TEDE514-15 Assignment 1:

Implementing and Critiquing an Integrated Communication Unit

Part A:
Intended Rationale
The initial focus of the unit is to investigate how current events are
communicated nationally and internationally through the use of newspapers. To
provide students with connected and integrated learning that gives them a holistic
perspective, the communication unit will be explored from a technology, social
science and literacy perspective, while also having significant links to visual art,
drama and science. (Drake, 1998; Beane, 1997). Where the intended learning
outcome is for students to contribute and participate effectively within their
community and society. This focus is chosen to correspond with the New Zealand
Curriculum (NZC) key competencies, aiming on participating and contributing in
our communities and society (Hipkins, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2007; Rychen
and Salganik, 2003). Research shows that key competencies are essential in
education to ensure students become actively and critically involved citizens in
their communities and society (Rychen and Salganik, 2003; Ministry of Education,
2007). On a daily basis, I read biased research and media reports and observe
youth making poor choices about how they receive and transmit messages
through information and communication technology (ICT) (Hope & Stephenson,
2005). Consequently, I feel strongly and passionately about my role as an educator
to ensure my students are exposed to the key competencies, and believe it needs
to be explicitly incorporated into the taught curriculum. My intent as George
(1996) states, was to engage and keep students interest, while also helping
students make sense of their life experiences and assists them in developing
toward becoming well rounded adults (p. 12).
The reason for an integrated approach to curriculum is to provide students
learning opportunities surrounding a real and relevant situation and context
(Beane, 1997). Beane (1997) and Mason (1996) argues that this approach makes
learning more accessible and meaningful for students, while also providing
students a platform of transferring their understandings to other contexts and
better meeting students needs.
Discussion Unit Plans
To establish a well scaffolded progression of learning activities I worked from
what a good end result would be for the unit. This backward approach to
curriculum design informed the learning objectives and achievement criteria, as
1

well as an outline of possible activities (Figure 1) (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Wiggins and McTighe (1998) reinforce this perspective through the concept that
without knowing where you are going, you do not how to get to there. However,
through using the backward design process I also incorporated an integrated
curriculum approach, through identifying a main theme, key concepts and possible
activities to explore the theme and concepts (Beane, 1997). Although research
argues that the triad of teaching, learning and assessment must be intrinsically
linked, critics challenge this argument and claim that backward curriculum design
focuses to heavily on teaching to a test (Roach, 2014). Demonstrating that use an
assortment of curriculum design methods will produce a well-rounded curriculum.
The unit has been planned in sections. In order to drive the unit the initial
teaching and learning section involves immersion, exposure and exploring the
elements of a newspaper articles and journalism (Zubrowski, 2009). This decision
was made because although I had an overarching learning intention, I could not
establish the specifics without first understanding students prior knowledge,
interests and the students individual and collective contexts (Bourke & St. George,
2008). Therefore the first section includes exploration of photography, newspapers
and journalism techniques (Tiene & Luft, 2002). This perspective is supported by
research maintaining activating students prior knowledge increases student
achievement (Cason, 2011; Gurlitt & Renkl, 2010; Prakash, 2010).

Figure 1. Initial outline of possible activities and unit sequence

Following this initial exposure and activation of prior knowledge the

students and I planned the next sections of the unit based on student curiosity
and needs, as supported by Wiggins and McTighe (1998), Beane (1997) and
Brodhagen (2007). During writing students started questioning and writing about
their opinion on a current event but their work samples demonstrated a struggle in
communicating it effectively. Therefore we con-constructed a focus of the second
section to explore how people have and do communicate in society. The second
section includes investigating an ICT and analysing reporters bias, through
exploring opinions and facts. The third section explores how we can communicate
in todays society and includes creating a newspaper. Although the focus changed
with student input, the intention of the unit stayed the same; the difference was
the integration of student voice and the broadening of my perspective of what the
learning outcomes might and could look like (Beane, 1997; Brodhagen, 2007).
I sequenced the sections in this order because I believe that it is essential
for students to critically analyse history as a form of gaining knowledge and
understanding of context (Hames, 2002). As supported by Clark (2009) and Gilbert
(2005), students can form their own inquiries of how they can use this knowledge
to apply it to their own lives.
During the unit, I adapted the sequencing of lesson based on the students
learning needs (Bruggink, Meijer, Goei, & Koot, 2014). Although I had an overall
perception of the students learning outcomes, I allowed the students challenges,
successes and interests to determine the specific focus of the learning. For
example, I had a student who was highly interested in how news is presented on
the television, therefore I adapted the project to allow student voice in the method
chosen to present their work. I also changed the unit plan based on my judgement
of formative assessment and if the students needed longer to cover a particular
content or skill area. For example, after facilitating one lesson on identifying fact
and opinion, I decided that it was essential for the project that they could also
articulate fact and opinion. Therefore, I changed the next lesson to focus on giving
examples of fact and opinion and recapping informed opinion.
Formative assessment was continuously engaged in through reviewing work
samples students were producing, as well as the student voice during pair and
group discussions. For example, I asked students to complete a positive, minus
and interesting (PMI) chart on their ICT. However, the students responses were
very surface level and didnt explore some of the key themes associated with the
effectiveness of a technology. Therefore in the following lesson, I explicitly stated
the main themes of evaluating the effectiveness of ICT. Students compared two
3

ICTs and explain why one is more effective than the other, in regards to time, cost
and clarity of message. The purpose of the formative assessment throughout the
unit was to inform my practice and teaching through evaluating the student
learning, I was able to tailor my teaching to their needs (Andrade & Cizek, 2010).
Wiggins and McTighe (1998) question the notion of understanding and how
teachers assess against it. The aim of the formative assessment within this unit is
to assess students understanding of the content taught through its application, in
order to aid the transfer the information of different contexts (Wiggins & McTighe,
1998). The final formative assessment was a project-based assessment, where
students were required to apply the content knowledge of an informed opinion
about a social issue through the selection and use of an ICT (MOE, 2007). Amos
(2014) and Larmer, Mergendoller and Boss (2015) argue that project-based
learning encourages critical thinking skills, where learning is not always about rote
memorisation of knowledge. Larmer, Mergendoller and Boss (2015) also assert
that project-based learning is how students build knowledge and skills that
educators aspire students to graduate compulsory education with, the key being
the learning of how the knowledge applies to the real world.
Critical Evaluation of Resources
Throughout the three week unit the students were regularly exposed to and
engaged with newspapers and kiwi kids news website (www.kiwikidsnews.co.nz). I
used both resources to expose students to how a newspaper article is written, in
relation to the literacy program. I also used the resources as immersion activities,
which Tiene and Luft (2002) and Clark (2009) argue is essential to improve student
learning. Lastly I used the resources as a morning activity that required no teacher
instruction, to build student agency and reduce down time (Absolum, 2006).
The news resources partially achieved what I had intended, to build
exposure, immersion and student agency. It was a fantastic resource to get
students thinking about current events nationally and internationally, as well as
understanding the structure and content of news reports; as assessed formatively
through the literacy unit. It was highly beneficial resource for students who
required tangible and tactile experiences. Through observations of students
behaviour, I saw students independently engaged and interested in using the
newspapers and news website during the first two weeks; however by the third
week students became disengaged with the resources and started simply meeting
the minimum task requirements. This may not be a reflection on the resources, but
instead a reflection on how the resource was used. In the future, I would maintain
the routine and regular exposure to critical topic related resources; however I
4

would vary the task more regularly to motivate and maintain student interest. As
part of the immersion tasks I developed a current events log as a pair assessment
task, to incorporate student accountability (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Pair accountability assessment for newspaper/news website

activity.
BrainPOP (www.brainpop.com) videos were shown as a different medium for
explaining key concepts that were essential for the students to grasp. While also
reducing downtime as students filtered back into the classroom after lunch and
providing them with an opportunity to settle and refocus (Wong, Wong, Rogers, &
Brooks, 2012). I used the communications unit brainpop clips as they highly
relevant information about ICT that students were exploring. I also used the Fact
and Opinion clip as part of a couple of lessons based around what an informed
opinion is (Figure 3). Based on student voice in the classroom, students enjoy the
BrainPOP resource because it is fun and funny (Student A, personal
communication, September 15, 2015). The videos use both visual and oral
presentation and uses humour as a tool for explaining key concepts in a manner
that students can relate to (Bonjour, 2011). This tool was highly beneficial for
students who require information presented in numerous way, as well as those
that need it repeated numerous times. Additionally, through formative assessment
of discussions the videos were effective in focusing students on the key concepts,
empowering them to identify and discuss the key ideas. Contrary to the
advantages, I also observed some students disengage from the video and
therefore may not be effective learning for all students.

Figure 3. Screenshot of Fact and Opinion BrainPOP clip.

