Advertisement

Curriculum Perspectives

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 11–23 | Cite as

Secondary School Students’ Ideas of Learning and Schooling. A Case-Study of an Intensive, Experiential Middle-Years Program

Research Article

Abstract

This article reports on an empirical study of a curriculum innovation at a Victorian government secondary school. The aim of the study was to explore students’ ideas of learning and the purposes of schooling, and how these were influenced by participation in an intensive, experiential middle-years program. Group interviews were held with students who were currently completing the program, recent graduates of the program, and senior students who had completed the program in past years. Photo-elicitation was used during interviews to encourage storytelling, multiple perspectives, and use of metaphor. Although somewhat predictable responses were initially given to abstract questions such as: “what is learning?” and “what is the purpose of school?”, student narratives supported by visual imagery and metaphor reveal more subtle, rich and diverse interpretations. These include deeper and more transformative conceptions of learning, a critical questioning of the purpose of schooling, as well as efforts to interpret and navigate the, at times dissonant, pedagogical environments they inhabit within schooling. Multiple layerings, ambivalences and incoherences in student narratives are explored with references to neoliberal discourses of education and notions of pedagogy arising from complexity theory.

Keywords

Student conceptions of learning Purposes of schooling Experiential learning Middle-years pedagogy Disequilibrium 

References

  1. Barbour, R., & Schostak, J. (2004). Interviewing and focus groups. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin, Research Methods in the Social Sciences. SAGE.Google Scholar
  2. Barnard, A., McCosker, H., & Gerber, R. (1999). Phenomenography: a qualitative research approach for exploring understanding in health care. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, D. S., & Davis-Berman, J. (2005). Positive psychology and outdoor education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 28(1), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2010). Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5–14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Blackmore, J., Aranda, G., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., & Senior, K. (2011). Innovative learning environments through new visual methodologies. Burwood: Deakin University Retrieved from http://www.learningspaces.edu.au/docs/learningspaces-visual-methodologies-report.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: neoliberalism’s stealth revolution (First ed.). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  8. Cano, F., & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2004). An integrated analysis of secondary school students’ conceptions and beliefs about learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education - EJPE (Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada), 19(2), 167–187.Google Scholar
  9. Chadbourne, R. (2001). Middle schooling for the middle years: what might the jury be considering? Southbank: Australian Education Union.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99–112. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2013.776990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cranston, N., Kimber, M., Mulford, B., Reid, A., & Keating, J. (2010). Politics and school education in Australia: a case of shifting purposes. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 182–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  13. Dinham, S., & Rowe, K. (2009). Fantasy. Fashion and Fact in Middle Schooling: A critique, 6(3), 19–24.Google Scholar
  14. Fenwick, T. J., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. H. (2011). Emergence and Perturbation. Understanding complexity theory. In Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Socio-Material (pp. 18–34). Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Fielding, M. (2007). Beyond “voice”: new roles, relations, and contexts in researching with young people. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 301–310. doi: 10.1080/01596300701458780.Google Scholar
  16. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon, M. (2009). The misuses and effective uses of constructivist teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 15(6), 737–746. doi: 10.1080/13540600903357058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gough, N. (2010). Lost children and anxious adults: responding to complexity in Australian education and society. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 39–56). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Hoepper, B., & McDonald, H. (2004). Critical inquiry in SOSE - the big picture. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society and environment: a guide for teachers. Cengage Learning Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Hyvärinen, M. (2010). Beyond narrative coherence: an introduction. In M. Hyvärinen, L.-C. Hyden, M. Saarenheimo, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Beyond narrative coherence. John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Joyce, B. R. (1984). Dynamic disequilibrium: the intelligence of growth. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. (1986). A figure of thought. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity, 1(3), 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lau, S., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Adolescents perceived purpose of schooling - a study of Chinese and American students. International Journal of Psychology, 27(3–4), 547–547.Google Scholar
  25. Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277.Google Scholar
  26. McLeod, J. (2011). Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 179–189. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2011.572830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McLeod, J. (2012). Middle school. In N. Lesko & S. Talburt (Eds.), Keywords in youth studies: tracing affects, movements, knowledges (pp. 44–49). Routledge Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  28. McLeod, J., & Yates, L. (2006). Making modern lives: subjectivity, schooling, And Social Change. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  29. Meo, A. I. (2010). Picturing students’ habitus: the advantages and limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing in a qualitative study in the City of Buenos Aires. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 149–171.Google Scholar
  30. Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 683–692. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.6.683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Opie, C. (2004). Research Procedures. In C. Opie (Ed.), Doing educational research: a guide to first-time researchers. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ornek, F. (2008). An overview of a theoretical framework of phenomenography in qualitative education research: an example from physics education research. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2).Google Scholar
  33. Ortiz, A. M. (2003). The ethnographic interview. In F. K. Stage & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the college context: approaches and methods. Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. J. (2012). The experience of education the impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families: literature review. [Rydalmere, N.S.W.]: The Whitlam Institute within the University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  35. Prosser, B. (2008). Unfinished but not yet exhausted: a review of Australian middle schooling. Australian Journal of Education (ACER Press), 52(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose, G. (2005). Visual methodologies. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Research methods for English studies. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the Learner’s Perspective. I. Some Common-Sense Conceptions. No. 76. Gothenburg Univ. (Sweden). Inst. of Education.Google Scholar
  38. St Luke’s Innovative Resources. (2007). Picture This - Card Range. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from http://www.innovativeresources.org/Pages/Our_Publications/Card_Range.aspx?id=d9372f94-aa36-4f0b-9073-4ee960c91ab1.
  39. Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X007002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2007). The methodology of students-as-researchers: valuing and using experience and expertise to develop methods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 327–342. doi: 10.1080/01596300701458863.Google Scholar
  41. Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorkildsen, T. A. (1988). Theories of education among academically able adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(4), 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Travers, M. (2009). Qualitative interviewing methods. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods. Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.Google Scholar
  44. Walter, M. (2009). The nature of social science research. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods. Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.Google Scholar
  45. Yates, L., & Holt, B. (2009). “under pressure I fall back to being a teacher…” confronting contending desires for schooling and teaching in a middle school reform project. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 27–42. doi: 10.1007/BF03216890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations