Differentiating Teaching for Sustainability for Diverse Student Learning

  • Susen Smith
Chapter

Abstract

The increasing diversity of the student population in primary classrooms has led to greater recognition being paid to the needs of students with varied backgrounds, experiences, ethnicities and capabilities. Diversity in this context includes variety not only in student populations, but also in teaching personnel, pedagogy, curriculum, resources and environments, and the different combinations of these related entities.

Keywords

Educational Context Sustainable Practice Student Diversity Curriculum Differentiation Multiple Intelligence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Student diversity. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/student_diversity/student_diversity.html Google Scholar
  3. Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2005). Educating for a sustainable future: A national environmental education statement for Australian schools. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Curriculum Corporation, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper Review, 26(4), 190–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, B. (2011). Empathy in education: Engagement, values and achievement. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, T. & Greive, C. (2009). The effectiveness of the methods of reciprocal teaching as applied within the NSW primary subject Human Society & its Environment: An exploratory study. TEACH, 3(1), 45–52. Retrieved from http://research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=teach Google Scholar
  8. de Bono, E. (1985). The six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  9. Eames, C., Barker, M., Wilson-Hill, F. & Law, B. (2009). Investigating the relationship between whole-school approaches to education for sustainability and student learning. Wellington, NZ: Teaching & Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved at http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9245_summaryreport.pdf Google Scholar
  10. Effeney, G., & Davis, J. (2013). Education for sustainability: A case study of pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge and efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 31–46. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n5.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frisk, E., & Larson, K. L. (2011). Educating for sustainability: Competencies and practices for transformative action. Journal of Sustainability Education. 2(March). Available at http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/FriskLarson2011.pdf
  12. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Hyde, M., Carpenter, L., & Conway, R. (2013). Diversity, inclusion and engagement (2nd ed.). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, S. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180–193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  15. Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  16. McCluskey, K. W., Treffinger, D. J., & Baker, P. A. (2002). The amphitheatre model: An approach to talent recognition and development. In K. W. McCluskey & D. J. Treffinger (Eds), Enriching teaching and learning for talent development (pp. 1–7). Centre for Creative Learning, Sarasota, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (1999). The Adelaide declaration (1999) on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Carlton South, VIC, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx
  18. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Carlton South, VIC, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
  19. Mulrine, C. F. (2007). Creating a virtual learning environment for gifted and talented learners. Gifted Child Today, 30(2), 37–40.Google Scholar
  20. Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193–211. 2004. Retrieved from https://castl.duq.edu/Conferences/Library03/PDF/Bloom_Tax/Noble_T.pdf
  21. New South Wales Board of Studies. (2006). Human society and its environment K–6: Syllabus. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
  22. New South Wales Landcare Gateway. (2012). Frog dreaming: People, place, storytelling. Armidale, NSW, Australia: NSW Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
  23. Rifkin, J. (2010). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, S. R. (2009). A dynamic ecological framework for differentiating the primary curriculum. Gifted and Talented International, 24(2), 9–20.Google Scholar
  26. Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change (Schumacher Briefings No. 6). Bristol, UK: Green Books Foxhole.Google Scholar
  27. Stuhmcke, S. (2012). Children as change agents for sustainability: An action research case study in a kindergarten. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61005/1/Sharon_Stuhmcke_Thesis.pdf
  28. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
  29. Wesley, P. W., & Brusse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to promote reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(2), 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, F. E. (1993). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461–84). Highett, VIC, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susen Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations