1 / 8

Intervention Objectives

Intervention Objectives. To increase active participation in discussion and activities, within a year eleven Literature class Jessica Addy , 2012. Context. School. Alice. Sport captain for her house Documented strong literacy and numeracy skills “Bright” and “pleasant”

tameka
Download Presentation

Intervention Objectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intervention Objectives To increase active participation in discussion and activities, within a year eleven Literature class Jessica Addy, 2012

  2. Context School Alice Sport captain for her house Documented strong literacy and numeracy skills “Bright” and “pleasant” Participates and achieves well within in extra curricular creative writing competitions Demonstrates interest in classical literature Low participation in activities and discussions within the Literature classroom • 7-12, public, all girls’ school • Admission through ‘zoning’, individual application and International Program • Located in affluent, inner city suburb • Emphasis on academic excellence and leadership for girls • Strong academic and extra curricular programs

  3. Scaffolding Metalanguage “ I believe they are representing Thomas writing at night by the moonlight. He seems to be writing for the lovers and there are many references to this in the poem.” - Alice • Essential to have a mutual understanding of technical terms within any discussion (Locke, 2010) LUKE & FREEBODY (1990) CODE MEANING TEXT TEXT BREAKER MAKER USER CRITIC

  4. Implemented Strategies Collaborative and constructivist based activities • Character analysis • Creative writing place emulation • Formal passage analysis • Design of visual, interactive wiki page • Engaging with pages and work of other students Increased engagement through promoting: • Self ownership and autonomy (Perry, 1998) • Collaboration with peers (Vygotsky, 1978; Tudge, 1992) • Self evaluation (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000) • Differentiated learning through availability of multiple projects and outcomes (O’Donnel et al., 2012)

  5. Outcome “The giant ferris wheel looms underneath a desolate sky, every minute or two giving a rough, creaking sound with each small gust of wind that passes by.” -Alice “I like her hat.” “Cool bg :P” “COPY CAT same font”

  6. Influence of high stakes assessment on enacted curriculum Ideas supporting high stakes testing include: • Potential to improve learning standards and efforts through high stakes testing models (Ladd, 2008; Hargraeves & Fink 2004) • High stakes test scores closely mirror formative assessment scores, therefore impact is minimal (Greene et al., 2003) Criticisms include: • “Teaching to the test” (Darling-Hammond &Wise, 1985; Amrein & Berliner, 2002) • Reduction of curriculum (Pinar, 2004) • Increased institutional pressure due to publication of results (McWilliam et al., 2007) • Sanctions/rewards based on test performance has led some schools to become results focused rather than learning focused (Dweck, 1999; Mathers&King, 2001)

  7. References Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002). ‘High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.’ In, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 10. No. 18. Bandura, A. (2008). ‘Social cognitive theory.’ In, W. Donsback (Ed.) International encyclopaedia of communication. Vol. 10. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Pp 4654- 4659. Darling-Hammond and Wise (1985). Referenced in, Shepard, L. & Cutts Dougherty, K. (1991). Effects of high stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Education Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago. Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Michigan: Psychology Press. Edwards, C.H. (2004) ‘Creating a personal theory of discipline ’. In, Classroom discipline and management. New York : Wiley.Pp 263-279. Gardner, H. (2006). ‘In a nutshell’ (Chapter 1). In, Multiple Intelligences: new horizons. New York: Basic Books, pp 3-24. Gilbert, R. (2011). Teaching Society in Environment. Melbourne, Australia: CengageLearning. Greene, J.P., Winters, M.A. & Forster, G. (2003). Testing High Stakes Tests: Can we believe the results of accountability tests? Retrieved May 29, 2012 from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm. Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). ‘Engagement and Motivation in reading.’ In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal(eds.), Handbook of reading research. Vol 3. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp 403-422. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2004). ‘The seven principles of sustainable leadership.’ In, Educational Leadership. Vol 61. No. 7. Pp 8-13.

  8. Hembrow-Beach, R. (2001). Developing the Girl as a Leader. USA: University of California. Ladd, H. (2008) Rethinking the Way We Hold Schools Accountable. Retrieved May 29, 2012 from http://norberto.bottani.free.fr/spip/spip.php?article196. Locke, T. (2010). ‘Discovering a metalanguage for all seasons: Bringing literacy language in from the cold.’ In, The Grammar Wars. Routledge, pp 170-184. Luke, A., and Freebody, P. (1990). ‘Literacies Programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. In, Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL. Vol. 5. No. 7, pp 7-16. Mathers, J.K. & King, R.A. (2001). Teachers' Perceptions of Accountability. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, USA. McWillaim, E., Tayler, G., Perry, L. (2007). Learning or performance: What should educational leaders pay attention to? In, International Journal of Leadership in Education. Vol. 9. No. 2. Pp 97-109. Mercer, N., Dawes, L. & Staarman, J.K. (2009). ‘Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom.’ In, Language and Education. Vol 23. No. 4. pp 353- 369. O’Donnel, A., Dobozy, E., Bartlett, B. & Bryer, F. (2012). Educational Psychology. 1st Edition. Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd. Perry, N. (1998). ‘Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it.’ In, Journal of Educational Psychology. No. 90. Pp 715-729. Pinar, W. (2004). What is Curriculum Theory? USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Snowman et al. (2009). ‘Behavioural Learning Theory: Operant Conditioning.’ In, Psychology Applied to Teaching. 1st Australian Edition. Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd. Tudge, J.R.H. (1992). ‘Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis.’ In, Child Development. Vol. 63. Pp 1364-1379. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. L. (1997). ‘Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education.’ In, NISE Brief, Vol 1. No. 2. Pp 1-8.

More Related