Creating an Inclusive, Student-Centered Learning Environment - Literature review Example

Assignment 2: Creating an inclusive, student-centred learning Environment COURSE CONVENOR: SUBMITTED BY: STUDENT ID No.: DATE SUBMITTED:   INTRODUCTION This article analyses the issue of creating an inclusive, student centred learning environment by illustrating the inclusive teaching practices on a target group to facilitate the group achieve the learning outcomes. It begins by outlining of the target group as a subset of whole organisation with diverse staff composition. The target group is composed of migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB). It then applies traditional teaching and socio-cultural theory as a framework for identifying the learner’s needs and shaping inclusive learning practices. The author will from the outset explain how the plan is implemented by illustrating how NESB meet the learning outcomes and also explain how these strategies are related to the theoretical framework. Finally, the author will additionally discuss the approach in which teachers can integrate inclusive, student-centered learning practices in their present and future teaching practices. THE ORGANISATION This article talks about training employees of an organisation in which I have conducted various types of instructional training for the past seven months. I begin by briefly stating the nature of the organisation and the kind of work its staff carry out in so far as this influences the manner in which the training is conducted. The organisation is a medium-sized company engaged in steel fabrication and coating plant. It produces large-scale steel components such as bridge and jetty pylons to be used in projects in mining and infrastructure industry. It has employed about 130 workers in the workshops, all of whom are male. The employees work as boilermakers, fitters and turners, crane drivers, welders and spray painters. The organisation’s labour force is pretty diverse; a sizeable portion of approximately 30% of the workforce has non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB). These are people from Asia, Latin America, Africa and Europe who speak a diverse range of first languages from Croatian to Korean to Zulu (Archer, 2007). Although all NESB speak English, there is a great degree of variability in levels of English proficiency. This implies that while some staff struggle to express and/or understand others, others can function at a very high level of English proficiency. Additionally, the labour force works in teamwork of small groups. Each team performs a particular task, such as welding, before passing it on to another team that performs a further task in the process, for instance, dressing the steel (David, 2010). It is common to find a team organising itself along linguistic or cultural backgrounds while other teams comprise of a mixture of backgrounds (Hanne and Sursock, 2011). THE TARGET GROUP This essay has its centre of interest in NESB migrants which comprise 20 per cent of the Australian population as noted by Mathews (2009). Kember (2009) indicates that this group has a lower employment results and smaller success rates in VET than the general population. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) state that learning outcomes are influenced by several social and cultural issues. In their views, these may include poorer participation rates in VET; learning difficulties arising from institutional factors such as quality of teaching and lack of learning support; and cultural disparities that pose learning barriers (Mathews, 2009). They add that ability to read, write and speak English fluently is the central factor to all others. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK As the work in the aforementioned organisation is carried out in special task teams, these teams tend to develop into communities of practices within which a great deal of learning takes place (Pedersen and Liu, 2003). In addition, the teams establish a kind of internal structure or culture. Eventually, the key factors that influence the working within the organisation emerge as language, ethnicity, socio-cultural backgrounds and communities of practices (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). In designing and creating an inclusive learning environment, I have considered the following factors: the needs and experiences of the target group; identify approaches that meet the learning needs of all students; social and cultural practices; and the impact organisational attitudes and teachers’ beliefs have (Bamber, 2005). In understanding the learning requirements of the target group, language has been described as “arguably the most distinctive and overt expression of culture” (Estes, 2004) since the use of language will always take place in social and/or cultural settings. This implies that language must be considered as a key issue to learning practices of NESB since they have an English language difficulty (Holton and Clarke, 2006). It may appear that applying ESL on the NESB staff to overcome language-related barriers as solution. However, the solution here is to allow English speaking background (ESB) staff and NESB staff to freely interact to create understanding, planning and co-operation (Lynch et al, 2006), and a clear set of communication skills, among all staff. Further, this creates what Bamber (2005) call negotiation of meaning, the idea that knowledge is the product of process where members of one community (team) interact and through this interaction, understanding can be arrived at and knowledge passed on. Here the listener can seek clarification and the speaker will judge how well the listener has grasped a particular concept. This process is particularly important when the speakers have different abilities, experiences or language backgrounds. A second key concept that enables creation of a viable and all-inclusive learning environment is that of multiple perspectives (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). Here, work teams (or communities of practice) foster learning process in so far as several communities create a potential for more than one way of performing a task (Warren, 2002). If these teams inter-relate within and without themselves, a more inclusive learning or teaching environment is created where learning between members of different groups will be one of the by-products. According to Lynch and friends (2006), an all-inclusive practice will start from a change in attitude on how organisation, teams and employees work together. Here, the management should be willing to allow worker-centered activities into the work teams (Bamber, 2005). This demonstrates that they think of workers as equals. While this does not contribute to the learning outcomes directly, the significance and worth of the