs of whiteboards with
class discussion points, and self-reflection documents from students and teachers. It must be
noted that the bulk of literature discussing work sample artefact analysis in education,
including the referenced Sariscsany (2010), Stobaugh, Tassell and Norman (2010) and
Sutherland and Goodway (2010) is nearly a decade old; which at first glance raises concern
about its validity as a method. Given the ethnographic nature of action research aimed at
recording the teaching and learning experiences of low SES schools, the collection of
artefacts is a logical data collection method enabling the compiling of raw best teaching
practice data (Sariscsany, 2010). To ensure validity, teacher self-reflections will be submitted
with each artefact explaining the design process.

Three high schools located in low SES areas with documented low SES student communities
will be approached and asked to volunteer one teacher each whom they believe to have an
effective classroom practice inclusive of low SES students. Each teacher will select three low
SES students from two of their classes: one high-performing, one average-performing, and
one low-performing student; to scrutinise the boundaries of instruction and engagement and
the teacher’s ability to produce learning regardless of performance level (Stobaugh, Tassell &
Norman, 2010; Sutherland & Goodway, 2010). Teachers will collect 3-5 professional
artefacts per class, that demonstrate their accommodation and engagement of low SES
students’ knowledge, learning needs and external factors, and reflect on each stage of the
‘Critical Thinking Framework’ –inquiry, problem solving, instructional and assessment
development, application and reflection using the protocol proforma over the one-term period

5
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

(Sariscsany, 2010). Additionally, teachers will collect three student work samples per class
further evidence. Teachers and their schools will be approached at the end of the third term of
the school year, to participate in the study by creating and gathering resources. Term three
has been selected as teachers will be unlikely to consider participating if approached during
term four – the period for final exams, assessments and reports. Additionally, this timeframe
includes discussions about class makeup for the following year; the results of which may
inform their inquiry and problem-solving phase of their instruction and assessment planning
(Sariscsany, 2010). Permission from parents and teachers will be gained through participant
consent forms, distributed to participating teachers and selected students for parent
signatures. The form will also be sent via e-mail to parents of these classes one month before
artefact collection, to counter the limitation of parental permission when using student work
samples, designed to give parents advanced notice and seek further participation if required
(Kervin et. al., 2016). Artefacts will be collected for analysis at the end of term three,
allowing three terms for participants to demonstrate best practice refinement of teaching
based on reflection on practice, student contextual factors, and community mapping
(Stobaugh, Tassell & Norman, 2010; Sutherland & Goodway, 2010).

6
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

Research Documentation:
Analysis Methods

Given the diverse range of artefacts that will be submitted, ranging from planning documents,
student work samples, photographs, and self-reflection documents; artefacts will be
categorised as ether professional or student artefacts. These will be examined using thematic
analysis techniques, which highlight common low SES responsive attributes that extend
across all artefacts. This analysis will be organised around the planning for and presence of
high cognitive, high affective and high operative student experiences – the key themes of
‘The Fair Go Pedagogy’ framework discussed by Callow and Orlando (2015) used to
examine the practices of exemplary teachers which facilitate engagement. Additionally,
evidence of the FGP’s key processes through which the experiences are contextualised will
be assessed, namely: teacher inclusive conversations, student self-assessment, teacher
feedback, and student community of self-reflection. After reflecting on the current literature’s
emphasis on the situatedness of low SES student cultural capital and its centrality to their
engagement, the element of ‘community mapping’ has been added to the analyses FGP
processes to include the inquiry and reflection upon contextual factors influencing individual
low SES students and the school more generally. Using the below thematic analysis scaffold,
common themes across students, classes and teachers can be analysed:

7
Thematic Analysis Scaffold:

Key guiding analysis questions:

What are the common external factors influencing low SES students?
How are low SES students being actively engaged through the planning, instruction and assessment of their learning?
What common themes extend across the planning, instruction and assessment for engagement?

FAIR GO PEDAGOGY ACCOMMODATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT MARKERS

LITERATURE
HIGH COGNITIVE
(DRIVES LEARNING
CURRICULUM CONTENT)
HIGH AFFECTIVE
(NURTURES CLASS AS A
LEARNING COMMUNITY)
HIGH OPERATIVE
(SCAFFOLDS LEARNING)
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

Artefact: ___________________
Topic: ______________________ Evidence of Fair Go Pedagogy Processes

Student community of self-reflection

Community mapping

Teacher feedback

Teacher inclusive conversations

Student self-assessment

Common themes identified

9
Consent Documentation

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled ‘Low SES Students’ Experiences of Engagement in Class’ for
the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of
the project, I am collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research
proposal.
I will be conducting research in response to the question – “How do low socio-economic
status (SES) students’ experiences affect their engagement in class, and what
accommodations do teacher to make to engage students in successfully achieving
outcomes? ”. Literature reflects a strong relationship between low SES student identities
and disengagement in class, which is closely linked to student underperformance and the
perpetuation of low SES standards. To compliment a review of this literature, I am collecting
teacher and student work samples for artefact analysis, to evaluate the pedagogical
methods used by teachers at schools in low SES areas to engage and support their students,
and the effect of these methods on student achievement.

By signing this student and teacher sample permission form, I acknowledge that:
 I have read the project information [or where appropriate, ‘have had read to me the
project information’] and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained
to me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my
satisfaction.
 I consent to the use of my pedagogical work samples for analysis [or where
appropriate, ‘I consent to the use of my child’s work samples for analysis’].
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained
during this data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of
the ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be
de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my
relationship with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time

university student who is 17 years old.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17

years old, and provide my consent for the person’s participation.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________

11
 Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

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

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

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

Kallo, J.M., Kauppinen, T.M., & Erola, J. (2016). European Sociological Review, 32(5), pp. 649-

661.

Karimshah, A., Wyder, M., Henman, P., Tay, D., Capelin, E., & Short, P. (2013). Overcoming

adversity among low SES students. Australian Universities Review, 55(2), pp. 5-15.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okley, T. (2016). Collecting data: techniques

and principles. In Research for educators (pp. 71-102). South Melbourne, VIC: Centrage

Learning Australia.

Reay, D. (2002). Shaun’s story: troubling discourses of white working-class masculinities. Gender

and Education, 14(3), 221-234.

Ryan, C. (2017). Policy forum: Public investment in disadvantaged children. Social Disadvantage

and Education, 50(3), pp. 338-347.

Sariscsany, M.J. (2010). Using teacher work samples to develop and assess best practices in physical

education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 81(1),

34-39.

Stobaugh, R.R., Tassell, J.L., & Norman, A.D. (2010). Improving preservice teacher preparation

through the teacher work sample: Exploring assessment and analysis of student learning.

Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), pp. 39-53.

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them?

Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of

Education, 39(6), 42-56.

12
 Researching Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

Sutherland, S., & Goodway, J. (2010). The role of teacher work samples in developing effective and

reflective physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,

81(2), pp. 51-57l.

Zammit, K.P. (2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-

economic backgrounds: Using Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and

Education, 25(3), 202-220.

Zyngier, D. (2017). Left numb and unengaged. (Re)conceptualsing risk: What (seems to) work for at

-risk students. Social Sciences, 6(1), 1-17.

13