- Goriss-Hunter, Anitra, Burke, Jenene
- Authors: Goriss-Hunter, Anitra , Burke, Jenene
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Conference paper
- Relation: Australian Teacher Education Association and Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand Conference, 4-6 July 2018, Melbourne.
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: In uncertain contemporary times, Initial Teacher Education (ITE) educators are under considerable pressure from political, social and institutional sources to ensure that PSTs are “classroom ready”; fully equipped to prepare diverse student cohorts to lead fulfilling post-school lives in an increasingly complex and changing world. To achieve this goal, current research and policy is increasingly focusing on foregrounding inclusive teaching practice. A great deal of education literature focuses on notions of diversity and inclusion with regard to student education in schools (Blackmore, 2009, Campbell & Whitty, 2002, Nieto, 1999, Smyth & McInerney, 2007, and Smyth & McInerney, 2009). Much has also been written about the difficulties inherent in educating PSTs regarding the complexities of inclusive teaching (Blackmore, 2009, Shor, 1992, Sleeter, 2001, Smyth & McInerney, 2007, and 2018 ATEA & TEFANZ Conference: Teacher Education in and for Uncertain Times Smyth & McInerney, 2009). In addition, leading education organizations and accrediting institutions, such as the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) promote inclusion as a mandated teaching approach. While inclusion is the approach mandated in Australia for catering for diversity, the authors argue that current notions of inclusive teaching are still haunted by ghosts of integration and other non-inclusive practices in approaches that hierarchical, additive and focused on deficit thinking. In this model, students are diagnosed as having a particular condition, disorder, impairment, or other difference, which is prioritized as their chief learning characteristic. The rich complexity of a learner’s strengths, preferences, challenges and goals is then narrowed down to one major ingredient – the impairment or difference – which becomes the focus of strategies and practices recommended as appropriate for that particular condition. In this presentation, the authors ask the thorny question, how do we teach PSTs to identify the complexity of learner needs and to make pedagogic decisions to enable learning to occur for all students? The presentation contributes a way forward through the authors’ examination of a range of pedagogies used in class to facilitate PSTs’ investigation of approaches and practices that encourage teaching for inclusion. In order to facilitate PSTs’ learning concerning inclusive teaching, the authors focus on creating opportunities to enable students to work with a diverse range of learners “selecting strategies on the basis of what is to be learnt rather than what is wrong with the learner” (Florian, 2008, p. 2004). As an exploration of pedagogic decisions and teaching approaches, the paper outlines a case study that makes use of a self-study methodology as well as discourse analysis. This research mode “includes elements of ongoing inquiry, respects personal experience, and emphasizes the role of knowledge construction. The collaborative component of self-study acknowledges the important role of the social construction of knowledge (Lassonde, Galman & Kosnik, 2009, p. 10). The inclusivity of a self-study approach and its multi-faceted nature encourages reflection, collaboration and on-going dialogue between educators and PSTs providing insights into teaching practices. From observations and reflective examination of their teaching practices and course development, the authors identify and analyse the pedagogies that are being used to achieve the aims of promoting teaching for inclusion in ITE courses. In addition to a self-study methodology, discourse analysis is used to examine formal literature and policy discussing diversity and inclusion."
“Undoing” Gender: how the School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology SEIT Women’s group works across university and community lines to promote inclusive STEM
- Goriss-Hunter, Anitra, Echter, Adele, Firmin, Sally, Oseni, Taiwa
- Authors: Goriss-Hunter, Anitra , Echter, Adele , Firmin, Sally , Oseni, Taiwa
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Studies in Adult Education Vol. 24, no. 3 (2018), p. 3-9
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Research on gender and education in industrialised and developing countries suggests that schools and universities are sites of ‘doing’ rather than ‘undoing’ gender. Deutsch (2007) contends that ‘doing gender’ refers to social interactions that reproduce conventional and limiting notions of gender construction and that ‘undoing gender’ refers to social interactions that reduce gender difference and open up other possibilities. In this paper we consider how educational institutions can be strategic sites of influence in undoing gender and we investigate some ways that gender is ‘undone’ through the example of the work of the Science, Engineering and Information Technology Women’s Group (SEITWG) located in the Faculty of Science and Technology at Federation University Australia. For this purpose, a self-study methodology understood as a professional reflection was used. The paper explores how the informal coalition of SEITWG works as ‘wilful subjects’, on the one hand, coming up against some of the ‘brick walls’ of dominant discourse that attempt to limit women’s participation in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine). On the other hand, SEITWG attempts to move beyond the restrictions of conventional gender narratives to encourage more women to participate in STEMM by foregrounding the presence of women already active in the area; mentoring women students and staff; supporting a range of their colleagues’ endeavours to research and teach for inclusion; embedding gender analysis into the curriculum; and promoting workplace cultural change.
- Authors: Goriss-Hunter, Anitra , Echter, Adele , Firmin, Sally , Oseni, Taiwa
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Studies in Adult Education Vol. 24, no. 3 (2018), p. 3-9
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Research on gender and education in industrialised and developing countries suggests that schools and universities are sites of ‘doing’ rather than ‘undoing’ gender. Deutsch (2007) contends that ‘doing gender’ refers to social interactions that reproduce conventional and limiting notions of gender construction and that ‘undoing gender’ refers to social interactions that reduce gender difference and open up other possibilities. In this paper we consider how educational institutions can be strategic sites of influence in undoing gender and we investigate some ways that gender is ‘undone’ through the example of the work of the Science, Engineering and Information Technology Women’s Group (SEITWG) located in the Faculty of Science and Technology at Federation University Australia. For this purpose, a self-study methodology understood as a professional reflection was used. The paper explores how the informal coalition of SEITWG works as ‘wilful subjects’, on the one hand, coming up against some of the ‘brick walls’ of dominant discourse that attempt to limit women’s participation in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine). On the other hand, SEITWG attempts to move beyond the restrictions of conventional gender narratives to encourage more women to participate in STEMM by foregrounding the presence of women already active in the area; mentoring women students and staff; supporting a range of their colleagues’ endeavours to research and teach for inclusion; embedding gender analysis into the curriculum; and promoting workplace cultural change.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »