Designing the Classroom Curriculum Designing the Classroom Curriculum | Page 136

Designing the Classroom Curriculum
Schooling et al. (2011, p. 6, emphasis added) indicate that a common language of instruction must, amongst
other things, accurately reflect the complexity and sophistication of the teaching/learning process, identify
the key strategies revealed by research for effective teaching and identify which research-based strategies are appropriate
for different types of lessons or lesson segments. The reliance on “research-based” strategies assists in
challenging deeply held but unsubstantiated beliefs about what is important in achieving student outcomes
(e.g. class size) and provides a set of starting points for research in a teacher’s own context.
The precursor step can also make use of collected sets of pedagogical strategies such as Dimensions of
Learning (McREL, 2012) so that the exemplars called for in Phase III can be explored and developed.
Once an agreed framework has been established, one of the most promising teacher research areas lies in
what is called “effect size” in relation to student learning outcomes. Hattie and Marzano have done extensive
research to show the impact that education reform initiatives have on student achievement. Almost
everything “works” to some extent but some things work best. Effect sizes range from -0.2 to an average of
0.4. Hattie defines an effect size of 0.4 as the hinge point where an initiative has a greater than average
influence on student achievement. (Teach It So). The following Figure (11.1) taken from Teach It So,
illustrates the principle of “effect”.
In everyday terms, teachers adopting this appro ach can demonstrate improvements (or losses) in student
academic performance as a consequence of teaching. For example, a teacher or group of teachers may decide
to emphasize a particular teaching strategy to remedy an identified weakness or shortfall on expectations in
a given teaching period. They decide how the strategy will be implemented and what evidence will be
collected to judge its effectiveness in altering student-learning outcomes. In the NAPLAN era, such skills
are core competencies for teachers. The mechanisms for undertaking such work are described in Hattie
(2012) and the chapter references.
In the best traditions of science and research, teachers really should attempt to disseminate their research
findings, especially those that lie in their primary sphere of expertise, namely “teaching”. They can do this
within their own settings, in wider clusters or schools, in the media, at conferences and of course in
professional journals, especially on-line. The time has never been more auspicious for them to do so.
Nowotny, a commentator on developments in the sociology of science, points out that in the 21 st century
“science” is concerned not just with the wider societal context, but with a context that “talks back”. Teachers
of all professional groups are only too aware of the cacophony of voices that have a view on schooling.
Educational research too is no longer able to impress the critics, despite consensual views on the part of the
insiders and their professional associations. Nowotny’s (1999) view is that there is a decisive shift “towards
a more extended notion of scientific knowledge, namely a shift towards socially robust or context-sensitive
knowledge”. In the eyes of many teachers, research is equated with the products and results they deliver to
the profession.
Similarly, this attitude is reinforced by political and administrative leaders (Nowotny, 1999). This is a time
when “teacher research” assumes a real importance relative to the research undertaken in universities and
other agencies and its importance will increase as traditional research and “teacher research” collaborates in
the teaching sphere (Nowotny, 2000).
136