Unteachable kids Part 4: Planning the reading

piles-of-books-in-a-private-college-library_www-luxurywallpapers-net_-960x540In response to my last post, Lady Magpie wrote

I’d be curious about how the readings would work – how much choice there would be, how I’d be introduced to different reading options, how the readings would be “paced”, and what incentives would be in place to keep me reading (i.e. how the readings would be used in the course. I hate when readings are either completely ignored OR completely rehashed in the lectures, making me feel like reading them was a waste of time in either case).

I’ve been playing with this for the past hour or so. I want there to be some compulsory readings, to give us some common language and specific ideas to discuss, but also lots of choice so that the students are able to explore the Central Provocation and their thoughts about their chosen subject X in ways that make sense to them. I know how flat I feel as a student when someone tells me to explore an interesting idea but then tell me I must follow a pre-determined path. It doesn’t feel like an exploration at all;  just a dutiful trudging down a known and over-used path.

Deciding on the compulsory readings  is something of a challenge though. The students will be asked to buy a number of textbooks for their whole M.Teach course, and given that they will have forked out lots of dollars for these textbooks, I feel obliged to use them. This is a problem for a unit constructed along the lines I’ve outlined, because the tone in the both of the textbooks is of the research-informed expert telling us how things are. I know I’m in the minority here, but I’m not a big fan of this tone. The tone is meant to instil confidence in the reader (‘Wow, here is some evidenced-based scholarship that is giving me grounded advice on what works in teaching?’). It doesn’t have that effect on me. These textbooks (and one of them in particular) present the (often sound) ideas as unquestionable truths, shutting down inquiry rather than opening it up. For example, at the beginning of a chapter on the learning styles, the authors say that ‘there is not any recognised evidence suggesting that knowing or diagnosing learning styles will help you to teach your students any better’. They dismiss the idea rather than invite us to think about it critically.

Nevertheless, I’m obliged to use the textbooks in some way. So here’s what I’m thinking (and it’s a modification of what I wrote in Part 3).

I’ve abandoned, by the way, my original idea that I’d have specific readings for specific topics/learning outcomes. The mandated topics (classroom management, social/physical/intellectual development, literacy & numeracy, effective feedback etc) are all so interconnected that none of the readings looks at just one; each reading covers a number of them.

Compulsory readings

(each to be followed by an online quiz (rather than test) which requires students to demonstrate that they understand what they’ve read, that they’ve critically thought about it in relation to the Central Provocation and their project with chosen student X)

Week 2: Hattie & Yates Visible learning and the science of how we learn, chapters 1,3,&13 (about 30 pages altogether) – 4 marks

Week 3: Krause Ch 12 ‘Managing behaviour and  classrooms’ in Educational psychology for learning and teaching. – 4 marks

Week 4 Chapter 2 Killen Effective Teaching Strategies – 4 marks

Week 5: Chapter 6 Tovani Do I really have to teach reading? – 4 marks

Week 6: Comber and Kamler ‘Getting out of deficit: pedagogies of reconnection’

Student choice readings

(At least 5 need to be chosen and explicitly drawn on for the later assessments – which I want to rename –  in 11 and 15)

My e-reserve folder on classroom management, with 30 or more articles on various aspects of what Krause calls the the interventionist, the inter-activist and the non-interventionist models of classroom management.

Other parts of the Tovani book, which I’ll encourage students to buy, borrow or download)

Killen Effective Teaching Strategies Chapters 6-14

Relevant resources that the students find themselves


So ends my preliminary planning. I have a meeting next week where I’ll find out how much of this I’ll be allowed to do. In the meantime, can I say again what a pleasure, and how useful, it has been to be getting so much feedback on Facebook.

Unteachable Kids Part 3: A possible unit structure

disengaged studentSo Step 2 was having a series of imagined scenes playing out in my mind of the students wrestling with the Central Provocation: There are some kids who are plain unteachable. (This imagining/visualising is similar, isn’t it, to the high jumper imagining, even befroe she sets offf on her approach to the bar, the spring in her step at take-off, the arching of her back, the upward thrust of her arms to gain more height, the smooth glide over the bar?)

Yesterday I wrote about how my students would be writing, chatting, moving around the room, speculating, reading, analysing, and so on. I realised, when I re-read this, that I’d left out at least two elements in my imagined scenes.

First of all, I implied but did not explicitly mention the sense of play. I want my students to feel that they’re able to explore as freely (and as pleasurably) as little children in a sandpit, trying things out, trying on personas, taking some risks, having some purposeful fun, sometimes on their own and sometimes with others.

Nor, paradoxically, did I didn’t mention the inevitable anxiety. There’d be moments, maybe even extended periods, when the students would find themselves asking uncomfortable questions. Why was there not a more defined and predictable syllabus that we were following? Was this unit giving them the knowledge, strategies and guidance they needed? Would they be properly prepared when it came their turn in front of a class? Student anxiety is uncomfortable for the teacher as well as the student. There’s a temptation to rush in, to make things prematurely safe and comfortable. But teacher education students need to become conscious of the gaps in their current ways of thinking about the lifeworlds of classrooms. The provocation is going to inevitably lead to an awareness of gaps. The trick will be how to allow room for this anxiety to manifest itself without it becoming overwhelming.

This leads to Step 3 in my designing of the unit: structuring the sessions and the assessments so that exploring the complex world opened up by the Central Provocation becomes manageable as well as unavoidable.

How would something like this work?

The Central Provocation: There are some kids who are just plain unteachable.

Week 1

Session 1 (4 hours): Exploring the Central Provocation: collaborative sharing of stories and first thoughts, and exploration of way(s) we might usefully come to understand the underlying issues better. Action Research Project explained, students decide who their chosen subject will be. HBDI profiles explored and discussed.

Session 2 (4 hours): Is X (the subject of my Action Research Project) a challenge because of a physical, social or intellectual deficit? Lecture, group work, readings, activities.

Week 2

School visits

Quiz 1a (10%). Combination of multi-choice & short answer questions, based on selected textbook chapters, and requiring making explicit speculative connections to chosen subject X.

Week 3

Session 3 (4 hours): Is there a way of organising the classroom that would make a difference to my chosen subject X? This would be a session around Krause’s three models of classroom management.

Session 4 (4 hours): What do those at the chalkface have to say about our Central Provocation? Stories from practising teachers, and in panel and small groups.

Week 4

Professional Learning Week (organised by others, on things like safe use of ICT, classroom management, including school visits)

Week 5

Beginning of placements?

Week 6


Week 7


Week 8


Week 9

Quiz 1b (10%). Combination of multi-choice & short answer questions, based on selected textbook chapters, and requiring the making explicit speculative connections to chosen subject X.

Session 5 (4 hours): Is my chosen subject X unteachable because he/she is illiterate/innumerate? Session around Tovani approaches & activities.

Session 6 (4 hours): Sharing of ideas about, and discussion of, the Take Home Test in Week 11 and the Professional Knowledge Bank in Week 15.

Week 10


Week 11

Take home test (30%): Written response to the following: In what specific ways has your reading (mandated and self-selected) contributed to your understanding of, and modified your thinking about, the Central Provocation?

Week 12


Week 13


Week 14


Week 15

Submit Professional Knowledge Bank (50%). A Mahara page organised around the following:

In this Unit you have explored the Central Provocation by learning about

a. Approaches to organising classroom activities

b. Literacy and numeracy strategies

c. Strategies for safely using ICTs to expand the curriculum

d. Approaches to managing challenging behaviour

e. Effective feedback

f. physical, social and intellectual development

Which of these six do you need to find out most about (either because it’s particularly interesting to you, or because it’s especially relevant to your chosen subject X? Research it. Prepare a Mahara page which reports on your research (readings, conversations, activities, UC sessions, observations). Discuss its relevance to the Central Provocation.


If you’ve got this far, thank you!

I’d love some feedback, particularly on the following:

If you were an M.Teach student and you saw this plan, what thoughts and/or feelings would you have? What would work for you, and what wouldn’t?

Also, let me know if you’re interested in being a part of Session 4.

Unteachable kids: Part 2

active studentsThe provocation ‘There are some students who are just plain unteachable’ seems to work, judging by the response when I posted a Facebook link to my last blog post. It was a lot of fun to be thinking along with a number of my past teacher education students, all of whom are now in schools and whose thoughts are therefore especially useful as I plan this new unit. In fact, as I gardened this morning (I’m still on leave, but like most teachers I mull), I thought it might be interesting to plan this unit ‘out loud’ on this blog.

Yesterday I wrote ‘provocation first, not outcomes or standards’. So, is Step 2 about weaving the mandated outcomes and Standards into the plan?

Nope. Not for me. Not yet, anyway.

I’ve got the outcomes at the back of my mind, of course. The seven learning outcomes for this unit are understanding the following:

  1. approaches to organising classroom activities,
  2. literacy and numeracy strategies,
  3. the safe and effective use of ICT,
  4. managing challenging behaviour,
  5. giving effective feedback,
  6. knowing about physical, social and intellectual development that affects learning and
  7. the implication of research on teaching practice.

So, as I said, these seven are at the back of my mind, but my next step isn’t to take each of these in turn and work out how I might structure the unit around each of them in turn. I find (is it just me?) that when I design a unit by breaking it down into its individual components that a number of things happen.

  • I find myself ‘filling pots rather than lighting fires’, and I definitely don’t want to be doing that, given that the provocation has this potential to light fires. I don’t want to position myself as the person who knows, the teller, rather (as I think works best) as the (albeit more experienced) co-researcher, discovering things about this complex world of teaching along with my students (all of whom come to the course with relevant experience and many thoughts).
  • When I position myself as the teller, the expert, the one who imparts his wisdom and experience, I end up putting theory first and practice second, as if (as the 7th learning outcome implies) you become a good teacher if first you have been told what has been found to work. I want my learners to be more active researchers.
  • When I design sub-units for each of the seven outcomes, I (and the students) end up missing the connections, the inter-relationships. Literacy strategies are largely about giving effective feedback. So is managing challenging behaviour, as well as knowing about social and intellectual development. These things are all mixed up, intertwined. Deleuze and Guattari once said something about always beginning in the middle, never at the beginning, that there is no beginning or rational order or unconnected phenomena in a complex ecosystem. And the classroom is a very complex ecosystem.
  • A good provocation produces a varied and rich mix of evolving responses. Things emerge and unfold. Treating learning outcomes separately takes students down predetermined paths; it limits their freedom to explore deeply and passionately

So my Step 2 is not to treat the outcomes separately, Nor do I yet ‘begin with the end’, as the Understanding by Design folk advocate. Perversely (given the widespread acceptance of the UbD wisdom), I don’t start by asking what I want my students to be able to do, or to understand. Often, I don’t know exactly what I want them to be able to do or understand. That’s why I like being in the classroom. It’s potentially unpredictable, chaotic, alive, generative. So I’m not yet ready to think too concretely about the assessments.

So what is my Step 2? (I’ve never thought like this before, by the way. I’ve never thought that I design a unit in steps.)

In Step 2, I play around with what I want my students to do. I try to imagine how I’d like them to be active. I form a picture in my mind of their faces, their expressions, their movements, their trajectories.

In this case, with these students, I know that I’ll be seeing them just six times, for four hours at a time. I know that they’ll be required to attend to this unit outside of those hours.

As I think about these sessions and about their time on their own, a picture begins to form in my mind.  I imagine them thinking about the provocation, of course, but not just thinking. Actively exploring it, both on their own and with others. I imagine each of them choosing an actual secondary student – it could be a student they have worked with in the past,  or someone they observe when they go into a school to observe, or even the self they remember being when they were in secondary school. This student would be someone who is (or was) difficult in class, a challenge to his/her teachers. My teacher education students write about the student. They speculate. They observe and discuss. They read. They come to tentative conclusions, which they refine after further observations, discussions, analyses and reading. They’re on the move, intellectually and physically.

So Step 2 in my unit design has been to imagine a project that will serve as a way for my teacher education students to know more about difficult students, and to explore the idea that some students are plain unteachable. In the process, I’m imagining, they’ll begin to see the connections to those seven learning outcomes.

Indeed, Step 3 of my unit design will be structuring the sessions and the assessments so that seeking out those connections becomes unavoidable. I’ll write about this tomorrow.

The Queen’s Journey: Meditation 2

In the story I told a couple of posts ago, the King immediately sets off, filled with a sense of righteous indignation and clear purpose, and yet suddenly finds himself languishing in prison. He’s stuck. Imprisoned.

There’s enormous pressure on the Queen to do something quickly. To act. To move things along. To stop sitting by the window and get serious. But she resists the temptation, and takes her time. She sits in the uncomfortable tension, and waits for something to emerge. This is the mythopoetic version of what Margaret Somerville (2007) has called a ‘methodology of postmodern emergence’.

The story ends with the Queen and King in an eternal embrace. I was unsettled by this image when I first heard the story, but I now know how important it is. Without the King’s courage and commitment to justice, there is no story.

The story of the King’s call to arms and the Queen’s journey is played out in schools and universities all the time, though we tend to forget the importance of the Queen’s journey and then wonder why the King gets stuck.

Here’s one example.

We want our kids to be competent in reading, writing and maths because we know this is a personal and public good. Too quickly, though, we go the King’s route, and set up Naplan and MySchools, learning outcomes and year level achievement levels, none of which are bad in themselves, but all of which are problematic without the deeper knowledge that comes from the Queen’s Journey.

The Queen is there to remind us that learning to read, or becoming adept with numbers, requires engagement, immersion, play, experimentation and time to make personal connections. It is, for most of us, never a linear process. The King is impatient, wants to step the children through a predictable and ordered and efficient process. (Brian Cambourne described this beautifully in 1995 in a little article called ‘Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: twenty years of inquiry’)

Teachers live in this tension, trying (often with great success) to create spaces for the rich meanderings, the engaging play, but egged on (not always productively) by the King’s voice telling them to get a move on, to get serious.

There used to be a lovely ten minute video on YouTube (it’s no longer there, unfortunately) where Professor Peter Elbow talked about the writing process. Based on his own undergraduate experience with writer’s block, Elbow tells the story of how he discovered the importance of ‘making a mess’ before trying to make more clear sense of whatever he was studying. Step One: you just played freely with ideas, not worrying about their relevance, their clarity, their intelligence. You just launched yourself into a rich but uncertain and meandering process. Step Two: you took a step back from the material and brought your disciplined and analytic mind to bear to make sense of what you had explored, to sift and order and structure.

This is the King and Queen in their eternal embrace.


Cambourne, Brian. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3).

Somerville, Margaret. (2007). Postmodern Emergence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,, 20(2), 225–243.



On reading academic journal articles

I’m teaching secondary preservice teachers a unit on literacy. Our textbook is Cris Tovani’s Do I really have to teach reading?, a book that most of the students enjoy for its readability and relevance.

We also ask the students to read journal articles, and there’s always some resistance. Some students complain (sometimes quite justifiably, in my view) about the language; others find the ideas impenetrable or irrelevant.

It’s interesting to be grappling with this resistance while at the same time doing a unit all about literacy. Tovani suggests many ways we teachers can help our secondary students with their reading of difficult texts. Would these same techniques work for our preservice teachers when faced with an apparently impenetrable journal article?

We’ve been exploring this idea in our weekly afternoon Voluntary Reading Group. Every Thursday, between 10 and 15 of us gather for an hour or so to use some of Tovani’s approaches to help us get into one of the prescribed journal articles. It’s been working well.

This afternoon we’re going to be looking at an article by Wilson and I’Anson called ‘Reframing the practicum’ (Wilson 2006). I re-read it yesterday, and was interested to observe how I went about it.

First of all, it made me mad. This is not atypical for me; it often happens, when I’m being forced to enter into an author’s world, to get attuned to the author’s concerns and language. I am gripped by a strong resistance. It’s rare (but wonderful!) when a journal article draws me in, like a good short story; usually I have to force my way through my initial resistance and irritation.

The irritation this time was around the language. The opening paragraph is made up of six complex sentences, many of them riddled with the off-putting passive voice: ‘is usually regarded’ … ‘has been regarded’‘is seen as desirable’ … ‘it has been claimed …’ Where are the people in this story? Who is doing the regarding? Who is seeing things as desirable? Who is making the claims? George Orwell suggested we should never use the passive voice when the active will do. I agree. The overuse of the passive in educational articles is, in my view, a hangover from a misguided attempt to speak with the voice of an objective expert reporting on what the data has unambiguously revealed.

Then there is the language, in particular the unnecessary jargon:  ‘the nature and implications of the practicum setting need to be thematised’ [354] (jargon + passive). Here are two other examples:

Fundamental to this vision of the practicum, and inherent in the operationalisation of the complementary practicum outlined in this paper, is the dialogical relationship that obtains between the student and coach. [355]

The production of this performative text in turn enables a distanciation in which problematics can emerge and become the focus of subsequent reframing of practice. [359]

So I hack my way through these irritations, because I know they’re partly (though only partly) the result of my natural resistance to what is new and unfamiliar.  Tovani suggests that it helps if we trust the author. If we trust the author, she says, we’re more likely to open ourselves up to a fruitful search for meaning.

But there’s another concern I find I’m having, as I puzzle my way through the beginnings of this article. There’s lots of talk about Schon, and while I know who Schon is and have a good-enough knowledge of what his book on the reflective practitioner was about, I wonder whether my students will have this necessary background knowledge.

Schon’s work was about the relationship of theory to practice. He wrote:

…as we have come to see with increasing clarity over the last twenty or so years, the problems of real-world practice do not present themselves to practitioners as well-formed structures. Indeed, they tend not to present themselves as problems at all but as messy, indeterminate situations …

These indeterminate zones of practice – uncertainty, uniqueness, and value conflict – escape the canons of technical rationality. When a problematic situation is uncertain, technical problem solving depends on prior construction of a well-formed problem – which is not itself a technical task. When a practitioner recognizes a situation as unique, she cannot handle it solely by applying theories or techniques derived from her store of professional knowledge. And in situations of value conflict, there are no clear and self-consistent ends to guide the technical selection of means.

It is just these indeterminate zones of practice, however, that practitioners and critical observers of the professions have come to see with increasing clarity over the past two decades as central to professional practice. (Schon Educating the Reflective Practitioner 1988, pp4-7)

Schon was especially interested in the kind of learning that takes place when coaches train athletes, or in a musical master class, or in an artist’s studio when an apprentice is learning from a master. Knowing something about Shon’s work and the questions he was grappling with helps make sense of the Wilson article. Perhaps it would help my students if they knew more of this context before reading the article.

And there’s another worry that I have to resolve before I can settle into a more productive reading. Is this an article for teacher educators (like me), or for preservice teachers? What value will our preservice teachers get from reading it? How will it help them either in developing their own teacher knowledge or skills, or in understanding the rationale behind the way we do things in our course and with our assessments? I’ll just ask my students this question at our next Reading Group.

Having vented some of my irritations and aired some of my questions, I’m now feeling ready to mine the article for what it might offer up to me.  And I discover quite a bit.

The article makes me think about the difference between being a teacher in your own classroom (with all the complex and sometimes competing demands) and the kind of simplified and supported experience we want our preservice teachers to have. It gives me ideas about the relationship between the university and the schools, and how recent changes in our Faculty policy around professional experience are consistent with what Wilson and l’Anson are lauding. It provokes me to think of ways in which I might rejig some of my units next year so that my students have more of an experience  of microteaching in the ways that the authors describe.

That’s what the article offers me.

What does it offer my students? I’m not sure. Maybe they come to understand better why we’re asking them to reflect on, and analyse, their Assignment 3 event? Maybe they become more aware of the importance of bridging the theory-practice divide? Maybe. I’ll ask them.


Wilson (2006). “Reframing the practicum: Constructing performative space in initial teacher education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 353–361.

A conversation about Tovani

Tovani’s book

Last week, Rachel and I tested out the new Podcast room at the Inspire Centre by having a conversation about the textbook for ELPC G2/LAD, Cris Tovani’s ‘Do I really have to teach reading?’

The recording is a bit rough (we haven’t yet worked out how to edit) and the sound quality is uneven (but certainly clear enough).

A conversation about Tovani’s ‘Do I really have to teach reading?’

Hitting the ground running: first responses to this semester’s literacy unit

Yesterday we began our new unit for preservice secondary teachers, on literacy across the disciplines. In our Grad Dip tutorial, small groups discussed their initial impressions and recorded their thoughts under four headings.

Clarify: On what would students like more clarity?

Value: What are students liking about what they’re hearing and reading about this unit?

Concern: What are students feeling some level of concern about, given what they’ve read and heard about the unit?

Suggest: What suggestions do students have which might address some of their concerns?

I promised to report and respond by the end of the week, so here I go:





Q: Can we have more details about the Literacy Project? When is it due? What does it involve? How is it to be presented?

A: I’m working on an online lecture about the Literacy Project which will address all these questions. I plan to have it posted by the end of the week. If you have any questions once you’ve watched/read the online lecture, or if you’d just like to chat about your ideas for your project, please send me an email so we can make an appointment on Monday during the Drop In time (3-6), or on Thursday afternoon.

Q: What definition of literacy are we working with in this unit? Is it just reading and writing?

A: I began the lecture with a story, rather than with a definition. Josh was struggling with the text in front of him. In his case, it was Macbeth, but there are students in every KLA classroom who struggle to find meaning from the texts in their subject. Some of these texts are word-based; some involve images, plans, maps, tables, recipes and so on. Many involve a mixture of these, and can be paper-based or electronic. Our unit is about helping students find meaning from all the texts relevant to a particular KLA. I’m wanting you to identify the types of texts and literacy (the ability to read and write texts) which your KLA values, and to learn strategies for teaching these relevant literacies to those students who struggle.
One of our Grad Dip students has already begun this exploration, in her KLA of Science, in a post called Return to the Grad Dip: Teaching Literacy.

 Q: Will we learn specific teaching strategies and approaches?

A: The textbook is full of them. We’ll model and practise others in our tutorials. The e-Reserve has articles on others.

Q: Why are the tutorials not organised along KLA lines?

A: We have a lot to learn from our colleagues in different KLAs. Why does a student who creates havoc in one subject behave like an angel in another? Could it be that the student finds one set of literacies inaccessible and acts out in order to divert attention from feelings of inadequacy? If this at least part of the explanation, perhaps we can learn ways to adapt some of the strategies and literacies of our colleagues from other KLAs? You might find the following video – Teaching spreadsheets though street dance –  interesting.

Q: Are we going to learn about things that hinder literacy (eg dyslexia)?

A: RINE is going to open some doors here, as will SCPE and CPP3. But if you’d like to learn more about a specific issue like dyslexia, then construct your Literacy Project and your weekly reading around the issue. Previous students have done wonderful work along these lines.

Q: How much reading and writing should we be doing each week?

A: The unit (like all university units) is based on the assumption that you’ll spend around 10 hours per week, including lectures, tutorials, workshops and so on. Every week on Moodle I’ll post guidelines and suggestions for your reading and writing, but I want you to be making the decisions about what reading and what writing will be most useful to you. Delve deeply into the aspects of the unit which most engage you, and/or will be most useful to you become the kind of teacher you want to become.

Q: Where will online lectures and the weekly program be posted?

A: On Moodle, in the ELPC G2/LAD section, under the relevant week. (Let Valerie Barker know if it’s at all difficult to find; we want to make these things easily accessible to you.)

Q: Where can we find more details about Assignments 3 and 4?

A: There is information about these in the Unit Outlines and on Moodle (in the Assessment box). After you’ve read these, I’m more than happy for you to make an appointment with me (Monday or Thursday afternoons) to discuss possibilities and idea (email me or Rachel to make a time).
My office, by the way, has posters (Assignment 4) from last year all around the walls.

Q: The Grad Dip Unit Outline mentions a Student Led Mini-Conference. What’s this about?

A: Last year a group of Grad Dip students planned a mini-conference where the Assignment 4 posters were displayed, past students were invited to share their experiences of their first year out, and various other celebrations took place. Later in the semester we’ll be calling for volunteers from this year’s cohort to organise this year’s mini-conference.



2.    VALUE




The things students mentioned as being of value to them included

  • emphasis on literacy in general and KLA specific literacies in particular
  • opportunity to learn new skills and strategies to help struggling students
  • the modelling of the staff, the clarity of the communications (online, in tutorials and in the Unit Outline)
  • the structure of the tutorials, time to work with others and establish a sense of smaller communities of learners
  • the link made between behaviour management and literacy
  • the support structures for students, and the role Valerie is taking as triage person
  • the way e-Reserve is structured, and the flexibility of choosing what to read
  • the integration between the units and the integrated assessment
  • Steve’s example of Josh in the lecture
  • moving the Drop In to Mondays, and the later time slot
  • having online materials posted on time




The things students mentioned as being of concern to them included

  • literacy is a primary school, not a secondary school, issue
  • expensive text books, and the late notice given about this
  • 70% weighting for Assignment 3
  • part-timers having to do Assignment 3 for a second time
  • unrealistically heavy workload expectations, and the pressure of fitting it all into 9 weeks
  • the lack of fast, direct communication with students
  • the lack of notice about Week 1 required reading and preparation
  • the possibility that working in the same tutorial groups for 9 weeks would become monotonous
  • Ning and Moodle being difficult to navigate
  • the lack of usesful KLA information in the lectures/tutorials
  • little or no guidance as to what was the essential part of the unit
  • the lack of clarity about TQI registration process
  • lack of specific help for LOTE teachers who will have students whose English is poor
  • too few live lectures (online not as effective)
  • the Boiler Room as a lecture space





The things students suggested arising out of some of the concerns included

  • consistency across unit outlines
  • Moodle and Ning demonstrations on where to find the relevant information
  • sharing past Literacy Projects and posters
  • online readings rather than textbooks
  • more support from Academic Mentors during prac
  • clearer outline of expectations and outcomes
  • return to the wiki
  • fewer discussions in tutorials
  • a whole course discussion forum on the Ning [ed: there is one]
  • more information on the Literacy Project
  • looking at multiple literacies
  • more feedback on assignments
  • spread the lectures and tutes over multiple days (exhausted by Tuesday program)
  • establish clear method of communication when we’re on prac
  • more LOTE articles on e-Reserve
  • information about literacy programs going on outside uni (eg Tactical Teaching)
  • podcast responding to questions about assignments
  • better communication between workshop tutors and lecturers
  • KLA specific literacies
  • more formative assessment to gauge learning
  • demonstration from lecturers of strategies explored in the unit
  • more application in a practical classroom environment
  • how to craft inquiry  questions to guide reading
  • more colours, pictures, graphs to make texts more accessible
  • have weekly readings and tasks posted earlier

Some thoughts on the concerns and suggestions

I hope that what I’ve written in the Clarify section has helped with some of these.

If you’re feeling that one of your concerns or suggestions has not been responded to adequately, please make a time to come and see me. Talking through an issue almost always works better than just writing about it. To make an appointment (during either Monday or Thursday afternoons), email me and we’ll set up a time.