Education through Elegant Subversion

Professional Voice 2009 Vol 6 (3) pp.53-59

Some schools are doing amazing things, especially for children from culturally, linguistically and economically diverse (CLED) communities. Broadly speaking the strategies fall into three areas: new pedagogies and curricula; social support and wellbeing; and community participation. It is the new pedagogies and curricula which I believe hold the greatest potential for what I have called the elegant subversion of the current dominant paradigm of division and disadvantage.

Teachers under the pump - and over a barrel - and up the creek: Reframing the current debates about 'quality' of education

Curriculum Perspectives 2009, 29(1)

The Tribulations of Reusing and Repackaging Data: A Review of “How has School Productivity Changed in Australia?”

Australian Education Researcher Vol 3 (6)  2009 pp.73-92

In their paper, How has school productivity changed in Australia? social economists Andrew Leigh and Chris Ryan (2008)  attempt to show that Australian (government) schools and their teachers’ productivity has declined by some 73 per cent between 1964 and 2003 compared to an overall increase of 64 per cent across the Australian economy. In response I contend that Leigh and Ryan use an inappropriate statistical device to “decompose” student demographics to arrive at conclusions that contradict the original positive assessment of student standards by independent authorities. Their work, which for many years seemed to be the foundation stone for Howard government education policy has by their own admission, never been put to the test of peer review prior to publication. This paper critically analyses and contests their research by placing their claims within a social policy context that has subtly changed from one where teachers can make a difference to teachers are the difference.

Student Engagement: contested concepts in two continents

Co-athor Brenda McMahon in Research in Comparative and International Education 2009 Vol 4(2)

The challenge of student engagement has been recognised as a serious issue in both Australian and Canadian education. This empirical and qualitative study seeks to understand the
experiences of two groups of students; the first beginning their high school years and the second reflecting back on successful university and less than successful high school experiences. Students are traditionally objectified and omitted from the discourse on student engagement. Providing a forum for
student voice in both continents, we compare and contrast the various and sometimes contested understandings of what an authentic or generative student engagement might mean for both school leadership and classroom practice. Adopting a critical pedagogical perspective, this descriptive article seeks to compare answers to the following question: How is engagement defined and enacted bystudents within these different environments?

Doing it to (for) boys (again): do we really need more books telling us there is a problem with boys’ underachievement in education?

Published in Gender and Education, 21(1), pp111 - 118.

I start with this overview in order to ask two related fundamental questions – do we really need another book on boys’ education and what is it about boys that seems to have generated this interest (or some would say business) among academics, the
general public and media in general?

(Re) conceptualising student risk. (2009)

International Journal of Inclusive Education (In Press)

This review of current research into at-risk programs serves to categorise and characterise existing programs and to evaluate the contribution of these programs to assisting students at-risk from marginalised backgrounds. This characterisation questions the (sometimes) implicit assumptions and the consequences of those assumptions inherent in and behind these various accounts. Using as a lens the (various and varied) understandings of social justice and the goals of education (Gale & Densmore, 2000; 2003), I identify three sometimes overlapping and sometimes contesting standpoints in relation to at-risk students, characterised as instrumentalist or rational technical, social constructivist or individualist and critical transformative or empowering. I argue that a critical transformative understanding of at-risk may deliver improved outcomes for young people by challenging ‘the school context in which the young people are located’ (Stewart, 1998, p.4).

(Re) Conceptualising Student Engagement. Doing education not doing time. (2008)

Published in Teaching and Teacher Education: an International Journal of Research and Studies 24 (7) pp 1765–1776

Student engagement has been identified as an important precursor to student learning. Engagement, especially in the so-called problematic middle years, is now at the centre of mainstream education discussion and debate. Each discourse produces its own distinct understanding of what really defines student engagement. Three contesting epistemological constructions of student engagement are identified, seeking to answer three linked questions: whose conception of engagement is most worthwhile; what actually are the purposes of engagement and who benefits (and gets excluded) from these purposes; and finally how might we conceive of student engagement in order to achieve the twin goals of social justice
and academic achievement?

The challenge of student engagement - what the students say they want - putting young people at the centre of the conversation. (2007)

Published in LEARNing Landscapes 1 (1)

The challenge of student engagement has been recognised as a serious issue, especially in the middle years of schooling in Australian education. This qualitative study seeks to  understand the experiences of one group of students beginning their high school years. Students are often left out of the discourse on student engagement.
Traditionally they are objectified and omitted from the dialogue because often they are viewed as products of formal education systems. By giving voice to students, I compare and contrast the various and contested understandings of authentic or generative aspects of student engagement and what these might mean for classroom practice. I suggest that pedagogical practices that connect to students’ lives are too often ignored but necessary elements of teacher pedagogy for all students, particularly, those from disadvantaged and minority  backgrounds. I identify and examine three contesting epistemological constructs of student engagement in order to
answer three interrelated questions: (i) What are the most worthwhile conceptions of engagement? (ii) What are the purposes of engagement? (iii) Who benefits (and who is excluded) from these purposes? I conclude that not all forms of student engagement are equal.

Listening to Teachers - Listening to Students Substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement.

Published in Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice Journal. 13(4) August 2007, pp. 327–347

This article examines contemporary research and debates about pedagogies of engagement that challenge the traditional assumptions and understandings of engagement. Three contesting epistemological constructions of student engagement are identified and examined through the contesting and resisting voices of teachers and students. The article’s research suggests that an empowering and resistant pedagogy can (re)conceive student engagement so that it achieves the twin goals of social justice and academic achievement.

Productive Pedagogies in the Early Childhood Centre - I'd like to see that! (2006)

Published in Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education Volume 13 (2) pp103 - 118

Australian teacher educators and teachers have become increasingly familiar with the notion of Productive Pedagogies. It has been argued that Productive Pedagogies is relevant to only secondary and primary education and that Early Childhood pedagogy is different. In this paper the value of Productive Pedagogies as a meta-language for developing pre-service early childhood teachers knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether Productive Pedagogies is a language that is also intelligible for early childhood pre-service teachers without prior teacher knowledge, or whether its elements and dimensions merely constitute an isolated vocabulary. Drawing on early childhood pre-service teachers fieldwork observations, the paper argues that Productive Pedagogies language is indeed useful in the development of early childhood pre-service teachers critical understanding of not just the need for supportive learning environments, but the role that intellectual quality, connectedness and engagement with difference plays in pedagogy of early
childhood education.

Connectedness - isn't it time that education came out from behind the classroom door and rediscovered Social Justice. (2003)

Published in Social Alternatives, 22(3)

Doing education not doing time. Engaging Pedagogies and Pedagogues - what does student engagement look like in action?

Published in AARE Conference Proceedings 2005

Student engagement has been identified as an important precursor to student learning. Engagement of students in the life of the school and in their own learning is important in creating the possibility for continued learning and retention (Newmann). 'Engagement is the student's psychological investment in learning, comprehending and mastering knowledge or skills' (Newmann, 1989, 34) Since the English study of Willis (1977) it is almost generally accepted that school students today are more alienated, resistant and disengaged than ever before. In the 21st century, student engagement has become the "flavour of the month" for educrats, the international educational academy, schools and even the public media. Engagement, especially in the so-called problematic middle years is now at the centre of mainstream education discussion and debate. Although specific reference in Australia to student engagement as a prerequisite for productive learning can be located in the mid 1990's (Cumming, 1996), Newmann (1981) in the USA was already considering the connection between student engagement and effective learning, particular for students recognized as at-risk. Contemporaneously, critical pedagogy was discussing resistance as the antithesis of engagement and the contradictory act of resistance and accommodation as a self protective negative agency in response to unequal power relations (Shor, 1980, 13). Report after report (both national and international) seem to verify the lack of engagement and connection that young people exhibit to both their schooling and their community. For three decades or more, educational sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, have theorized how and why schools produce and reproduce unequal educational outcomes and benefits and thus contribute to ongoing social inequality (Thomson, 2002, 10). Each discourse produces its own distinct understanding of what really defines student engagement. Important work is currently being undertaken in Australia (and elsewhere) on the kinds of classroom pedagogies that improve engagement for all students, (Lingard et al., 2001a, Lingard et al., 2001b) but in particular those variously labeled as at-risk (of non-completion of 12 years of schooling or early leaving), disadvantaged or from low socio-economic backgrounds. This paper seeks to answer three linked questions; whose conception of engagement is most worthwhile; what actually are the purposes of engagement and who benefits (and gets excluded) from these purposes and finally how might we conceive of student engagement in order to achieve the twin goals of social justice and academic achievement? (Butler-Kisber and Portelli, 2003)

Putting young people at the centre (2004)

Published in Analytic Teaching 25(2) pp.66-74

WHAT SCHOOL KIDS WANT: A film by young people about how young people want to change school education

Listening to teachers - listening to students. Substantive conversations about

Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2005

Following previous work (Zyngier, 2004b) that examined contemporary research and debates about pedagogies and understandings of engagement, this paper analyses the
Keymakers (Zyngier & May, 2004) research into changing the pedagogical practice of a group of teachers in one school through the (sometimes) contesting and resistant voices of teachers and students informed by Haberman’s Pedagogy of Poverty (1991) and hooks’ Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope (2003) that resistance is not the antithesis of engagement but the contradictory act of resistance while
accommodation is a self protective negative agency in response to unequal power relations. A key consideration of the previous paper was ‘whether engagement is a key centralising factor in the successful implementation of empowering classroom pedagogies’ (McFadden and Munns, 2002, 359). Three contesting epistemological constructions of student engagement were previously identified (Zyngier, 2004b) and these are examined through the (often but not necessarily) contesting and resisting voices of teachers and students. In conclusion, I ask how might we (re)conceive student engagement in order to achieve the twin goals of social justice and academic achievement (Butler-Kisber and Portelli, 2003) through an empowering and resistant pedagogy.