With the increasing number of refugees entering into the education system, there is a

need for greater concentration on teaching pedagogies that equip schools with being

able to serve a diverse student population. The importance of reviewing research is in

order to ensure the applicability and validity of research, as the education landscape is

dynamic meaning appraisal is needed to ensure its continued effectiveness. This

research critique will focus upon two research articles concerning the Refugee Action

Support (RAS) program, which is an after-school program that assists refugee

students according to individual needs. The primary article of critique in this paper is

Naidoo (2012), which is a research report that explicates the RAS program, as well as

its benefit to the education landscape for pre-service teachers, refugees and schools.

Ferfolja & Vickers (2010) will be utilized as a supplementary research article to

expand upon Naidoo (2012) and further investigate and critique the claims of the

research. Through this paper Naidoo (2012) will be referred to as Study A, and

Ferfolja & Vickers (2010) will be referred to as Study B. The choice of Study B to

comparison with Study A, is that both concern the RAS program, however both are

regarding different stages of the programs development. The synthesis of these

articles will incorporate further research into the RAS program to envelope a greater

understanding of the initiative. Following this critique will be discussion into

implications that this research may have for teaching practice.

The purpose of both Study A and Study B is clearly defined in that both aim to

explicate the efficacy of the RAS program in relation to pre-service teachers, and to

refugee students. The purpose of both articles lies in explaining the impetus of the

RAS program, and how there is a need for such a program due to schools not being

adequately equipped to serve refugee background students adequately. (Ferfolja &

Vickers, 2010; Naidoo, 2012). Both studies similarly note that the models of

Benedict Stone 17436508 1

schooling orientated around a single mould for learning further separates and

disadvantages refugee students, and that the findings of the RAS program position it

to be of great benefit to these students through adequately supporting them (Naidoo,

2012). A focal point of both Study A and Study B is how the RAS program can be of

benefit to pre-service teachers, as there is a need to be able to differentiate to a diverse

student population. It is the assertion of both research articles that the RAS program

extends opportunities for pre-service teachers to be able to learn this (Naidoo, 2012.,

Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The point of the importance in educating pre-service

teachers to be able to serve diverse students is reiterated by Howard & Obidah (2005).

The results of Study A were that students “were engaged, motivated to learn;

successfully completed and submitted assignments and were given new and diverse

learning opportunities” (Naidoo, 2012). Coupled with this, Study A found that pre-

service teachers were afforded opportunities to extend understandings, and practice

skills in teaching diverse learners (Naidoo, 2012). The findings of Study B are

agreeable with those of Study A, with the addition that the program was also effective

in including students to the learning environment (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The

results of both studies are substantiated by the ALNF who note the success of the

program, including noting the commendations and awards that the program has

received (ALNF, 2008). These results are further corroborated through preliminary

data of the first trial of the RAS program, which states 87% of students experienced

improvement (Curriculum and Leadership, 2008).

The literature review in Study A is extensive, and outlines the current research in the

field of study and how there are gaps in the field as there is no focus on “pedagogical

strategies to inform teaching and learning” (Naidoo, 2012, p.268). It is also evident

through reading the literature review in Study A that the findings have been utilised to

Benedict Stone 17436508 2

direct the research of RAS program. This is evident through the literature review

highlighting research that points to the need to proffer additional time, and targeted

learning to refugees, as well as research in the literature review that highlights the

importance of teachers being trained in not only literacy, but also second language

learning (Naidoo, 2012). This is evident in the structure of the RAS program as the

after-school program is a form of targeted assistance that provides extra time for

students to work on classwork, and that prior to pre-service teachers entering into the

program they are required to complete an ESL course (Naidoo, 2012). Study B

however has no clearly defined literature review component, but instead justifies the

existence of the RAS program through citing previous research concerning the

program (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). It is worth noting that this previous research does

incorporate literature reviews. The omission of a dedicated literature review in Study

B does make the research findings questionable. The reason for this as Oliver (2012)

states is that the literature review allows for the reader to unveil a clear progression in

the research. Schostak & Schostak (2015) further state the importance of the literature

review, as it uncovers the discourse and debate in the area in question, and allows for

an understanding as to why the research is needed. MacMillan (2012) notes that

without the review of literature, researchers are likely to not be employing the most

effective methods into current research. It is clearly apparent that Study A contains

adequate review of literature in accordance to the points mentioned, as it highlights

the current debates, problems with current research, and also uncovers why there is a

need for the RAS program. The school-community-university initiatives’ benefits that

the literature review of Study A raises is also confirmed by Hardy & Grootenboer

(2013) who notes the benefit of the additional resources that such partnerships

provide. In evaluating research, an important consideration point is the literature

Benedict Stone 17436508 3

review, and in the case of Study A it has depth and achieves its purpose, however,

Study B does not contain a literature review (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015).

Both Study A and B use qualitative data obtained throughs semi-structured

interviews with participants in the study. Study A obtained these interviews from all

participants in the program, including students, RAS tutors, the principal, as well as

teachers. These interviews were group and individual, with the researchers etic

perspective being that a broad representation of the participants was provided

(Naidoo, 2012). Study B however, employed interviews of 30-60 minute in length

with the RAS coordinators only at the beginning and end of the program. Coupled

with this, Study B had 5 teachers also complete questionnaires, which provided

quantitative data on the efficacy of the RAS program. The research does however

note that the sample size of this quantitative data was very small, so no inferences

were made from it (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). Upon looking at the data collection,

Study A had a proportional sample in which a multitude of different people were

included in the interviews, whilst Study B was confined to interviewing the

coordinators alone. Study A bares no mention as to how this data was utilized to

formulate groupings and recurrent themes. Gall Et al., (2015) note the importance of

following a structure in coding and thematically grouping in order to avoid bias.

Study B makes clearly apparent that the data was coded thematically, which led to a

general picture as to how the program supported students (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010)

Although Study A likely followed a similar methodology, only Study B explicitly

states the data analysis procedures.

The research methodologies employed in Study A involved consideration of

previous iterations of the program, and adjustments made based upon feedback

(Naidoo, 2012). The conducting of research in Study A involved a chief investigator

Benedict Stone 17436508 4

who conducted the interviews, as well as a school-based coordinator that oversaw the

program. The focus of the research was the “ structure, effect, and value of the

program, as well as how it supported teaching and learning in schools” (Naidoo,

2012, p.270). The research methodologies employed in Study B involved monitoring

student attendance, as well as interviews with the coordinators directly involved in the

program. The main technique of Study A and B of data collection was through

qualitative measures, although quantitative measures were employed in Study B,

albeit not to great extent (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The limitations of Study A are

not apparent through the research methodologies, as interviews are a common means

of data collection in qualitative research (Gall Et al., 2015). Limitations of Study B

could be evident through the fact that the only interviewed participants are the

coordinators, which does not allow for the range or scope of perspectives that is

provided in Study A. This in turn could impact upon the generalizability of the

research.

The findings of both Study A and B are similar in the fact that both have findings

that show the RAS program to be of considerable benefit to refugee students. Study A

provides the emic perspective of participants in the results, including; the refugee

students, the RAS tutors, school perceptions, as well as the etic perspective of the

researchers in the conclusion (Naidoo, 2012). Study B however only provides the

emic perspective of the coordinators, attributable to the fact that the research did not

interview any other participants. Both Study A and B note the program aided in

greater inclusivity of students with refugee background, and that the program led to a

progression in school achievement (Naidoo, 2012; Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The

results of Study A focus upon the social capital and self-confidence the program

provided, as well as the fact that RAS tutors believed the program provided real world

Benedict Stone 17436508 5

teaching experience (Naidoo, 2012). The results of study B focus instead on the

literacy proficiency of students, noting the increased independence in class, and

increased literacy competency the participants in RAS acquired (Ferfolja & Vickers,

2010).

The conclusions of Study A are that the program allowed for greater collaboration

between schools and universities, and also included the parents of refugee background

students into the learning environment. The study also highlights the fact that schools

cannot provide the support needed by these students (Naidoo, 2012). Study A also

outlines the benefit that RAS is to pre-service teachers in providing opportunity for

engagement with community, as well as practice of differentiation (Naidoo, 2012).

Study B confirms these findings, with both Study A and B stating the importance of

additional targeted time to assist refugees (Naidoo, 2012; Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010).

The concluding statements in Study A are that the RAS program “generates a critical

awareness of the limitations of the conventional classroom practices, and the need for

individualised work with students from disadvantaged backgrounds” (Naidoo, 2012,

p. 273). The concluding comments of Study B however note that further exploration

into the RAS program is required to determine its impact (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010).

This is attributable to the fact that Study B is focussed upon an earlier iteration of the

RAS program, to that being outlined in Study A. The generalizability of Study A is

adequate, as the research does note that the setup of the RAS program is according to

site based needs. Also the program highlights that even non-refugee students

participated and received benefit from the RAS program (Naidoo, 2012).

The teaching implications of the research of Study A and B are that in order to

support diverse students, provision must be given for additional time that is targeted

to students needs. This could take form through a homework club, or after-school

Benedict Stone 17436508 6

assistance program. The importance of such programs is due to the APST standards,

in which arguably 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.5, 3.7, 4.1, and 6.1-4 all pertain to employing

evidence-based practice and differentiating to ensure equitable learning for all

students (Education Services Australia, 2011). The RAS program also as Ferfolja,

Jones-Diaz & Ullman state, interrupts disadvantage in schooling, and equips students

with the ability to succeed in school (2015). The findings of both Study A and B are

mutual in the fact that both call for examination into the approaches used to teach

refugees through positing the RAS program as a viable, and effective solution.

The contribution that Study A and B make to the field of education are that it

provides an effective pedagogical strategy for the inclusion and support of students

from refugee backgrounds. The benefits however are not restricted to these students

alone, as the benefits of the RAS program can extend to other students as well. The

recommendations of both these articles are in the establishment of school-university-

community programs that allow for individual tailored learning to assist students.

Research is integral to practice, as it provides approaches that are substantiated by

evidence that can benefit students’ learning (Thomas & Pring, 2004). Aside from

research being the best approach to solving problems and improving practice, it is

also an expectation of the APST.

Benedict Stone 17436508 7

References

ALNF. (2008). Refugee Action Support Program. Retrieved from:

http://www.alnp.org/program/refugee-action-support

Curriculum and Leadership. (2008). The Refugee Action Support Program in New

South Wales. Curriculum Support and Leadership Journal, 6(15). Retrieved

from:

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/refugee_action_support_program,23342.

html?issueID=11438

Education Services Australia. (2011). Australian Professional Standards for

Teachers. Carlton South, Australia.

Ferfolja, T., Jones-Diaz, C., Ullman, J. (2015). Understanding Sociological Theory

for Educational Practices. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University

Press.

Ferfolja, T., Vickers, M. (2010). Supporting refugee students in school education in

Greater Western Sydney. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), pp. 149-162.

Doi: 10.1080/17508481003731034.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2015). Applying Educational Research (2nd Ed)

In J. Ullman (comp.), Applying Educational Research (pp.350-365). Sydney,

Australia: Pearson Australia.

Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. (2013). Schools, teachers and community: Cultivating the

conditions for engaged student learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5).

pp. 697-719.

Benedict Stone 17436508 8

 Howard, T., Obidah, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for ‘Monday morning’ in the urban

school classroom: Reflecting on our pedagogies and practice as effective

teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), pp. 248-255.

MacMillan, J, H. (2012). Locating and reviewing related literature In Educational Research:

Fundamentals for the consumer (6th Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson. pp. 57-92.

Naidoo, L. (2012). Refugee Action Support: Crossing borders in preparing pre-service

teachers for literacy teaching in secondary schools in Greater Western Sydney.

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(3), pp. 266-274.

Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with your literature review: A handbook for students. McGraw-

Hill Education.

Schostak, J., Schostak, J. (2015). Writing research critically: Developing the power to make a

difference. Taylor and Francis

Thomas, G., Pring, R. (2004). Evidence-based practice in Education. Berkshire, Great

Britain: Open University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.ebrary.com.au.ezproxy.uws.edu.au

Benedict Stone 17436508 9