Inclusivity in English

INCLUSIVITY IN ENGLISH: CHALLENGING THE DEFICIT MODEL

What is inclusivity?

Inclusive pedagogy arises from a concern for equity and social justice. It is based upon respect for individual human rights and dignity. Inclusive pedagogy recognises the diversity of our students, and their uniqueness. It values what the students bring to the classroom: their interests, experiences, abilities, insights, needs, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, their learning styles and their intelligences. (The Inclusivity Challenge, ACT, 2002).

Inclusivity is concerned, in particular, with meeting the learning needs of students with a specific focus on those who are vulnerable to marginalisation and exclusion (UNESCO, 1994, cited in Aniftos & McLuskey, 2003,p1). It enables students to engage meaningfully with the curriculum and facilitates the best educational outcomes for all students.

Inclusive pedagogy seeks to address equity issues associated with

gender
social circumstances
culture including that of Australia’s indigenous peoples
intellectual development (experiences, interests and abilities)
disabilities

The following beliefs and values this philosophy::

all students are learners with the potential to achieve
students bring diverse resources and needs to the classroom
people learn within socio-cultural contexts
teaching makes a difference ( The Inclusivity Challenge, 2002)

The term inclusive curriculum refers to:

curriculum content,
the processes of teaching, learning
assessment practices.

Ensuring Inclusivity: Teaching- Learning Strategies

Despite the complexity of the task it is possible to identify a range of effective teaching- learning strategies to enhance inclusivity.

Successful learning strategies:

involve students actively in their learning through continuing dialogue,negotiation, and reflection about their understandings, learning goals,learning processes and outcomes.
make students the starting point of the curriculum and provide multiple points of entry to new learning.
guide students to critically analyse information from a diverse range of texts, including multimedia texts, online resources, real-world texts and popular culture.
study topics in depth and cover less breadth in the curriculum so that students may explore and reflect on their learning.
include higher order thinking, intellectual engagement, critical literacy and connectedness to the world.
scaffold the reading of texts by activating background knowledge and allowing students to make links to their own experiences and background.
scaffold challenging texts and tasks so students achieve success and more motivation to learn rather than using texts and tasks in which students feel ‘talked down to’.
are flexible in what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong and acknowledge that what the student brings to making meaning varies with different social, cultural and linguistic contexts.
use cooperative learning strategies and focus less on competition.
scaffold the specialised language styles, vocabularies, text types and illustrations of all learning areas.
promote more active learning in the classroom with less whole class teacher-directed instruction and less classroom time dedicated to ‘fill in the blank’ and other activity driven worksheets.
support students wherever possible with special needs in regular classroom settings rather than organising students into ability groups and ‘pull out’ programs.
involve all relevant teachers and parents and carers in discussions about supporting students at risk. (The Inclusivity Challenge, 2002,p4)

Inclusivity and English Pedagogy

Background: Gee’s theory of discourse/Discourse

Gee’s theory holds that meaning in language is situated and that such meaning comes from people’s experiences and perceptions relative to the Discourse in which they are presently engaged. He defines discourse as … any stretch of language (spoken, written, signed) which hangs together” to make sense to some community of people who use that language. (1990, p103; 1996).

Gee’s theory distinguishes between discourse and Discourse. He describes Discourse as

the interrelationships between social relations, social identities, contexts, and specific situations of language use (Gee,1989, 1992, 1993, 1996). In this regard, Discourse with a capital D describes:…a socially accepted association among ways of using language, other symbolic expressions, and artefacts, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or “social network” (Gee, 1996, p. 131). (Mackay,2007,p2)

Gee’s Discourse integrates ways of talking, listening, writing, and reading, but also integrates acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and feeling into patterns associated with a recognizable social network, or affinity group (Gee, 1996, 1999, 2001a) (Mackay,2007,p2). Members of a Discourse

recognise others as either insiders or outsiders
must see themselves as a member of that Discourse (there cannot be full engagement in a Discourse if this condition is not met)

In addition the following are characteristics of Discourse:

the various Discourses which constitute each of us as persons are changing and often are not fully consistent with each other
there is often conflict and tension between the values, beliefs, attitudes, interactional styles, uses of language, and ways of being in the world which two or more Discourses represent” (Gee, 1989, p. 7).
language is seen as one of the constituent elements of Discourse.
different social languages are reflected in different patterns of vocabulary and syntax.
social languages connect to specific social activities and to specific socially situated identities associated with a Discourse (Gee, 1996, 1999).
knowing a specific social language means knowing how to use its specific grammatical and lexical features in a manner that is characteristic of the Discourse.
knowing a particular social language means you are a member of a particular Discourse.

Learning a discourse

According to Gee, Discourses cannot be learned through overt instruction but are acquired through socialization and apprenticeship into the social practices of a particular Discourse. While modelling and instructional guidance are important, discourses, or social languages, are typically learned through immersion in meaningful practice (Gee, 2001b). In order to acquire the new Discourse the learners must see themselves as members of the target Discourse. There cannot be full engagement in a Discourse if this condition is not met and there is conflict between the values or identities of the two distinct Discourses. Newcomers must be exposed to advanced practitioners of the discourse and some overt instruction regarding both the discourse (this instruction must be undertaken by a “mentor” within the Discourse and does not occur in any formal instructional sense.) Furthermore newcomers need opportunities to hypothesize, practice, and test the rules and use of the language used within the D/discourse. Newcomers also need feedback on their practice and protection from punishment if they get something wrong.

In addition for newcomers to acquire a Discourse, the Discourse must meet the condition of being welcoming and open. The membership of the primary Discourse must develop an awareness “ways of being”, before it can be sensitive to any attempts made by outsiders to learn these ways of being. Secondly, members of the Discourse must acknowledge and value any display of identity from alternate and secondary Discourses, particularly where these are perceived to have limited status and social benefit in the wider society. )

Implications for English teaching

One useful approach to an inclusive curriculum is through Gee’s theory of discourse/ Disourse which has four major implications for English teaching.

If language acquisition is viewed as a process of acquisition through socialization, apprenticeship, and immersion in meaningful practice, then English teaching must provide opportunities for all students to acquire language skills in socio-cultural contexts and to practise and experiment without fear of failure.
Such a view of language learning suggests that wherever possible all students should be accommodated within the regular classroom where they can interact with initiates of the Discourse and be mentored rather than be organised into ability groups and special programs.
English teaching must facilitate entry in to the primary Discourse by equipping all students with critical literacy skills which will enable them to examine the constructs of their Discourse and develop an awareness of other ways of being. In this way members of the primary Discourse can establish conditions that welcome the newcomers and are inclusive of linguistic and cultural diversity.
English teachers must scaffold the specialised language styles, vocabularies, text types and illustrations of the discourses for all students.

What does an inclusive English classroom look like?

An inclusive English classroom is responsive to student needs, offers a flexible, relevant and challenging curriculum, and a broad range of teaching- learning strategies and assessment practices. The teacher’s role within this classroom is as a facilitator in a collaborative process which guides the student towards negotiated learning goals.

The inclusive English teacher

determines the entry point of each student into the curriculum and provides multiple points of entry to the new learning
challenges students to achieve to high standards in ways that complement what they already know, what they can already do, and how they learn best.
provides opportunities for the contextual social-cultural acquisition of language skills through pair work, group work and class- discussion
uses collaborative learning strategies
respects each student’s uniqueness and involves students actively in their learning through continuing dialogue, negotiation and reflection about their learning, learning goals and progress.
uses a broad repertoire of teaching learning strategies across all learning styles including the emerging technological learning style
provides opportunities for composing and responding across a broad range of text types including technological texts
chooses a broad range of text for study which are inclusive of gender, culture (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture), sexuality,
uses different modes of assessment to allow students to demonstrate their learning their learning in a variety of ways
guides students to critically analyse information from a diverse range of texts, including multimedia texts, online resources, real-world texts and popular culture.
includes higher order thinking, intellectual engagement, critical literacy and connectedness to the world.
scaffolds the reading of texts by activating background knowledge and allows students to make links to their own experiences and background.
scaffolds challenging texts and tasks so students achieve success and more motivation to learn .
scaffolds the specialised language styles, vocabularies, text types and illustrations of all learning areas.
supports students wherever possible with special needs in regular classroom settings rather than organising students into ability groups and ‘pull out’ programs.

Gee’s theory and ESL learners

Gee’s theory holds significant implications for ESL learners. What his theory suggests is that ESL learners are actually required to learn the many discrete discourses associated with the many Discourses within which they will have to participate. To learn these discourses effectively, ESL students must become members of the various associated Discourses and to have opportunities to practise with the authentic membership of these Discourses. Access to practice, apprenticeship and mentoring within this Discourse is best achieved through the integration of students into regular classrooms where interaction with the initiates of the target Discourse is more probable.

