PLAN ESTRATÉGICO DE MERCADEO

Research supporting middle years’ educational reforms and practices suggest that pedagogy and curriculum needs to be tailored specifically to enable young adolescents within the middle years attain optimal outcomes (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007, 2012b; Jacobs, 2010; Luke, et al., 2003; Pendergast, 2010). Middle years’ education refers to a period generally understood to include young

adolescents and pre-adolescents: students aged from 10 to 15 years, or Years’ 5-8 or 5-9 in formal school systems (Pendergast, 2010; Pendergast, 2016).

Alternatively known as middle schooling or the middle years (Bahr, 2010; Chadbourne, 2001; Pendergast, 2010; Williams et al., 2010) the Melbourne

Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians noted the significance of this period for students:

The middle years are an important period of learning, in which knowledge of fundamental disciplines is developed, yet this is also a time when students are at the greatest risk of disengagement from learning. Student motivation and engagement in these years is critical (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 12).

These beliefs have underpinned educational reform on the international and national scene, promoting a philosophy of teaching and learning commonly known as ‘middle years’ education. Much of the middle years’ reform agenda is targeted to

tackle the issues outlined, including decreased student outcomes, plateauing results and poor engagement with schooling, as well as to create a ‘seamless transition from primary to secondary’ schooling (Chadbourne & Pendergast, 2010, p. 31). Middle years’ models of practice include: advocating a reduction in the number of teachers working with students in the junior years of secondary school; providing integrated and age-relevant curriculum for young adolescents (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007; Jacobs, 2010); improving relationships and social well-being through a focus on a caring and smaller community; use of pedagogies and

curriculum designed to engage young adolescents (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007, 2012a; Pendergast, 2010; Shanks & Dowden, 2015); providing an increased ability for students to negotiate and engage with the curriculum, through constructivist learning theories (Dinham & Rowe, 2007; McMahon & Zyngier, 2009; Richardson, 2003), including practices such as learner-centred curriculum and project-based learning (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007). Some schools and educational systems within Australia have attempted to instigate change and reform within the middle years of schooling, aiming to improve the pastoral and academic transitions of students between primary and secondary schooling, and to ultimately improve overall learning outcomes for all students (Cobbold, 2005; Pendergast, 2010).

Middle schooling reform and philosophies seek to address many of the identified concerns that accompany the education of students within this age- group. Identified challenges that form part of the middle years’ agenda include a greater number of disengaged, alienated, bored or disruptive students (Cummings & Cormack, 1996; Pendergast, 2016), poorer learning outcomes and an increase in behavioural and social problems. Other issues include a range of wellbeing

concerns such as increased reports of bullying (Nilan et al., 2015), increased levels of depression, eating disorders, substance abuse and self-harm (Chadbourne, 2001; Pendergast & Danby, 2011). The increase in wellbeing concerns in Year 8 students and their impact on schooling have been well-documented within Australian schools by Redmond et al., (2016) in their seminal report Are the kids alright? Young Australians in the Middle Years.

Middle years’ models of practice tend to focus on providing learner- centered curricula and pedagogies that engage young adolescents (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007; Luke et al., 2003), helping them form connections to the school, strong and positive relationships to their teachers and community, as well as to their learning (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007; Pendergast & Danby, 2011; Pendergast et al., 2005). Middle years’ models of practice emphasise constructivist pedagogies, the construction of knowledge as a shared enterprise and collaborative learning practices (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007; Richardson, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2001). Richardson (2003) has linked five characteristics of constructivist approaches in learning including:

1. knowledge of the individual learner, or student-centred or student focused learning;

2. use of collaborative groups to construct shared understandings of concepts or knowledge;

3. both planned and spontaneous use of “formal” learning such as use of specific resources or explicit or focused teaching of concepts and content;

4. creation of tasks, activities or options for students to trial, engage with, adapt or interrogate knowledge presented; and

5. enhancing students metacognitive understanding of how and what they learn.

Dowden (2012a) noted that schools implementing a middle years’ approach rely on teachers demonstrating key characteristics including a comprehensive understanding of young adolescents, commitment to working in teams, to using a range of pedagogies to engage their students and to integrate key learning across subject areas where possible. Integrating curriculum across subjects and

disciplines often appears as a key feature within school programs offering a middle years’ focus and can be linked with constructivist pedagogies. However, it is

important to clarify that constructivist pedagogies do not necessarily imply the use of integrated curriculum. Dowden (2007) also clarified and distinguished between various curricula approaches that can be found in middle years’ curriculum

designs, noting that the area of curriculum integration included a range of ambiguous terminology. More specifically Dowden noted a distinction between curriculum driven by bottom up or top down theoretical underpinnings. These included ‘democratic’ (Beane, 2013) or negotiated or integrative curricula (Dowden, 2007) that was essentially student or learner-centered at heart. Here, students participated in project based learning (and often practical learning) around key concepts and outcomes negotiated between students and teacher/s. Top down curriculum designs or multidisciplinary models used principles of integration but were subject driven and offered less scope for individual student negotiation or exploration (Dowden, 2007). As Jacobs (2010) wrote these models

were pragmatic compromises, allowing teachers and systems to ensure that agreed on or ‘essential’ content, skills and assessment had been included in planning and programs.

Findings from Dowden’s study (2012a) suggested that teachers working within schools with dedicated middle years programs believe in the potential of middle years teaching methods but do not always have the depth of knowledge to practice these consistently. Specifically, Dowden noted that teacher knowledge of young adolescents or early adolescence development was basic and undeveloped (Dowden, 2012b).

Other practices underpinning middle years’ models of education include using higher order thinking skills, embedding of digital technologies (Pendergast, 2016; Pendergast et al., 2005; Smyth & McInerney, 2007) and a focus on teaching for understanding by depth, rather than breadth, in course content (Chadbourne & Pendergast, 2010; Sejnost, 2009; Smyth & McInerney, 2007; Wiggins & McTighe, 2001). Methods may include providing support targeting the emotional concerns of students (Smyth & McInerney, 2007); increasing connections between teacher and student (Wentzel, 1998; Wentzel, Muenko, McNeish, & Russell, 2017); and students and the school community (Stehlik, 2013).

As noted by Beane (2013) and Dowden (2007) methods that use a student- centred approach, work to engage students through flexibly delivered curriculum that is open to negotiation and change (Beane, 2013; Dowden, 2007; Luke et al., 2003; Pendergast & Danby, 2011; Smyth & McInerney, 2007). These methods also allow scope for increasing students’ connection to their community, for the

development of autonomy and provide opportunities to differentiate curricula for diverse abilities and contexts (Dowden, 2007).

Where teachers see positive results from learning philosophies and educational models, they may incorporate these into their practice. However, if results require arduous and continuous change, teachers may remain converts only during the time that they have the resources and system support to sustain the changes (Davis, 2009). They may adapt their beliefs to retain a faith in the

philosophy as an ideal, while remaining sceptical of systems and policy makers who are not providing the necessary support (Dilkes, Cunningham, & Gray, 2014). This largely practical perspective, a form of applied eclecticism not dissimilar to the position outlined earlier by Santrock (2008), may account for the some of the mixed success of the middle years’ reform move in Australia (Pendergast et al., 2005; Shanks & Dowden, 2015; Smyth & McInerney, 2007)