Research is a key practice in being an effective teacher (Cordingley, 2015)...

Through a critical analysis

of the article, a lesson plan will be amended to better integrate informed practice by using
technology in a low SES classroom. These amendments will be made to reflect Callow and Orlando’s
call for high cognitive, affective and operative use of technology to enhance student engagement
and support teacher’s practical approach to classroom learning….

… Callow and Orlando (2015) use the “’e’ngagement- ‘E’ngagement (MeE) conceptual framework as
a method of understanding the complexity of these relationships, which is especially important
considering the inherent complexity already involved in understanding the inequality factors
effecting low SES students. Contextualising and acknowledging these factors, it can then be argued
that effective, individualised pedagogy must be developed to make a lasting impact on students that
experience poverty (Jones, & McLean, 2012…. Often topics such as the carbon cycle are effectively
impossible to visualise within the classroom. As such pairing electronic interfaces with face to face
learning, students can attain a deeper knowledge of the subject (Krajcik, 2002; Herga, Čagran, &
Dinevski, 2016).

… Callow and Orlando (2015) argue that technological literacy is a critical part of this framework and
should be valued equally with other forms of literacy. The article suggests that patterns of
technological literacy once analysed under three lenses, broke down to high cognitive, high affective
and high operative functions. These functions “drive learning curriculum content, Nurtures the class
as a learning community and scaffolds learning” respectively…

When analysed in the context of the subject of the Science KLA, the issue of technology use is
critical. Through developing an important framework that is able to effectively shape curriculum to
meet each students’ individualised needs, Callow and Orlando’s (2015) research can shape
classrooms. This research is important for Science classrooms as often scientific ideas, and
metalanguage are lost and thus incorporating technology in a way that synergises with face to face
learning, that is interactive whilst also developing the ideas presented in the curriculum, allows low
SES students’ understanding to be enhanced. In addition to this, building a classroom community
through technology, such as viewing multimodal texts and modelling a variety of texts as a class,
empowers students and develops their sense of agency. Lastly, scaffolding literacy learning using
technology such as interactive white boards to connect with the outside community. …

…Modifications to an activity can be used to explore the effectiveness of the findings presented. The
chosen activity is a stage 4 Science lesson on Earth and Space sciences, focusing in on the activity on
the carbon cycle (see Figure 1 & 2). Each student is individually given a worksheet for the lesson, to
work through a set of tasks. The task focused on to change, asks students to describe how the
carbon cycle works using an illustration (Figure 1.). The activity does not integrate technology at all
into its use directly. The information is presented in a single image that is printed on to a worksheet
but could also be projected for the whole class to look at. However, that would be a superficial use
at best, and does not align with the suggestions of the article for high cognitive, affective and
operative use. Students are then asked, “What happens to carbon dioxide after it is emitted into the
atmosphere?” and given another image to look at (Figure 2.). This image is of the absorption and
release function of trees as carbon sinks in the carbon cycle. Low SES students are recognised as
being sociocultural incongruous with the institutions they study at. Thus, extra measures must be
taken to ensure that the deficit is neither students’ nor the school’s responsibility alone, and that
specific classroom solutions are developed to bridge the gap. The lesson purely establishes
curriculum, and does very little to promote classroom community or scaffold learning for students….
….The MeE conceptual framework suggested by the article can be applied to the selected lesson to
improve the lesson for low SES students. The modification for the lesson would integrate technology
to be highly cognitive, affective and operative; the curriculum would be communicated in a more
supportive manner which utilised the synergy of screen based learning and face-to-face learning, as
well as nurturing the classroom dynamics/ sense of community, and drawing on prior knowledge to
aid the process of scaffolding students’ learning (Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014;
Callow & Orlando 2015). By using an interactive whiteboard instead of a worksheet, the class can
simultaneously work together to bring forward ideas. These ideas can then be directly scaffolded by
the teacher for the quality of work desired, whilst ensuring the content is understood to a
meaningful level (Warwick & Mercer, 2011). Introducing the topic as a guided research question
integrates students and gives them agency over their own learning, removing the teacher as the sole
font of knowledge whilst also developing students’ investigative skills (Becker, 2000)….