Information technology (IT), such as tablets and computers, were utilised
throughout the unit for a variety of purposes. Firstly, tablets were used as cameras
to explore photography. Secondly, tablets were used as video recorders to
complete the final project. Lastly, computers were used as research tools and
editing software (Figure 4). The variety, flexibility and usability of IT, make its use
within the classroom highly effective (Hedberg, 2011) and my observations of
students behaviour and discussions showed that students were highly engaged in
using IT. During the final project students were planning, writing, facilitating,
directing, negotiating, practising and organising themselves and others
demonstrating high engagement and on task behaviours. Other benefits observed
through integrating IT into the unit, was the vast range of skills students require to
use the IT effectively to achieve the task, therefore demonstrating that student
need to be provided the opportunity to learn these skills in a supportive learning
environment. This observation supports my justification for its use during the unit,
which is also reinforced by Saavedra and Opfer (2012). Student voice throughout
the sessions utilising IT showed that students were motivated, with students
asking if we could do the same thing again tomorrow. As supported by Chu,
Minasian, and Yi (2012) research, this is essential evidence that the use of IT
tapped into their motivation for learning, which I can utlise within my teaching and
integrate into different learning areas.
Despite these benefits, the use of IT caused messy lessons that felt chaotic.
Organising the technology, managing and supporting students on their own
individual learning journeys, reducing down time and managing problems with the
technology ensured that I was kept on my toes, therefore I can appreciate why
some teachers may shy away from its use. In the future, I would ensure that I had
enough equipment for all students to use at once. I would also ensure that
6

students had the skills and the systems are established for students to complete
the project independently and engage in IT professional development.

Figure 4. Screen shot of the editing software students used to edit their
videos.
Reflection of Teaching and Learning
My summative assessment of student achievement is bounded by my
observations of their enthusiasm and engagement in the tasks, as well as the end
product that they produced. Although the formative assessment showed that the
majority of students could articulate a clear informed opinion about a social issue,
Student A and B struggled to support their own opinion with facts (Student B,
personal communication, September 19, 2015). However to articulate an informed
opinion is only one aspect of being an effective communicator and therefore the
intention of this unit is the repetition of inquiry cycles to build and extend
knowledge and independence. Although the students work samples show that they
have not yet achieved the achievement criteria, the evidence suggests that
students are on a progressive path to demonstrating that they can competently
use ICT to effectively communicate in today's society.
I initially struggled with the process of engaging student voice and student
agency in designing an inquiry project. Where my question was how can I plan a
unit, while allowing the students to take their own directions? In hindsight, I could
have laid out some different communication technologies around the room and
asked them what they find interesting about them and what they want to know
more about. This strategy, frames the students thinking and builds and
encourages student curiosity, which I felt was lacking in my teaching. I also
struggled with the management of each individuals learning journey, when each
student was on a different topic, at a different stage and all needed my support
7

(Licht, 2014). This could be because I failed to build independence within the unit
and may not have scaffolded appropriately into the final project.
We also had challenges around the balance of student agency and
independence and teacher support. There were a number of barriers in the
students way so they could not complete the entire project independently. I
believe it is essential for students to see a project through. Despite having
considered these barriers, in the current situation I was unable remove them,
which disrupted the flow of the project and resulting in students becoming
disconnected with the project and losing their momentum (Licht, 2014).
My perception of the students challenges, were they found difficulty in
seeing the connections between the lessons and the overarching purpose of unit. I
feel that although there was implicit connections throughout the unit, I failed to
make that explicitly clear to the students. In future units I will build in a lesson of
building meaning at the start of the unit, through a discussion of why and
establishing purpose with the students. With the intention of giving students the
resources and support to make meaning out of the information in their own unique
way (Zubrowski, 2009).

Part B:
Critique of Wider Educational Influences
The communication unit planned, taught and assessed was established
through three key learning theories: constructivist, socio-cultural and behaviourist.
Evidence of planning and pedagogy decisions influenced by a constructivist
perspective is apparent through the acknowledgment of students interests,
background and prior knowledge as a beginning activity to the unit. Activating
prior knowledge and acknowledging students interests and backgrounds is
essential as the backbone of a constructivist approach, and demonstrates a
learner-centred approach to teaching and learning (Harasim, 2012; Pritchard,
2013). This pedagogy is highly influenced by education policy, which requires
teachers to make connections with students prior knowledge and experience
(Ministry of Education, 2007). The Ministry of Education (2007) states:
Students learn best when they are able to integrate new learning with
what they already understand. When teachers deliberately build on what
their students know and have experienced, they maximise the use of
learning time, anticipate students learning needs, and avoid unnecessary
duplication of content. (p. 34)

Constructivists argue that a learner-centred approach to teaching and

learning maximises prior knowledge to build new learning (Bourke & St. George,
2008; Harasim, 2012; Pritchard, 2013). However Hames (2002) argues that there
are issues with limiting students learning to their own experiences and not
extending them beyond knowledge and skills that are relevant to them.
My planning and pedagogy also focused the unit with immersion and
exploration of the topic, in order to provide students with opportunity to conconstruct the unit and actively build knowledge (Dangel, McIntyre, & Guyton,
2004). This pedagogy is firmly grounded in education policy, which encourages
effective pedagogy that enhances learning relevance to students (Ministry of
Education, 2007). The NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007) states:
Effective teachers stimulate the curiosity of their students, require them
to search for relevant information and ideas, and challenge them to use or
apply what they discover in new contexts or in new ways. They look for
opportunities to involve students directly in decisions relating to their own
learning. This encourages them to see what they are doing as relevant
and to take greater ownership of their own learning. (p. 34)

