Major Theories and Themes The features of classroom practice that have been linked to improved student outcomes

can be characterised as representing three dimensions of pedagogy, hence theoretically referred to as the Quality Teaching Framework (Vinson, 2002): Pedagogy that is fundamentally based on promoting high levels of intellectual quality Pedagogy that is soundly based on promoting a quality learning environment Pedagogy that develops and makes explicit to students the significance of their work. Each of the three dimensions of pedagogy can be described in terms of a number of elements, (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003):

Intellectual Quality

Quality Learning Environment

Significance

Deep Knowledge Deep Understanding Problematic Knowledge Higher-order Thinking Metalanguage Substantive communication

Explicit Quality Criteria Engagement High Expectations Social Support Students self-regulation Student direction

Background Knowledge Cultural Knowledge Knowledge Integration Inclusivity Connectedness Narrative

A summary of each dimension is provided on the following pages, along with an elaboration of the theories and practices of the elements to improve student learning outcomes. INTELLECTUAL QUALITY/SIGNIFICANCE Mayo, Donnelly, Nash & Schwartz (1993 as cited in Killen, 2007, p.243) suggest problem solving is a strategy for posing significant, contextualised, real-world situations, and providing resources, guidance, and instruction to learners as they develop content knowledge and problem-solving skills. Hence, because problem solving can engage students in developing deep understanding and applying ideas to real-world situations it has the potential to motivate students and show them practical reasons for learning

West (1992 as cited in Killen, 2007, p.243) states, Problem solving is a basic human learning process and the information we gain from our daily confrontation with problems influences our thinking much more than information we have read or been told. This suggests problem solving should be an effective teaching strategy. However, to ensure the implementation is effective, three important features need to be remembered: When people are trying to solve a real-life problem they know why they are trying to solve it. When people are faced with a real-life problem, they often do not have all the knowledge and/or skills to solve it and this generates a need to learn something new. Real-life problems rarely have only one solution and often do not have a best solution.

When used effectively, problem solving can be a very rewarding experience for teachers and students (Marsh, 2010). Some specific reasons for using it as a teaching strategy include: Problem solving can develop learners critical thinking skills and their ability to adapt to new learning situations (Christensen & Martin, 1992, as cited in Killen, 2007, p. 248), but only if they have learned to be conscious of what they are doing (Marshall, 2003, as cited in Killen, 2007, p.248). Problem solving develops students thinking and reasoning skills (Killen, 2007). Problem solving develops learners ability to make informed judgements and emphasizes the importance of being able to explain and justify those judgements. Problem solving can help learners to develop qualities such as resourcefulness, independence, patience and tenacity. When students are successful, their selfconfidence and self-esteem improve and they are more likely to take academic risks and to keep trying when they do make mistakes, (Killen, 2007). However, one of the difficulties in teaching students to think is that we do not have a simple language as a control system for our thinking (de Bono, 1985). De bono suggests the Six Thinking Hats technique as a solution to this problem, so that students can be taught to make deliberate choices about the type of thinking they use, and so that they have a simple language for discussing their thinking processes, (Marsh, 2010). Moreover, the ideas presented in the previous section fit very closely with the concept of higher-order thinking embedded in Blooms taxonomy and in the Anderson-Krathwohl taxonomy. Williams (1980) suggests a useful expansion of this concept by describing eight

student behaviours associated with creative or higher order thinking. These include fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, risk taking, complexity, curiosity and imagination, (Connell, 2009). Furthermore, Sale (2001 as cited in as cited in Marsh, 2010, p. 10) suggests that problem solving requires the well-orchestrated use of three types of thinking: 1. Creative/divergent thinking, which involves generating many possible options that have variety and originality. 2. Metacognition, which involves monitoring, evaluating and revising ones own thinking. 3. Critical/Convergent thinking, which involves analysing components and relationships in a system, comparing, contrasting and evaluating options and interpreting data and making inferences. Thus, to engage students in these types of thinking processes you will first have to identify what types of thinking underpin the outcomes you want students to achieve. In addition, students bring different ways of learning to their studies. They have been engendered by both different social experiences and personality traits. These very different learners need to be responded to in different ways by their class teacher if they are to continue to be interested in learning and involved in the process. Gardner (1993, 1995 as cited in Nolen, 2005, p. 13) proposed that there are multiple intelligences rather than one single capacity. He argues that people have different cognitive strengths. Initially, Gardner proposed seven intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal), but since defined an eighth (naturalistic). While Gardner examined these intelligences individually to identify them, he comments that they rarely exist in isolation and that most people have a distinctive combination that reflects their relative intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Gardner argues that different cultures place different values on the intelligences, thus allowing significance to play a major role in defining the intelligence that is most suitable. For instance, traditional Australian Indigenous culture, Gardner argues, values interpersonal intelligence highly because survival depends so much on cooperative effort. Spatial ability would also be crucial in the detailed knowledge of the environment necessary for survival (Nolen, 2005).