outcomes will increase for all workers (Estes, 2004). THE TRAINING The training undertaken on this organisation’s staff is on the topic of safety documentation. As outlined elsewhere above, the nature of jobs performed in the organisation under study involve many risks (i.e. hazards) when carrying out the tasks. Therefore, all the staff is mandated to fill a Job Safety Analysis card (JSA) before starting a task. When the company management discovered that a number of employees, both ESB and NESB were not filling the cards as required, this was identified as a major drawback in creation of a safe working environment, and poses a very real threat of serious accidents occurring since a correctly filled-in JSA card is an essential step in sustaining a safe working environment (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). I will briefly examine the process of completing a JSA card in order to appreciate the need for training content. JSA card are commonly used throughout construction and mining industry. Appendix 1 is a copy of the relevant Sections of a JSA card. The nerve of the training centered on what management considered the key Sections of JSA, Sections 3-6. Appendix 1 contains a list of critical evidence and supporting knowledge, which I have interpreted to underscore the following learning outcomes. The idea behind this is that any number of employees involved in a particular task would be able to: (a) Employ correct spelling, punctuation and grammar to ensure understanding by the receiver. (b) Analyze the steps involved in carrying out the task (Section 3); (c) Identify any risks related to performing the task (Section 4); (d) Decide on what measures to be taken to control the risks (Section 5); (e) Evaluate the degree of risk and assign a risk significant score (Section 6). In order to allocate risk significance score to a risk, employees use another document, a Risk Matrix (see Appendix 2). For each task, one JSA card is filled so that a team of three workers working on the same task fill only one JSA card, and each member of the team must sign it to indicate that they have understood and agreed with its content. Nevertheless, a simple check through the JSA cards coupled with subsequent interviews, revealed great disparities in the way the cards were filled and/or interpreted. This caused a lot of concern since all employees should understand and interpret JSA’s in a similar way. Further, even the workers in one team would not agree on same way of interpreting the cards. For example, the definitions of what risks, their responses and controls were, together with the terminology used to describe them, were instances of differences. One area that caused a considerable degree of misunderstanding was the use of risk matrix to compute the risk significance scores. This part of the JSA card is very important because, if the risk significance score is found to be above “moderate”, a job can not be started before measures to reduce the risk are taken (Warren, 2002). Furthermore, the error of computing risk significance scores wrongly frequently resulted in some employees selecting “Low” (and hence no further action required) as this allowed them to continue with the tasks without any further delay or remedy. For this reason, the main aims of training the workers were to improve the quality of the workers’ JSA’s by: (1) Providing them with different perspectives to value the key concepts underlying JSA’s; (2) Creating a culture of teamwork among workers; (3) Enabling the workers to reach an agreement on required standards of JSA’s by incorporating their various experiences and competences. An example of each of these aims will be outlined in the following paragraphs in conjunction with the use of inclusive student-learning practices. The purpose here is not to outline every item of training content but rather to focus on a few elements that demonstrate creation of an all-inclusive student-learning environment. As mentioned earlier, language is one of the greatest difficulties encountered by NESB workers. Estes (2004) established that complicated task instructions caused great difficulty to NESB workers. They added that making instructions as clear as possible is one of the most important improvements teachers/trainers could make. When we use Risk Matrix to assess risks, two factors are taken into account; Consequence Severity (i.e. degree of impact of consequence) and Likelihood (i.e. probability of occurrence). Each of the two factors is given a rating. Since ratings are not real models, it is unfortunate to note that they constantly cause problems to the NESB staff. For instance, the probabilities of occurrence of ‘possible’ and ‘likely’ are similar terms as far as most staff is concerned (Lynch et al, 2006). Another drawback arises from the fact that the risk matrix does not suggest clear directions on how to deal with this problem. That is why Garrison and friend (2008) underscore the importance of providing optional views that assist learners. Their words can be rephrased to include more realistic meanings as illustrated below: Rare → I’ve never heard of it. Unlikely → I’ve heard of it but never seen it. Moderate → It has happened here before. Likely → It has happened more than once. Almost certain → It happens frequently. Perhaps a better way to enable the staff to understand the risk matrix is to ask questions instead of statements such as ‘Does it happen frequently?’ as opined by Mathews (2009). At this point, Hanne and colleague (2011) claim that it is essential to work from staff strength because meaning is personal and depends on intentions and prior understanding. Mathews (2009) further instigates that establishing communication rapport in the work teams amongst team members; the groups and the trainer assists in deciding how to present the learning materials. This is an example of “scaffolding in which the trainer helps the trainees in constructing knowledge” Holton and Clarke (2006) by giving them diverse ways of thinking about the probability of occurrence. Pedersen and Liu (2003) propose that there are at least eight characteristics of scaffolding namely: “provision of clear directions; clarification of purpose; keeping students on task; offering assessment to clarify expectations; pointing students to worthy sources; reducing uncertainty, surprise and disappointment; delivering efficiency; and creating momentum”. Holton and Clarke (2006) on the one hand assert that scaffolding is not the sole domain of a trainer. They add that reciprocal scaffolding occurs when several people co-operate on a given job since different people may bring different talents and/or understanding to the job, thus allowing scaffolding to one another (Holton and Clarke, 2006). Reciprocal Scaffolding is essential in work environments because it leads to the