Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 9–28 | Cite as

How experiential learning in an informal setting promotes class equity and social and economic justice for children from “communities at promise”: An Australian perspective

  • David Zyngier
Original Paper
First Online:
  • 1.4k Downloads

Abstract

Educational research often portrays culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised (CLED) children’s disengagement from school learning as individual behaviour, ignoring the contribution of race, gender, socio-cultural, ethnic and social class factors. This paper analyses a specific community engagement programme in Australia which uses experiential learning in an informal setting. The programme, which has been running for seven years, partners pre-service teachers, volunteer high school students and volunteers from a national bank with primary schools where many pupils are experiencing learning difficulties and school engagement problems as a result of their socio-economic status, their poverty, and their ethnic and cultural diversity. Drawing on the perspectives of the children and volunteers participating in the pilot study, and privileging their voices, this paper illustrates how community partnerships may be developed and sustained. The programme’s conceptual framework of Connecting-Owning-Responding-Empowering (CORE) pedagogy is explored for its potential to enhance student engagement, achievement and empowerment through focused community involvement. The findings show that when students feel connected to and involved in their community, all participants are empowered in their learning and teaching.

Keywords

Experiential learning Informal education Student disengagement Social disadvantage Community involvement Connecting-Owning-Responding-Empowering (CORE) pedagogy 

Résumé

Comment l’apprentissage expérientiel en situation informelle favorise l’équité entre les classes et la justice sociale et économique pour les enfants de milieux défavorisés: une perspective australienne – La recherche éducative décrit fréquemment sous forme de comportement individuel le désengagement de l’apprentissage scolaire par les enfants défavorisés sur le plan culturel, linguistique et économique, en laissant de côté la contribution des facteurs d’ordre socio-culturel, ethnique, liés au sexe et à la classe sociale. L’auteur de l’article analyse un programme spécifique d’engagement communautaire en Australie, qui exploite l’apprentissage expérientiel dans une situation informelle. Déployé depuis sept ans, ce programme associe en un partenariat des enseignants en formation, des bénévoles étudiants et employés d’une banque nationale aux écoles primaires accueillant de nombreux élèves en difficulté d’apprentissage et d’engagement scolaire en raison de leur statut socioéconomique, leur pauvreté et leur diversité ethnique et culturelle. Partant des perspectives des enfants et des bénévoles qui ont participé à l’étude pilote, et privilégiant leurs avis, l’auteur illustre comment peuvent être élaborés et maintenus des partenariats communautaires. Le cadre conceptuel pour le programme pédagogique Relier-Posséder-Réagir-Autonomiser (Connecting-Owning-Responding-Empowering CORE) est exploré pour son potentiel à favoriser l’engagement, la performance et l’autonomie des élèves à travers l’implication communautaire. Les résultats démontrent que si les élèves se sentent reliés à leur communauté et impliqués dans celle-ci, tous les participants connaissent une autonomisation dans leur apprentissage et leur enseignement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Firstly, thank you to the wonderful volunteers without whom the E-LINCs programme would not have seen the light of day. Also thank you to the visionary school principals and their staff who made it possible, and to the National Australia Bank, Foundation for Youth Australia and Schools First for believing in the programme. Finally, thank you to the children from whom we learn so much every time we meet.

References

  1. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2010). 1370.0 – Measures of Australia’s Progress, 2010. Population. Overseas-born population: (1) Foreign-born in selected OECD countries – 1997 and 2007; and (2) Regions of birth, Proportion of Australia’s population, 30 June – 1999 and 2009 [online resource]. Retrieved 8 November 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Overseas%20born%20population%20(3.6).
  2. Anderson-Butcher, D., Stetler, E. G., & Midle, T. (2006). A case for expanded school–community partnerships in support of positive youth development. Children & Schools, 28(3), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcaira, E., Vile, J. D., & Reisner, E. R. (2010). Achieving high school graduation: Citizen Schools’ youth outcomes in Boston. Washington, DC: Policy Study Associates. Retrieved 17 October 2016 from www.policystudies.com/studies/?download=79&id=39.
  4. Berg, A., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community & family engagement: Principals share what works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Case, S., & Hadfield, M. (2006). Community involvement in the Networked Learning Communities Program. Nottingham, UK: National College for Educational Leadership.Google Scholar
  8. Citizen Schools (2009). Our model. Retrieved 22 November 2010 from http://www.citizenschools.org/whatwedo/ourmodel/.
  9. CMYI (Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues). (2003). Educational support issues for refugee & newly arrived young people. Carlton, VIC: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues.Google Scholar
  10. Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 548–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DEECD (2008b). Smarter schools national partnerships in Victoria. Retrieved 22 November 2010 from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/nationalpartnerships/default.htm.
  12. DEECD (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). (2008a). Beyond the school gate: A guide to school partnerships. Draft for discussion. Melbourne, VIC: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  13. Dorfman, P. (2008). Newcomer students: Bridges to success. Education Canada, 48(4), 36–40.Google Scholar
  14. Dorfman, D., & Fisher, A. (2002). Building relationships for student success: School-family-community partnerships and student achievement in the Northwest. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). Retrieved 19 October 2016 from http://oregonpirc.org/webfm_send/17.
  15. Goddard, C. (2007). 20 Questions about learning networks: A guide for school leaders. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved 10 November 2016 from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140719134807/, http://nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=31340&filename=20-questions.pdf.
  16. Halpern, R. (1999). After-school programs for low-income children: Promise and challenges. The Future of Children, 9(2), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. The Teachers College Record, 104(2), 178–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holloway, J. H. (2004). Research link. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 89–90.Google Scholar
  19. Howard, R. W. (2006). Bending towards justice: Service-learning and social capital as means to the tipping point. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Israel, G. D., & Beaulieu, L. J. (2004a). Laying the foundations for employment: The role of social capital in educational achievement. The Review of Regional Studies, 34(3), 260–287.Google Scholar
  21. Israel, G. D., & Beaulieu, L. J. (2004b). Investing in communities: Social capital’s role in keeping youth in schools. Journal of the Community Development Society., 34(2), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladson Billings, G. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lane, B. & Dorfman, D. (1997). Strengthening community networks: The basis for sustainable community renewal. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved 21 August 2008 from http://www.nwrel.org/ruraled/strengthening.html.
  24. Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., et al. (2001). Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final report, vol.1. Report prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of Queensland. Brisbane, QLD: University of Brisbane.Google Scholar
  26. Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After school programs in the 21st century: Their potential and what it takes to achieve it. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
  27. MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (1999). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Melbourne, VIC: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  28. MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs) (2008) Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne, VIC: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved 19 October 2016 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
  29. McFadden, M., & Munns, G. (2002). Student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melaville, A., Berg, A. C. & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community-based learning: Engaging students for success and citizenship. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved 19 October 2016 from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CBL_Book_1_27_06.pdf.
  31. Michael, S., Dittus, P., & Epstein, J. (2007). Family and community involvement in schools: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006. Journal of School Health, 77(8), 567–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naidoo, L. (2008). Supporting African refugees in Greater Western Sydney: A critical ethnography of after-school homework tutoring centres. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Newmann, F., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Improving Chicago’s Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  36. Noel, J. (2010). Weaving teacher education into the fabric of urban schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 9–25.Google Scholar
  37. Onore, C., & Gilden, B. (2010). Preparing urban teachers as public professionals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 25–44.Google Scholar
  38. Otero, G. G. (2003). RelationaLearning notebook. Melbourne, VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.Google Scholar
  39. Otero, G., & West-Burnham, J. (2004). Educational leadership and social capital. Paper presented at the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) Leading Practice seminar on 24 November. Retrieved 19 October from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.927&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  40. Plagens, G. (2003). Social capital and school performance: A local-level test. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, held 28–31 August in Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved 12 July 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/77/df.pdf.
  41. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Putnam, R. D. (Ed.). (2002). Democracies in flux: The Evolution of social capital in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Scales, P., Benson, P., & Mannes, M. (2002). Grading grown-ups 2002: How do American kids and adults relate? Key Findings from a national study. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.Google Scholar
  44. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Journal of teacher education, 52(2), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart, H. (1998). At risk or marginalised? The implications of focussing on at-risk individual young people for workers with marginalised young people. YACVic Bits, 1, 4–5.Google Scholar
  46. Swadener, B. B. (1995). Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk. In B. B. Swadener & S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 17–49). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  47. VSPC (Victorian Settlement Planning Committee) (2005). Good practice principles: Guide for working with refugee young people. A project of the Victorian Settlement Planning Committee. Melbourne, VIC: Department for Victorian Communities.Google Scholar
  48. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A Critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zyngier, D. (2003). Connectedness – Isn’t it time that education came out from behind the classroom door and rediscovered Social Justice. Social Alternatives, 22(3), 41–49.Google Scholar
  50. Zyngier, D. (2007a). Listening to teachers – Listening to students’ substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice Journal, 13(4), 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zyngier, D. (2007b). The challenge of student engagement – what the students say they want – putting young people at the centre of the conversation. LEARNing Landscapes, 1, 93–116.Google Scholar
  52. Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re)Conceptualising student engagement: Doing education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1765–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zyngier, D. (2011). (Re) conceptualising risk: Left numb and unengaged and lost in a no-man’s-land or what (seems to) work for at-risk students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zyngier, D., & Gale, T. (2003). Engaging programs: How are Australian schools responding to low student retention? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), “Education risks, research & dilemmas”, held in Auckland, New Zealand, 29 November–3 December. Retrieved 19 October from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2003/zyn03472.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash University, Peninsula CampusFrankstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options