….Introducing independent work can be a daunting task, particularly for students who fall into the
“at risk” category, thus why working collaboratively in groups can help to facilitate the acquisition of
knowledge. Studies have shown that students understand and retain information more efficiently if
has been passed on by their peers; at the same time, teaching classmates the content is a highly
effective way of retaining information and demonstrates a higher understanding of the curriculum
(O'Donnell, & O'Kelly, 1994; Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik, 1996; Panadero, Jonsson, &
Strijbos, 2016). The Carbon Cycle game (see Figure 2.), produced by BrainPop (2019), is a versatile
digital classroom tool which students can play on their own as well as collaboratively in teams with
other students in the class. The game would be introduced to the students as the last activity of the
lesson. Students may form two groups (Red team and blue team) and work their way through the
game logically. There is an element of competitiveness to the game which would increase the
engagement toward the activity (Johnson, Johnson, & Bryant, 1973)…..

….The article “Enabling exemplary teaching: a framework of student engagement for students from
low socioeconomic backgrounds with implications for technology and literacy practices” by Callow
and Orlando (2015) is well constructed and provides sound concepts for research implementation to
teachers. Using the MeE framework discussed in the article, a Science lesson plan was altered to be
better suited for low SES students. This exemplifies progressive education and the importance of
teacher research and its critical application for developing successful classrooms.
 Appendix

Figure 1 & 2. The Carbon Cycle (Source: Australian Curriculum Lessons, 2016)

Figure 2. Carbon
Cycle Game
(Source: BrainPop,
2019)
 References
Australian curriculum lessons (2016). Global Systems Impacting Our Planet – A 15-
Page Science Resource For Year 10. Retrieved from
https://www.australiancurriculumlessons.com.au/2016/12/29/global-systems-
impacting-planet-15-page-science-resource-year-10/
Becker, H. J. (2000). Pedagogical motivations for student computer use that lead to
student engagement. Educational Technology, 40(5), 5-17. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428608
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with
peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational
researcher, 25(8), 37-39.
BrainPop. (2019). Carbon Cycle Game. Retrieved from
https://www.brainpop.com/games/carboncyclegame/
Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning
and development. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 234-252.
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011).
The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to
support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education, (1)17, 1-16. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/UsingTechnology.pdf
Devlin, M., Nelson, K., Kift, K., Smith, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and
support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for
teaching staff. Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/Practical%20Advice%20for%20Teaching
%20Staff.pdf
Herga, N. R., Čagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of
dynamic visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(3), 593-608.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1224a
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the
digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in
Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648-1663.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Bryant, B. (1973). Cooperation and competition in
the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 74(3), 172-181. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1000840
Jones, M. M., & McLean, K. J. (2012). Personalising Learning in Teacher Education
through the Use of Technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 75-
92. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1604&context=ajte
Krajcik, J. S. (2002). The value and challenges of using learning technologies to
support students in learning science. Research in Science education, 32(4), 411-414.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022440215857
Luu, K., & Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information
and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia.
Computers & Education, 56(4), 1072-1082.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.008
Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., . . . Steele,
F. (2007). Motivation and engagement of boys : Evidence-based teaching practices.
Boys in Schools Bulletin, 10(2), 26-36.
Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard
classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4). Retrieved from
https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1062/322
O'Donnell, A. M., & O'Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of
positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 321-349.
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated
learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom
implementation. In Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of
implementation (pp. 311-326). Springer, Cham.
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 Teacher Education, 39(6), n6.
Teese, R. (2007). Structural inequality in Australian education. In International
studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (pp. 374-396). Springer,
Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_14
Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2016). PISA 2015: A first look at
Australia’s results.
Warwick, P., & Mercer, N. (2011). Using the interactive whiteboard to scaffold pupils’
learning of science in collaborative group activity. ESRC Project RES-000-22-2556,
with Ruth Kershner and Judith Kleine Staarman, University of Cambridge.