ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 1

In their article, Enabling exemplary teaching: a framework of student engagement for

students from low socio-economic backgrounds with implications for technology and literacy

practices, Callow and Orlando (2015) outline pedagogies for teachers to help combat the issue

of engagement among low socio-economic status (SES) students. Student engagement is an

important issue that effects the achievement of students within the education system. This study

uses the Fair Go framework to analyse case studies of teachers who were selected based on

their exemplary teaching pedagogies and strategies for engaging low SES students, who are at

risk of being disengaged at school, with a focus on technology and literacy practices. This study

explores three elements that have been defined in the literature as key for student engagement,

these include high cognitive, affective and operative strategies. This essay begins by outlining

the educational issue of student engagement and how this is relevant across all teaching areas

and more specifically to the science teaching area. Callow and Orlando’s (2015) paper is

critiqued in regard to the literature review, methods and findings. The essay concludes with

implementing the recommendations from this article to improve a science lesson plan.

In their article, Callow and Orlando (2015) give recommendations for teachers that use

technology and literacy to help engage low SES students. Low SES students often lack the

readiness skills needed to succeed at school compared to their more economically advantaged

peers (Howard, Dresser & Dunklee, 2015). More challenges surround students of low SES

backgrounds and these disadvantaged students can be further disadvantaged if teacher’s do not

acknowledge their learning needs and adjust their teaching practices to suit. The Fair Go

Project argues that engagement is a key factor in effective classroom pedagogies and increased

learning outcomes for low SES students (Fair Go Project Team, 2006). Callow and Orlando

(2015) use the Fair Go framework to demonstrate how exemplary teachers in low SES schools

use technology to help build an engaging classroom and overcome social justice and inequity

issues. Pedagogies that engage students, such as the inclusion of technology into lessons, can
ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 2

make a difference in a student’s learning experience and help improve their outlook that school

is for me (Callow & Orlando, 2015; Fair Go Project Team, 2006).

Gore (2007) states that there is an ongoing struggle to engage students in challenging

work in many schools and classrooms. Student engagement is important across all key learning

areas (KLA) and important to student’s academic achievement. The use of technology in

classroom learning is a significant tool in engagement, higher order thinking and can also

increase motivation in students (Dawson, 2008; Lim & Tay, 2003). Technology can easily be

incorporated into all teaching areas to assist with student learning. Within the science KLA

technology can be used as elaborate as programming in a robotics class or as simply as

watching a video and looking up key concepts that will help to engage and add meaning to the

content.

Critical Evaluation of Callow and Orlando (2015)

Callow and Orlando (2015) have expertise in technology within the education setting,

Callow also has experience in English and literacy pedagogies. These experiences give the

authors knowledge of the issues that face technology literacy in schools and also the inequities

when it comes to low SES student achievement, which is a strength of the paper as outlined by

Gall, Gall & Borg, 2015. It is important for researchers to indicate their beliefs, values and

knowledge of subject areas if they are to produce an unbiased report that will aim to inform

educational facilities of new practices. The research paper states “No potential conflict of

interest was reported by the authors” (Callow & Orlando, 2015, p. 367). This further increases

the strength of the study.

Callow and Orlando (2015) make consistent reference to background research to

support and justify their argument for the importance of engagement among low SES students.

They explore the relationship between technology and literacy in increasing student
ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 3

engagement, which is a focal point of their research. The Jewitt (2008) paper is particularly

insightful in recognising the potential for technology in supporting literacy learning. Callow

and Orlando (2015) use the Fair Go framework to convey the importance of pedagogies that

support engagement in working towards social justice within schools. These are strengths of

the paper due to the importance of providing a comprehensive review and justification for

research within the literature review, as outlined by Gall et al. (2015).

Callow and Orlando (2015) used case studies from 28 selected exemplary teachers and

the Fair Go framework to observe pedagogies and engagement over a five-day period. The

teachers selected for the study went through a selection process, which involved being

nominated, submitting a personal piece of writing addressing attitudes, approaches to

engagement and evidence of success. The teachers were interviewed by the research team and

referees were contacted. The exemplary teachers selected for this study “were identified as

highly successful in engaging their students” and represented classrooms from preschool to

grade 12 (Callow & Orlando, 2015, p. 354). The sampling procedure used to select these

teachers is a strength of the paper and resulted in case studies that were relevant to the

phenomena of interest and helped contribute to the papers recommendations of effective

engaging pedagogies for low SES students (Gall et al. 2015).

