Exploring Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Teachers’ Perspectives Assignment

Assignment Task

A review of responsive pedagogies Responsive pedagogies and engagement (focus on the learners) Responsive pedagogies in the classroom (with focus on the teaching) - You must use and link to your response the MeE framework You need to adopt a critical and evaluative stance where you provide clear details on the above areas but also provide an evaluation of your information.  You need to include a range of presentation and communication modes i.e., audio, video, images, text, graphics. Hyperlinks to research articles or papers,voice-overs, QR codes and roll-overs are all acceptable in this type of presentation. Note: all sources (text and images) need to be appropriately APA 7th referenced Your presentation needs to: - be critical and evaluative - engage the audience for the entire duration - inform the audience - present the main concepts clearly - allow the audience to gain greater depth of understanding, if necessary - be creative All About MeE: The Fair Go Program's Student Engagement Framework 25 March 2021 Issue: Semester 1 2021 Category: For your Classroom Geoff Munns has been involved as a researcher in all aspects of the Fair Go Program since its incepFtion, when a research partnership was formed with the Department's Priority Schools Program to consider what works for students and their teachers in schools in Sydney's South West. His publications over the 20 years have been across all the Fair Go projects, and have primarily focused on the development and implementation of the student engagement framework in schools serving low SES communities. Here he has worked closely with teachers, academics and students, and has highly valued listening to and sharing their ideas.

This article gives a brief introduction to the background and ideas behind the program's MeE Framework, as a guide to understanding how it has been important for the work described in all the articles in this edition. The articles in this Special Edition of the journal refer, directly or indirectly, to the MeE Framework. As explained in Katina Zammit's history of Fair Go in this edition, this framework has been central to the research and associated teaching changes carried out under the Fair Go Program over its 21 years. Small ‘e' and big ‘E' engagement” the ‘eE' of the MeE Framework A good place to start in understanding the MeE Framework is to go back to the earliest days of the research. When we set off to think about what would work in classrooms in low-Socio-Economic Status (SES) communities, we formed co-teaching and co-researching partnerships between academics and teachers in a number of schools in Sydney's South West.  These partnerships were supported by the Department's Priority Schools Program. As the partnerships and projects developed, we began to observe that students were developing more positive relationships with their classrooms. Where previously there were patterns of opposition to challenging tasks, there was a ‘buzz' around taking on hard work. Where compliance in low-level tasks was once the default classroom position, there was now a clear and palpable sense that students were becoming more engaged and eager to take risks in their learning. We talked about students being ‘in-task' (positively involved in their learning) as opposed to being ‘on-task' (just complying with teacher instructions). As we thought about what was common across these classroom changes, it was agreed that they all shared important teaching and learning perspectives. These ‘engaging pedagogies' had all been designed to encourage high-cognitive, high-affective and high operative responses from students ‘thinking hard', ‘feeling good', ‘working to become better learners'. There were also observations that the engagement was as much about the ‘playing out' in the classroom as the design of learning experiences. That is, if students were to become engaged in their learning, they all needed to see themselves as important members of the learning community, and to be recognised as all having important roles to play for the benefit of everybody in the classroom.

They had to become ‘insiders'. Another level of analysis suggested that four interrelated components were being used by teachers to develop what we termed ‘the insider classroom', comprising a` student community of reflection, teacher inclusive conversations, student self-assessment, and teacher feedback. Now while each of these would be present in many classrooms, the Fair Go research proposed that there needed to be a particular shape to these processes to support the engagement project. This shaping can be seen below, where dot points represent the overriding idea (first dot point), the teacher focus (second dot point) and the classroom movement (third dot point) in each case. Student community of reflection A conscious environment of cooperative sharing of ideas and processes about learning. Focus on substantive conversations encouraging student control and voice. Movement away from compliance as a way of students responding to task completion and evaluation and towards shared ownership over all aspects of the learning experiences. Teacher inclusive conversations Emphasis on sharing power with students; visibility that encourages sharing of classroom culture; promotion of thinking and opportunities for students to interact and share processes of learning. Focus on learning, not behaviour. Movement towards conversations about learning (shared, mutual, reciprocal). Student self-assessment Continuous opportunities for students to think about and express ideas about the processes of their learning. Focus on cognitive, affective and operative aspects of learning and towards deeper levels of reflection. Movement away from teacher as sole judge and towards students taking more responsibility for evaluation of learning. Teacher feedback Awareness of the power of written, oral and symbolic feedback on students' self- concept as learners.

Focus on staged process

1. The task (talking explicitly about achievement and what students have done that is right or wrong);

2. Processes (helping students acquire processes and better ways of doing tasks);

3. Self-regulation (encouraging effort and confidence and helping students to stay committed to the learning experiences). Movement away from generalised and unrelated feedback towards feedback tied to investing more effort, more attention, or more confidence, into the task being undertaken.

The first part of the Fair Go student engagement framework was labelled small ‘e' engagement. This is the ‘e' of the MeE Framework, and is depicted in this diagram below. The planned experiences are in the centre circle; the insider classroom processes shown in the outer circle. From this point the Fair Go Program then argued (drawing on research by Willis, 1977, and Bernstein, 1996) that, in concert, these small ‘e' experiences and processes could send powerful messages to students that would encourage them to have a greater sense that school was a place that ‘worked' for them, and education was a valuable resource that they could use now and into the future. This was the big ‘E' engagement of the MeE Framework ‘school is for me'. The messages were seen to be carried across what we termed ‘discourses of power':knowledge, ability, control, place, and voice. Key ideas from the inner and outer circle of the ‘e', then became elaborated as shown in the table below. knowledge e can see the connection and the meaning' reflectively constructed access to contextualized and powerful knowledge ability ‘I am capable' feelings of being able to achieve and a spiral of high expectations and aspirations control e do this together' sharing of classroom time and space; interdependence, mutuality and power with place ‘It's great to be a kid from ' being valued as an individual and learner and feelings of belonging and ownership over learning voice e share' enjoying an environment of discussion and reflection about learning with students and teachers playing reciprocal meaningful roles Motivation: the ‘M' of the MeE Framework The final piece of the framework came about when we became increasingly aware that, despite the whole classroom pedagogical changes, there were still students who were falling ‘through the cracks'. Some still needed additional support and encouragement to take on board the small ‘e' learning experiences being implemented in their classroom. A collaboration with Andrew Martin (then Western Sydney University, and later Sydney University and the University of New South Wales) helped us to understand the individual processes around what motivated students.

His ‘Motivation and and Engagement Wheel' (Martin, 2007, 2009) drew on research to highlight what helped and what got in the way of motivation, and these ideas were added to complete the MeE Framework. What helped was labelled ‘adaptive' motivation, and consisted of self-efficacy, mastery orientation, valuing, persistence, planning, and task management. What got in the way of motivation was called ‘impeding' and ‘maladaptive' motivation, comprised of anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control, self-handicapping and disengagement.

Key teaching questions for teachers coming out of these positive and negative processes around individual motivation are listed below, with the ‘adaptive', ‘impeding' and ‘maladaptive' labels indicated in brackets. What support is there for each student to develop a belief and confidence in their own ability to succeed at school, overcome challenges and perform at their best (self-efficacy)? What individual encouragement is there for each student to focus on their own learning, solving problems and developing skills (mastery orientation)? How is each student helped to see that school is useful, important and relevant (valuing school)? Is there pedagogy that promotes persistence for each student (persistence)? To what extent does teaching and learning foster key individual self-regulatory processes such as planning, monitoring, and study management for each student (planning, task management)? How is there individual help for each student to overcome their own anxiety, take risks and have more control over their learning (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control)? How can there be practices that help each student manage or minimise maladaptive behavioural dimensions (self-handicapping, disengagement)? The MeE Framework This diagram is a summary of the ‘M', ‘e' and ‘E' components of the MeE Framework Qualitative research carried out across all aspects of the Fair Go Program into ‘e', and quantitative analyses into ‘M', both showed that ‘e' (whole classroom processes) and ‘M' (individual support strategies) can reliably work together to bring about a sense of ‘school is for me' big ‘E' engagement (Munns & Martin, 2013). In the light of this continued research, the Fair Go Program co-researching academics and teachers use the MeE Framework as a critical tool as they think about what will work to encourage their students to have a stronger engagement with their classroom and school a sense that ‘school is for me'. The articles in this journal illustrate how teachers and researchers drew on different aspects of the framework as they made important changes to the work being done in schools and classrooms. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Taylor & Francis.  This book delves into Bernstein's theories regarding the relationship between pedagogy (the method and practice of teaching), symbolic control (how language and symbols are used to maintain power structures), and identity (how individuals perceive themselves and are perceived by others). It's a seminal work in the field of education and sociology, exploring how education can both perpetuate and challenge existing social hierarchies and power dynamics. Martin, A. J. (2007).

Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 413-440. This article likely discusses a study or research conducted by A.J. Martin that aims to investigate a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement in educational contexts. The use of a construct validation approach suggests that the study likely involves validating the components of this model through empirical research methods, such as surveys, interviews, or experimental designs. The findings of the study would likely provide insights into how various factors interact and contribute to student motivation and engagement, which are crucial aspects of effective teaching and learning.  This research could have implications for educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in enhancing student motivation and engagement in educational settings. Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 794-824. In this article, A.J. Martin likely conducts a study examining motivation and engagement across different stages of education, including elementary school, high school, and university/college. The focus on developmental construct validity suggests that the study aims to investigate how motivation and engagement evolve and manifest differently across these educational stages. The research may involve surveying students from various age groups to assess their levels of motivation, engagement, and potentially other related constructs. By comparing these factors across different educational stages, the study could provide insights into the developmental trajectories of motivation and engagement and their implications for educational practice and policy. Munns, G., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Me, my classroom, my school: A mixed methods approach to the MeE framework of motivation, engagement, and academic development. In G. A. D. Liem & A. B. I. Bernardo (Eds.), Advancing cross-cultural perspectives on educational psychology: A festschrift for Dennis M. McInerney (pp. 317-342). Information Age. In this chapter, Munns and Martin likely present a research approach that integrates quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the MeE framework, which focuses on understanding motivation, engagement, and academic development in educational settings. The chapter may discuss how these factors interact within the individual student ("Me"), the classroom ("My Classroom"), and the broader school environment ("My School"). By employing a mixed methods approach, the authors likely aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in student motivation, engagement, and academic development across different cultural contexts. This approach could involve collecting both numerical data (such as survey responses or academic performance measures) and qualitative data (such as interviews or observations) to capture a rich understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Saxon House. In this book, Paul Willis likely presents the findings of his ethnographic study conducted in the 1970s in England. The study explored how working-class youth navigate the transition from school to work and the factors that influence their career choices and opportunities. Willis likely examines the role of education, socialization, and class dynamics in shaping the aspirations and trajectories of working-class youth. "Learning to Labour" is considered a classic in the field of sociology of education and has had a significant impact on our understanding of social reproduction, class inequalities, and the relationship between education and the labor market. Willis's work challenged prevailing theories of educational attainment and argued that working-class youth often resist the values and norms of the educational system, ultimately reproducing the social class structure through their choices and experiences. Sawyer, W., Munns, G., Zammit, K., Attard, C, Vass, E. & Hatton, C. (2017). Engaging Schooling: Developing Exemplary Education for Students in Poverty. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. The table shows the different elements that come together to make up this MeE framework at the top of the figure we see this engagement or the big E engagement and that really encompasses the idea that school is for me and that school is useful resource that I can employ in my life and the research that informs this framework found that it was really essential with students especially in low socioeconomic areas which may not traditionally not buy into this schooling experience who may have grow up with the attitude that school is not necessary for them or that they don't belong within the school environment and the aim of implementing this MeE framework is that students really do achieve the big E engagement that they really start to see is useful and that school is a place that they belong and the rest of this image shows that in order to achieve that big E engagement there other elements that need to be taken place so you got the small e so that's the engaging classroom messages so the messages that you as a teacher give and the environment of the classroom that their in the messages in which that environment gives to that student also those activities and those processes of those learning experiences that really promote that small e of engagement there is also that element of motivation and that's that individual student focus and also that teachers are messenger so that teachers have roles to play a really essential role to play in helping students to therefore achieve this big E of engagement. Little e of engagement- engaging experiences and processes that carry these engaging messages that when put into place help create this insider classroom so a classroom environment where the students feel like their belong where they feel motivated to learn where they feel that their voice is heard and that their important part of that community and that classroom community so we begin with this idea of the experiences so that those learning experience that students engage in. Research found in order to promote engagement within those learning experiences the learning experiences need to have opportunities for high cognitive engagement meaning that students are really involved in that deep understanding of expertise that they involved in activities that have intellectual qualities that really pushes for that deep knowledge and deep understanding that problematic knowledge that their using higher order thinking meta language and that substantive conversation we really want them to be using their brain when it comes to high cognitive element. The next part of that there should be experiences that are highly effective students so that means that theirs are deep value of the experiences that teaches and students can negotiate these learning situations and that students find those learning experiences enjoyable that they can relate to those learning experiences. Finally, we have this element of high operative engaging experiences for this to occur we need students to be active and participating in experiences. We want to be effective learners and that their really involved in that learning experience and it helps them to become more competent and empowered learners. Then we need to look those processes and their processes we utilise within the classroom to again help to build up that learning community to help build up that insider classroom so things like teacher inclusive conversation, students self assessment so we want student to be reflective of what their doing and understanding why their doing and be proud of their achievement and to really know the areas they need to improve and work on,teacher feedback so we know that quality feedback is so important which can really students to engage and become of that insider classroom and also the idea of student community of reflection and these elements to create that insider classroom and help students to create that small e of engagement. The MeE Framework was developed as a way of understanding the processes of student engagement and as a language to describe the complex interplay of individual and whole-classroom engaging experiences, and as a frame for informing pedagogical change aimed at encouraging enhanced short- and long-term student relationships with education. M'otivation The individual focus of the MeE Framework The ‘M'otivation perspective recognizes that, even when the pedagogical ‘e' strategies are strongly in place, there may still be individuals maintaining oppositional stances and continuing to exert pedagogical pressure on their classrooms ‘e'ngagement in the ‘insider classroom': ‘e'ngaging experiences and processes that together carry engaging messages ‘E'ngagement The final perspective of the MeE Framework is ‘E'ngagement (what we term ‘big “E” engagement').This refers to a more enduring relationship with school and education, a sense among students that school is a place that works for them and that education is a resource that they can deploy profitably in their current and future lives Use intext citation and include a reference list.

This Arts and Humanities has been solved by our PhD Experts at My Uni Paper.