Moreover, Groundwater- Smith, Ewing, & Le Cornu (2006) state each child is a whole being and will embody a complex interaction of many of the factors, such as, different family cultural expectations, poverty, ethnic diversity, gender, special needs-gifted and talented, special needs- students with disabilities, children at risk, prior knowledge and different learning styles. Therefore a teacher needs to be aware of the impact of such complex interactions and hence cater for individual needs through differentiation of subject material/teaching styles. According to Tomlinson and Germundson (2007, as cited in Marsh, 2010, p. 3) successful teaching is like creating Jazz. Teaching too makes music using different elements and blending different cultural styles with educational techniques and theories. Thus differentiation is important to facilitate learning of all students. QUALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT In reference to a quality learning environment, the classroom conference (restorative justice) is implemented as a system to enhance teaching and learning outcomes whilst being explicit about limits and boundaries and emphasising the importance of relationships, (Thorsborne & Vinegard, 2004). Classroom conferences establish a process that provides a link between curriculum and pedagogy and behaviour management. This type of conference is implemented within the classroom through the following: Introduction and implementation of curriculum topics and teaching strategies. Negotiation and establishment of classroom rules and codes of conduct. Group work, cooperatively learning and independent study Feedback about student or teacher performance.

In other words, implementation of these proactive processes serves to keep the teacherlearner, learner-learner relationship free of unnecessary conflict and distraction, (Thorsborne & Vinegard, 2004). This restorative-relational approach to the management of curriculum (what you teach) and pedagogy (how you will teach it) is applied through the following aims and outcomes: These conferences give both students and teachers a great opportunity to review classroom programs and improve the teaching and learning outcomes. There are very safe ways for a teacher to monitor progress, (Thornsborne & Vinegard, 2004).

Teacher states explicitly what the required behaviours look like, feel like and sound like, and to put fair rules in place through negotiation so that the activity will have every chance to succeed, (Edwing, Lowrie & Higgs, 2010).

Restorative processes are fair and non-punitive and therefore students begin to cooperate, (Marsh, 2010). The philosophy and practice of restorative justice focuses on the development of wellrounded, socially and emotionally competent young people who are accountable for their behaviour and understand that there is nothing they do (or dont do) which doesnt impact on others in some way. Hence, through adopting a constructivist view on learning and teaching, learners will make sense of their behaviour by using their past experiences and understandings, (Porter, 2007 & Mc Cold & Watchel, 2003).

Empowering learners to become their own meaning -makers! (Arthur-Kelly, Lyons, Butterfield & Gordon, 2006). The teacher becomes a facilitator of learning rather than a giver of information, a notion that fits well with Spadys (1994a) approach to outcomes-based education.

The Integrated Model coincides with the philosophy of restorative justice through regular and frequent reflections on and reviews of practices and the students learning outcomes, building positive relationships through effective communication, achieving quality curriculum and instruction and establishing an organised classroom, (ArthurKelly, Lyons, Butterfield & Gordon, 2006).

A restorative classroom is characterised by high levels of support (Thorsborne & Vinegard, 2004) therefore integration of the Goal-Centred Theory/Positive reinforcement provides a framework of support for those who are engaging in positive behaviour, (Edwards & Watts, 2008).

Reference list: Arthur-Kelly, M., Lyons, G., Butterfield, N. & Gordon, C. (2006). Classroom Management (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Thompson. Connell, R (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50 (13), 213-229. Ewing, R, Lowrie, T & Higgs J. (2010). Teaching and Communicating: Rethinking Professional Experiences. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R. & Le Cornu, R. (2006).Teaching Challenges & dilemmas (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Thomson. Killen, R. (2007) Effective teaching strategies: lessons from research and practice (4th ed.) Melbourne: Thomson/Social Science Press. Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. McCold, P. & Watchel, T. (2003). In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice, Restorative Practices Eforum, June 6, 2007. Nolen, J. L. (2005). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education Horizons, 8 (6), 14-16 NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW public schools. Retrieved 20 September, 2011, from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_EPSColor.pdf Porter, L. (2007). Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for Teachers (3rd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Thorsborne M., and Vinegard, D. (2004). Restorative Practices in Classrooms: Rethinking Behaviour Management. Inyahead Press. Vinson, T. (2002). Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education in NSW. Sydney: NSW Teachers Federation & Federation of P&C Publications.