Callow and Orlando (2015) integrate observational data from a lesson with a teacher

named Sarah into the paper. Case studies as outlined by Galls et al. (2015) were an appropriate

data collection method for this type of study. The incorporation of the case study with the

analysis by the researches based on the Fair Go framework helps to make meaning and interpret

the qualitative research (Gall et al., 2015). However, a limitation of this paper may be the

inclusion of only one of the twenty-eight case studies. Sarah’s lesson is also aimed at primary

school students it would have been beneficial for this study to also include a case study from a
ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 4

high school teacher this would make for a more sufficient data display. However, due to the

extent of the analysis this minor limitation does not weaken the study.

Callow and Orlando (2015), make reference to the findings of the study in their

discussion and use current literature to support and justify their conclusions. This is a strength

of the paper according to Gall et al. (2015), linking the current study to recent research helps

to provide support for the authors findings. The work of Woods, Dooley, Luke and Exley

(2014) helps to reinforce the significance of technology pedagogies to support literacy practices

and increase classroom engagement. This literature is particularly important in supporting

Callow and Orlando’s (2015) recommendations of increased technology and literacy support

to help in the engagement and academic success of low SES students.

Callow and Orlando (2015) identified implications for practice from their findings and

supported these with current research. The inclusion of implications for practice is a strength

of this paper as outlined by Gall et al. (2015) who state it is important for qualitative research

papers to identify reasonable implications from their findings. Callow and Orlando (2015)

argue the importance of literacy learning in dealing with inequalities within the education

system. The authors use the literature to reinforce the importance of the use of technology for

increasing literacy learning among low SES students (Bogotch & Shields, 2014; Duke & Ming,

2014). This further supports their findings and helps strengthen the recommendations of

exemplary pedagogies used to increase the literacy learning of low SES students through the

inclusion of technology in classrooms. These recommendations can be implemented across all

key learning areas and are increasingly important for the academic achievement of low SES

student. This also helps to bridge the achievement gap between low SES students and their

more successful peers.

ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 5

Revision of Learning Activity

Pietsch (2017) has developed a lesson plan titled ‘The Rock Cycle’ to develop student’s

geology skills through the use worksheets and the incorporation of technology. This lesson has

been designed for students in years 7 – 9 and though incorporating the use of technology in the

lesson there are some oversights that could be addressed in regard to the recommendations put

forth by Callow and Orlando (2015). Callow and Orlando (2015) recommend the use of

technology in the classroom to improve literacy learning and increase student engagement

among low SES students. This lesson includes the use of technology which is used to engage

students in online game activities, but it fails to meet some of the other requirements that

exemplary teaching pedagogies should address if they are to meet the needs of all students. The

literature highlights how the interplay of high cognitive, high affective and high operative

elements are involved in student engagement and effective pedagogies (Callow & Orlando,

2015; Fair Go Project Team, 2006; Sawyer, Callow, Munns & Zammit, 2013). These elements

could be further incorporated into the selected lesson to help improve engagement and

academic success among low SES students.

A revision for the lesson using the recommendations from Callow and Orlando (2015)

could be to use high cognitive strategies. These strategies use technology to create classroom

experiences that are intellectually challenging and support student learning of the curriculum

content (Callow & Orlando, 2015; Sawyer et al. 2013). The lesson does incorporate technology

into student learning, this is done at a relatively basic level. All students learn differently and

have different needs when it comes to teacher support (AITSL, 2011). There is no scope within

the current lesson that allows for students to move onto more challenging work. Gore (2007)

states that the expectation placed on students is related to their performance in class. Hence if

there is a low expectation placed on students there is a decrease in student performance

compared to if there was a high expectation (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). By including more
ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 6

challenging work opportunities for students in this lesson, such as a further research task once

students have completed the allocated work would allow for more critical thinking and hence

increased engagement (Callow and Orlando, 2015; Lim & Tay, 2003).

Figure 1. The Rock Cycle - Lesson plan sequence (Pietsch, 2017).

A second revision for the lesson could be the incorporation of high affective strategies.

These strategies refer to the way in which teachers use technology to create an enjoyable

learning community for all students (Callow & Orlando, 2015; Sawyer et al, 2013). Positioning

students as equals while also setting boundaries is important in creating a safe place where

students feel free to take risks. Introducing a group work task which allows for students to

engage with various resources would help to create a more equitable classroom between

teacher and students. Figure 1 shows the original lesson plan which incorporates no group

activities and minimal choice for students. By introducing a group warm up activity instead of

individual student research would help to engage students in the content of the lesson. Students

could still use technology to research definitions, however by introducing a Google Doc

students could share their definitions in a group setting that allows for collaboration and further

increases engagement (Dawson, 2008). This would help in creating a safe learning environment

for students where they are encouraged to participate in group discussion and share their

knowledge with other members of their class. This adjustment according to the
ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 7

recommendations of Callow and Orlando (2015) would create a more stimulating and hence

more engaging learning environment, which would meet the needs of low SES students and

help toward their academic success.

Another revision that could be made to this lesson, would be the incorporation of high

operative strategies. These strategies refer to the ways in which teachers use technology to

scaffold learning (Callow & Orlando, 2015; Sawyer et al., 2013). The current lesson plan does

not use technology to scaffold learning this could be improved by using technology to present

images and descriptions of the different rocks described in the ‘Introduction/Warm up’ section

of Figure 1. Physical rocks could also be brought into the class room for students to look at,

this would provide the same information in various forms and help to suit the learning needs

of the diverse classroom. These same strategies could be used for the second section in the

lesson where students are asked to identify common rock types. Callow and Orlando (2015)

argue that the use of high operative strategies combined with technology would help to increase

engagement in low SES students.

In conclusion, it is important to be able to evaluate research papers before implementing

their recommendation into your teaching practices. Callow and Orlando (2015) have produced

an insightful and strong research paper describing the importance of engagement in low SES

students learning. They use the Fair Go framework to analyse case studies from exemplary

teachers and give recommendations of how to use these strategies and technology literacy

support to engage low SES students and help them reach their learning outcomes. Strategies of

high cognitive, affective and operative elements were introduced to improve the lesson plan on

‘The Rock Cycle’ (Pietsch, 2017). The improvements aimed to increase the engagement of

students from low SES backgrounds by using the recommendations put forth by Callow and

Orlando’s (2015) research.

ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 8

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2011). Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Bogotch, I., & Shields, C. (2014). Introduction: Do promises of social justice trump paradigms

of educational leadership? In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International

handbook of educational leadership and social (In)justice (Vol. 29, pp. 1-12).

Netherlands: Springer.

Callow, J., & Orlando, J. (2015). Enabling exemplary teaching: A framework of student

engagement for students from low socio-economic backgrounds with implications for

technology and literacy practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(4), 349-

371. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2015.1066679

Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information communication technology by early career science

teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203-

219. doi: 10.1080/09500690601175551

Dukes, C., & Ming, K. (2014). Who among us may be literate? Closing the gap between

literacy and diversity. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of

educational leadership and social (In)justice (Vol. 29, pp. 1-12). Netherlands:

Springer.

Fair Go Project Team. (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student engagement. Sydney:

NSW Department of Education and Training.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2015). Applying educational research: How to read,

do, and use research to solve problems in practice. (7th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey:

Pearson Education, Inc.

ENGAGEMENT WITH AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUE 9

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy. In J. Butcher & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a

difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher education (pp. 15-32).

Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Howard, T., Dresser, S. G., & Dunklee, D. R. (2015). Poverty is not a learning disability:

Equalizing opportunities for low SES students. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing

Lim, C. P., & Tay, L. Y. (2003). Information and communication technologies (ICT) in an

elementary school: Students’ engagement in higher order thinking. Journal of

Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(4), 425-451. Retrieved from:

http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=11931

Pietsch, E. (2017, April 9). The rock cycle – A science (Geology) lesson for years 7/8/9

[Lesson Plan]. Australian Curriculum Lessons. Retrieved from

https://www.australiancurriculumlessons.com.au/2017/04/09/rock-cycle-science-

geology-lesson-years-789/

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1),

16-20. doi: 10.1007/BF02322211

Sawyer, W., Callow, J., Munns, G., & Zammit, K. (2013). What exemplary teachers do. In G.

Munns, W. Sawyer, & B. Cole (Eds.), Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp.

90-108). Abingdon: Routledge.

Woods, A., Dooley, K., Luke, A., & Exley, B. (2014). School leadership, literacy and social

justice: The places of local school curriculum planning and reform. In I. Bogotch & C.

M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social

(In)justice (Vol. 29, pp. 509-520). Netherlands: Springer.