Inclusivity, literacy & the education of boys

Research has suggested that we need to engage with boys’ culture and demonstrate the relevance of classroom learning to boys’ lives by incorporating ‘real’ and everyday experiences, materials from popular culture, forms s of ICT for communication and exchange into our curriculum. (Success for boys Core Module, P3).

Successful and inclusive teaching strategies for boys will include

careful modelling of high-quality products
clear and explicit steps for task completion
close monitoring of individual performance, and intervention where it is warranted
encouraging confidence in ‘trial and error’ learning
ensuring a balance between open and reflective learning and closed, process and action-oriented learning
incorporation, and possibly even weighting of, a variety of assessment strategies. (Ludowyke & Scanlon,1997, p19) (cited in Success for boys p40)
support for literacy across the curriculum, especially professional learning opportunities for teachers
early diagnosis and intervention for those at risk of literacy underachievement
highly structured instruction and lessons, with an emphasis on challenge and frequent changes of activity
greater emphasis on teacher-directed classroom work
providing students with clear objectives, simple but detailed instructions, and explicit criteria for presenting their work
short-term, challenging tasks and targets, with frequent changes of activity
assessment and monitoring systems that are designed to identify underachievement in key skills within and across all learning areas
regular personal interviews for the purposes of target setting
positive reinforcement such as immediate and credible awards for quality work, increased effort and improved behaviour
opportunities for extra tuition and revision
learning programmes that take account of students’ different personal and social development

CONCLUSION

Schools are agents for social and cultural change and can play a major role in building inclusive communities and societies. Within English it is essential that we continue to provide our students with critical literacy skills and a metalanguage which allows them to critique the dominant Discourses and allows them to see alternative ways of being. In this way we can build truly inclusive school communities and an inclusive society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alloway,N, Dalley-Trim, L et al (2006) Success for Boys Professional learning Program. Core Module. Curriculum Corporation. Carlton. Australia.

Aniftos, M & McLuskie L (2003) On Track Toward Inclusive Education www.aare.edu.au/03pap/mc/03296.pdf

Australian Government Getting it right: Standing Committee on Education and Training: Inquiry into the education of boys (2002)

http://www. Aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/report

Brown,S.G. (2000) Words in the Wilderness; Critical Literacy in the Borderlands. Albany: State University of New York Press

Comber, B. (1997) Literacy, poverty and schooling: Working against deficit equations. English in Australia, 119-120

Department of Education and Training NSW (2007) English Years 7-10 for ESL Learners. www.curriculumsupport.nsw.gov.au/secondary/English/assets/doc/stage45/eng_esl_s4intro.doc

Department of Education, Training and The Arts Qld (2007) New Basics Project.; Inclusivity http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/pedagogics/differ/dif2a.html

DET Western Australia (2007) The education of Gifted and Talented Students in Western Australia . http://det.wa.edu.au/education/gifttal/inclusivity/index’htm

Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171, 5- 17.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Gee, J. P. (1993). Critical literacy/socially perceptive literacy: A study of language in action. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy(16), 333-355.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2001b). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 714-725.

Kisanji J (1999) Historical and Theoretical Basis of Inclusive Education Keynote address for the Workshop on Inclusive Education in Namibia: The Challenge for Teacher Education, 24-25 March 1999, Rossing Foundaion, Khomasdal, Windoek, Namibia.. http://wwww.eenet.org.uk/theory-practice/hist-theorectic.doc

Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2003), New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.

Lingard, B, Martino, W, Mills, M & Bahr, M 2002, Addressing the Educational Needs of Boys: Research www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/addressing_educational_needs_of_boys.htm.

Ludowyke, J & Scanlon, J (1997), Improving the School Performance of Boys, VASSP, Melbourne.

MacKay, T. (2007) Gee’s Theory of D/discourse and ESL Research in Teaching English as a Second Language: Implications for the Mainstream.University of Manitoba www.umanitoba.ca/education/symposium03/documents/mackay

Ofsted (2003), Boys’ Achievement in Secondary Schools, Ofsted, London. www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3316.

Olsen, A. Diversity and Inclusivity in Teaching and Learning and Student Services in Australia July 2001 Strategy Policy and Research in Education

Pte Ltd www.spre.com.sg

Quality Teaching In NSW Schools http://wwww.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au

The Inclusivity Challenge Within Reach of Us All A discussion paper for school communities ACT Canberra, 2002 . Publication No 02/1842

http://www.decs.act.gov.au