Middle Years’ Models of Practice

When asked to indicate teaching approaches and philosophies one state school teacher indicated a subscription to a middle years’ model of practice when teaching Year 7 and 8 students. Other teachers indicated that they followed a ‘student-centred’ approach or were predominantly subject or curriculum focused.

Teacher understanding of middle schooling pedagogies and practices included the use of approaches identified as successful components of middle years’ practice such as flexibility with the delivery of curriculum and adapting pedagogies (Jacobs, 2010; Pendergast, 2010; Pendergast, 2016), setting clear expectations (Raphael, Pressley, & Mohan, 2008) and building positive relationships between student and teacher (Pendergast, 2010; Raphael et al, 2008; Wentzel, 1997). Communication with parents and carers was also listed as a significant strategy to improve outcomes for academic underachievers (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Other strategies that aligned with middle years’ models of practice, such as teacher teaming to develop links across curricula and subjects (Jacobs, 2010), developing community partnerships (Hattie, 2012), or using constructivist or middle years’ approaches, curricula and pedagogies (Dowden, 2007, 2012a; Jacobs, 2010; Rumble & Aspland, 2010; Shanks & Dowden, 2013) were not outlined or referred to by teacher respondents. Many teachers

completing the questionnaires did not indicate that they were aware that these strategies could form part of a middle years’ approach to working with students.

4.11 Summary of the Chapter

This chapter presented the findings from a questionnaire circulated to a selection of Catholic and state schools in regional Tasmania, collecting

quantitative and qualitative data on teacher experiences, perspectives, and practices when identifying and supporting young adolescent academic underachievers. Quantitative data was processed using descriptive statistics and presented in frequency tables (Creswell, 2005), while qualitative data was

processed and interpreted using thematic analysis techniques (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2013). Findings indicated that teachers used four primary indicators to identify academic underachievers in their classrooms. These four indicators included limited participation and engagement with learning and schooling; not completing assignments or assessment activities; challenging or avoidant behaviour; and mild literacy and numeracy difficulties. Teachers defined academic underachievers as students who did not meet, or were

struggling to meet the year level standard and who did not qualify for funding or consideration based on special learning needs.

Teacher perspectives about working with academic underachievers in Year 7 and 8, were evenly divided between describing teaching young

adolescents as either rewarding or rewarding but challenging. Teachers also tended to describe themselves and their teaching approach as either focused on meeting the needs of the individual learner or as being primarily task, subject and curriculum focussed.

Teachers believed that improving relationships, developing trust and a sense of confidence with students and being flexible with the curriculum, would assist academic underachievers. They advocated adjusting pedagogies to allow students to manage their learning through strategies such as scaffolding and stepping through tasks. Teachers also advocated collaboration as a strategy to support underachievers, with about half of the teachers confirming that they found communication with parents to be effective. Teachers strongly advocated collaboration with teacher aides but this collaboration was limited. Teachers used this strategy to allow the student more one-on-one time with the teacher

aide, which allowed the teacher more time to manage other aspects of learning in the classroom.

Few teachers appeared to refer to middle years’ philosophies or

pedagogies explicitly but some of the strategies outlined, including the focus on strong relationships, developing trust and flexibility with the curriculum would fit within middle schooling pedagogies and approaches (Pendergast & Danby, 2011; Pendergast et al., 2005; Richardson, 2003). Findings from the data also appeared to support a tacit understanding that academic underachievers struggled to connect with the curriculum and learning program offered.

However, the provision of constructivist or middle years’ curricula as outlined by Dowden (2007) and Richardson (2003), and collaboration beyond

communications with parents and the assistance of teacher aides, was not strongly evident in the data. Given that mild but noticeable literacy and numeracy barriers were also noted as present in underachieving students, it may be that teachers believed that literacy and numeracy barriers had more impact on student ability to connect with classroom learning than any specific philosophical underpinnings of the structure of the curriculum.

Qualitative findings indicated that teachers were aware of some of the needs of the young adolescent academic underachievers they taught. Teachers identified a range of barriers preventing underachieving students from

achieving success. They appeared to measure student success against specific standards, using Australian or Tasmanian curriculum subject criteria as benchmarks. Teachers indicated that they employed a range of strategies to address the perceived needs of academic underachievers. There were less

evidence in the data that teachers considered the specific developmental needs of young adolescent learners to be a relevant factor with academic

underachievers.

The next chapter, Chapter 5, presents the second set of data for the study. These data are gathered from a survey of a Year 7 cohort students from Constantius College. The findings address the second research question, which seeks to identify factors that young adolescents consider significant to their learning in their first year of secondary school.