exchange of ideas and skills, therefore providing construction of knowledge within team members. To this end, a number of members of different work teams are assembled in one training group where they exchange ideas, skills, experiences and knowledge, establishing within the training group “Negotiation of Meaning” (David, 2010), which is the principal concept in JSA. Nonetheless, this practice is a clear illustration of creation of inclusive, student-centered learning environment where the student in this case is the staff-trainee. Further, Archer (2007) contends that training by improving positive personal qualities and knowledge as well as steering the staff towards their potential is fundamental in personal development. In addition, the use of self-appraisal clearly gauges the staff’s knowledge and skills in the critical areas of the aptitude being taught (Douglas and Jaquith, 2009). This technique allows scaffolding methods to be planned in advance. It also discovers any possible experts in the training groups who can be used as guides or learning associates in the group (Kember, 2009). This will definitely assist in the learning outcomes. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) indicate that other practices can be planned to support NESB learners by encouraging additional practice prospective and placing the learning in an all-inclusive environment. For instance, staff diversity ought to be considered as a resource. For complete inclusivity, existing policies, cultures, skills and practices can be merged to form a local diversity (Bamber, 2005), even though inclusivity requires trainers to shun common cultural label (Archer, 2007). Use of multi-lingual training should be encouraged with computer-based instructions such as MS PowerPoint presentations, use of websites, electronic resources and other computer assisted learning (CAL), all documented in multiple languages to help in introducing new subject matter. Since there is a multiplicity of languages and cultures involved, coupled with several English proficiencies within each training group, the aforesaid measures may not mean that NESB staff will be fully involved for the fact that the same measures may not necessarily cater for everyone’s requirements. David (2010) says it is more important for the trainer to recognize any potential drawbacks so as to review and adjust the training needs. CONCLUSION In this article, I have identified the strategies that are conducive for creation of an inclusive student-centred learning environment. In so doing, design of learning outcomes, curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning activities were outlined. In addition, the design was traced to the relevant theories and concepts that they are based on. I modeled the way teachers (trainers or instructors) and students (trainees) can work together to create inclusive learning environments using sample class of NESB staff in a steel fabrication company. Finally, I have outlined how partnerships beyond the classroom can be built. In addition, this report has established that a learning environment, encompassing curriculum and inclusivity that identify the diverse cultural backgrounds and learning approach of NESB can be a perfect therapy to support the learning needs of this group of trainees. However, the establishment of this environment requires a continuing, mutual and interdisciplinary approach that unites the support, understanding, efforts, and skills of inter-culturally sensitive and internationally experienced trainers, trainees and administrators (Hanne and Sursock, 2011). REFERENCES Archer, L. (2007). Diversity, equality and higher education: a critical reflection on the abuses of equity discourse within widening participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5-6), pp.635-653. Bamber, J. (2005). Curriculum design: paying special attention to ontological shift. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), pp.1-11. David, M. (2010). Improving learning by widening participation. London: Routledge. Douglas, K. & Jaquith, D. (2009). Engaging learners through art-making: Choice-based art education in the classroom. New York, Teachers College Press. Estes, C. (2004). Promoting Student-Centred Learning in Experiential Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(2), pp. 141-161. Garrison, D & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hanne, S & Sursock, A. (2011). Engaging in Lifelong Learning: Shaping Inclusive and Responsive University Strategies. EUA Publications Holton, D & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143. Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58 (1), pp. 1-13. Lynch, L., Leo, S. & Downing, K. (2006). Context dependent learning: its value and impact for workplace education. Education & Training, 48(1). 15–24 Mathews, N. (2009). Teaching the ‘invisible’ disabled student in the classroom: disclosure, inclusion and the social model of disability. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), pp.229-239. Pedersen, S. & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ Beliefs About Issues in the implementation of a Student-Centred Learning Environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(2), pp. 57-74. Warren, D. (2002). Curriculum design in a context of widening participation in higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1, pp.85-99. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Job Safety Analysis Card Sections: 3 through 6 are the focus of the Training 3. What are the main steps of the Risk? 4. What are the Hazards? 5. Controls Required. 6. Risk Score.                                                                                                 Hierarchy of Controls: Elimination → Substitution →Isolation →Engineering →Administration →PPE Most Effective Least Effective Appendix 2: Risk Matrix Source: Adopted from Lynch, L., Leo, S. & Downing, K. (2006) Appendix 3: Filling JSA card using the risk matrix Workshop Activity Sheet Activity 1 – Match the descriptions to the consequences Low: Death Minor: Serious or permanent injury Moderate: Alternate work or lost time injury Major: No incident or first aid injury Critical: Medical treatment (e.g. one or two visits to a doctor) Activity 2 – Use the Risk Matrix to rate these consequences A cut that needs 6 stitches A broken hand A crushed foot? Splinters from wood dunning A full thickness burn to the leg Activity 3 – How would you describe these words to a new employee (when talking about likelihood or possibility)? Rare Unlikely Moderate Likely Almost Certain Activity 4 – How would you describe the possibility of the following in the workshop? A swinging headstock Flash burns from an arc welder Falling slag from welding A fire A crushed finger injury Getting a grinder tool with a split electrical lead]] Read More