Edited SAMPLE

Researching Teaching & Learning – 102096 – 1H 2019

Assignment 2: Engagement with an Educational Issue
Patrick Griffin – 19812351
2195 Words
Selected Article: 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), 1-23.

Key Learning Area: Geography

Lesson Activity (screenshot included in appendix): New South Wales Department of
Education (n.d.). Stages 4 and 5 Geography programming: Landscapes and landforms, Retrieved
from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-areas/hsie/s4-
5/geography/programming
Research Implications for Student Engagement Through the Pedagogical
Facilitation of Technology in Low Socioeconomic Contexts

Introduction

The engagement of students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds presents challenges

to professional teaching practices and requires evidence-based pedagogical approaches to address

the needs of students at risk of disengagement. This issue is examined by Callow & Orlando’s (2015)

article by analysing exemplary teaching practice in facilitating technology in literacy learning in low

SES contexts.

(Dis)engagement of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds is often framed by resistance

theory (Willis, 1977) that characterises disaffection and estrangement from education and the

resulting behavioural issues or academic failure (Sever, 2012, p. 658). Students from low

socioeconomic backgrounds have statistically poorer academic outcomes (Orlando & Sawyer, 2013,

p. 4) and are at greater risk of poor engagement within the classroom and school participation. The

importance of this issue in teaching practice is highlighted through the Melbourne Declaration on

Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008) which commits to addressing the

engagement of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The emphasis on student

engagement and meaningful inclusion of low SES students is explicitly targeted in pedagogical

frameworks such as the Fair Go Project’s Student Engagement Framework (Munns & Sawyer, 2013,

p. 20) which also shares similar pedagogical principles outlined in the New South Wales (NSW)

Quality Teaching Model (Gore, 2007).

While students from low SES backgrounds are more likely have less, or no access to meaningful

digital technologies at home, they may also lack the cultural capital and resources to utilise

technology for meaningful learning (Orlando, 2013, p.138). Limited access to technology resources
observations (Callow & Orlando, 2016, p. 354), therefore providing greater contextual understanding

of the observations for analysis (Kervin, 2016, p. 77).

Findings and Analysis

The Fair Go framework is utilised as an existing instrument for participant teacher planning and

reflection, as a research observation tool, and later as an analytic framework of thematic coding to

elicit examples of effective pedagogical engagement through technology use in literacy. The

consistent use of this framework demonstrates the iterative consistency required of valid qualitative

analysis (Check & Schutt, 2012, p. 304). This approach systematically links the entire research

methodology to the implications for teaching practice, that recommend pedagogical commitment to

the domains of this framework. The findings and implications made by Callow & Orlando (2010) are

grounded in a research process that is articulated through the relevance of the literature review,

systematic methodology, data collection and analysis, supporting the validity of their

recommendations.

Learning Activity Assessment

Based on the findings of the aforementioned article, this analysis will examine the pedagogical

implications for a stage four geography learning activity in investigating landscapes and landforms

(NSW Department of Education, n.d., p. 4). The activity involves students selecting a landscape from

a list and conducting research to identify the landscape’s location, landforms and features for the

purpose of writing a hypothetical article for a school magazine. In developing this article, students

utilise multiple tools of geographic enquiry (BOSTES, 2015, p. 29) such as maps, atlases, geographic

coordinates and images in order to: label a map, construct line drawings and summarise information

in a table.
This learning activity has potential to promote the engagement of low SES students through the task

of writing for a hypothetical magazine article, utilising community connectedness (Callow & Orlando,

2015, p. 366) and various geographic tools of enquiry, reflecting some evidence of High affective and

High operative strategies (p. 356). The interrelation of tasks demonstrates the intellectually engaging

attributes of the activity that reflect the high cognitive domain of the Fair Go Project Framework that

is shared with the NSW Quality Teaching Model (Gore, 2007) including deep understanding, deep

knowledge, and higher order thinking. However, the integration of technology and other elements

within the activity are not supported by Callow & Orlando’s findings (Callow & Orlando, 2015, p. 366)

and may even be counterproductive to low SES student engagement.

The findings by Callow & Orlando suggest this activity has weaknesses regarding the lack of

purposeful facilitation of technology (p. 367) and a lack of synergy and scaffolding in linking tasks

within the activity. While the range of tasks combine text, images and inquiry tools to create a

multimodal and challenging learning experience, the lack of continuity between tasks is not

remedied by the presence of technology, which is more likely to promote off-task behaviour and

disengagement (Orlando, 2013, p. 146). In addition, the activity is framed to be hypothetically

relevant through a school magazine article, but does not capitalise on the High operative notion of

connectedness to build on students’ knowledge of their own geographical context. The learning

activity does not specify meaningful pedagogical facilitation of technology use beyond instructing

students to “use the internet and other reference material” (NSW Department of Education n.d., p.

4). Callow & Orlando (2015) state that the student learning should utilise technology to scaffold

learning through high operative strategies and synergise technology use with face-to-face learning

(p. 365). However, this learning activity is not specific enough; it lacks explicit instruction or criteria

(Gore, 2007, pp. 21-22) regarding internet research or technology use. This demonstrates the role of
technology in this activity as merely a ‘use’ (Orlando, 2013, p. 139) rather than a strategic

implementation that facilitates intellectual engagement through a range of experiences.

Implications for Teaching Practice and Revisions

The findings of Callow & Orlando (2015) demonstrate the importance of meaningful pedagogical

instruction in the facilitation of technology as a medium of enhancing student engagement (p. 366).

The implications for a reflective teaching practice require the strategic implementation of

technologically enhanced learning activities that comprehensively address the highly cognitive,

affective and operative domains outlined within the Fair Go Student Engagement Framework (pp.

356-361) in applying technology to geographical literacy learning. This requires lesson planning that

considers how the use of technology challenges students intellectually in accordance with the

relevant course outcomes. It also empowes students in understanding the learning process through

metacognition and fostering an environment that promotes the desire to participate and value the

learning experience. Specific applications in teaching practice include synergising computer activity

with in-class concepts and activities to enhance student understanding and improve collaborative

communication and pro-social relationships to promote purposeful engagement (Orlando, 2013, p.

141). Relevant teaching strategies are contextually specific to low SES settings and require

pedagogical implementation that is holistic and responsive to student needs.

Based on these implications for teaching practice, the learning activity in ‘landscapes and landforms’

(NSW Department of Education, n.d., p. 4; Appendix A) should be revised to holistically reflect

strategies identified across the highly cognitive, affective and operative domains that would facilitate

improved engagement and geographic literacy through technology use and pedagogical facilitation

in a low SES context.

Firstly, the activity should be revised to utilise the online geospatial tool of ‘Geoguessr’ (Geoguessr,

2013; Appendix B), as an initial implementation of technology, and ‘Google Earth’ (Appendix C), to

synergise analogue and digital geographic tools of enquiry, amending step one and two of the task

(NSW Department of Education, n.d., p. 4; Appendix A). Geoguessr is an educational geospatial game

that utilises ‘Google Earth’ data, enabling students to simultaneously interrogate visual

representations and spatial technologies by challenging students to identify and locate landscapes,

as outlined by syllabus outcomes (BOSTES, 2015, p. 29). ‘Google Earth’ should then be used to

synergise the tasks of compiling maps, images and data for the task, informing steps three and four.

The format of ‘Geoguessr’ and ‘Google Earth’ enable a High affective enjoyable and motivating

learning experience, including the High operative scaffolding of students’ geographic literacy and

tools of enquiry. In addition, Favier & Van der Schee (2014) demonstrate that integrating geospatial

technologies with educational games within lesson plans can be motivational for students while also

effective in engaging students in higher order thinking (p. 228). This amended implementation of

technology demonstrates High cognitive strategies that synergise multiple task elements in an

engaging format to support student learning and intellectual engagement

Secondly, the pedagogical facilitation of the activity should be amended with teacher instruction of

an initial worked example of the ‘Geoguessr’ task to ensure appropriate on-task application of

technology, scaffolding the learning of low SES students who may lack digital literacy skills (Orlando,

2013, p. 138). Students’ choice of ‘landscape’ from a class list should instead be derived from

interest and be negotiated from the ‘Geoguessr’ activity to enable the possibility of student agency,

differentiation, promoting high expectations and intellectual challenge; with students working in

pairs, not individually. This enables High cognitive strategies through the synergy of face-to-face and

screen-based learning (p. 139), High affective shared decision making, turn taking, and pro-social

relationships (p. 141) through the addition of class-wide worked example and paired groupwork.
Appendix A: Learning Activity
New South Wales Department of Education (n.d.). Stages 4 and 5 Geography programming:

Landscapes and landforms, Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-

and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-areas/hsie/s4-5/geography/programming