Subsequently showing the benefits of enhancing students opportunities to

explore and develop meaning for themselves. However, Tobias and Duffy (2009)
9

and Hames (2002) argue that some students may struggle with the lack of
structure and teacher instruction. Additionally Hames (2002) argues that the
notion of student centred learning is creating egotistical young people, who
believe they are the centre of the world. Consequently, I believe that teaching and
learning requires a finely tuned balance of teacher and student directed learning.
Evidence of planning, pedagogy and assessment decisions influenced by the
socio-cultural learning theory is seen through the use of pair and group tasks and
discussions, as well as an approach of talking to understanding (Myhill, Jones, &
Hopper, 2006; Wayne, 2008). Think, pair, share was a strategy utilised throughout
the unit, as well as pair brainstorms and pair projects. The socio-cultural learning
theory also influenced my planning, pedagogy and assessment through the
emphasis of student ownership of the learning and the learning process. I
incorporated student voice in the planning and evaluation of lessons and the unit
and also provided opportunities for students to make decisions about their own
learning. This pedagogy is also highly influenced by education policy which states
that effective pedagogy facilitates shared learning (Ministry of Education, 2007).
The NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007) highlights:
Teachers encourage this [shared learning] by cultivating the class as a
learning community. In such a community, everyone, including the
teacher, is a learner; learning conversations and learning partnerships are
encouraged; and challenge, support, and feedback are always available.
As they engage in reflective discourse with others, students build the
language that they need to take their learning further. (p. 34)

The socio-cultural learning theory is grounded in the discourse that learning

is a social process, in which learning and student achievement is an outcome of
student participation, discussions and responsibility for self and learning. While
some students comment that the think, pair, share activities are useful, another
student comments that It really depends on if its someone who knows lots about
the topic (Student C, personal communication, August 20, 2015). Pritchard (2014)
argues that students have individual learning preferences, therefore the sociocultural learning theory may not suit some students. Through the formative
assessment project, I integrated student voice and student ownership of their
learning through allowing students to choose if they would like to work
individually, in pairs or a small group of three. From my observations students
intuitively organised themselves without teacher intervention, demonstrating that
providing students with multiple options for learning will increase students
independence and agency.
10

Evidence of planning and assessment decisions influenced by the

behaviourist learning theory is demonstrated through the use of an outcomebased model of teaching and learning. Where learning outcomes and achievement
criteria are specified and translated to the students and learning is assessed
against them. The advantages of this pedagogy is that it provides teachers with a
clear picture of what is required to meet expectations and also provides teachers
opportunities to scaffold the students towards it. Behaviourist learning theory is
based on the assumption that learning is observable and teachers actions
influence students learning (Bourke & St. George, 2008b; Harasim, 2012). From the
neoliberalism movement education policy expects an outcome-based curriculum
that focuses on managerial surveillance and teachers accountability for students
achievement and their own performance (Codd, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2007;
Moody & Stricker, 2009). The Ministry of Education (2007) requires teachers to
collect evidence of student achievement, which is emphasised to be used to
improve teaching practice, as well as reporting to parents, school and the Ministry
of Education. However, there is potential for teachers and students to narrow their
focus when using an outcome-based approach to learning and limit the breath of
the learning to achieve high results on the assessment. Consequently stifling
creativity and spontaneity within education, as well as eliminating the opportunity
to enrich students with relevant and valuable diversions as teaching and learning
is reduced to something measured and observable (Codd, 2005). Ultimately
causing a conflict between an education for citizenship and an education to meet
social and economic objectives, where people are only valued for what they
produce (Codd, 2005, p. XV).
Each of these learning theories have their advantages and disadvantages,
however it is when brought together and used collaboratively that they are the
most effective for students learning. I do not believe there is one right way of
teaching and learning, instead there is numerous research and theories that guide
my practice in providing students with a wide range of opportunities and
experiences that they can grow and learn from, in order to become well rounded
and active citizens (Hames, 2002).

Curriculum Critique
The curriculum area that caused the most disruption and challenges during
this unit was social science. The lack of cohesion and progression in the social
science achievement objectives made the unit difficult to fit into the defined edges
of the NZC box (Ministry of Education, 2007). Although the unit clearly examined
11

social science concepts, such as social issues, history of communication

technology and exploring societal norms, there was a disparity across meeting
level 2, 3 or 4 achievement criteria (Ministry of Education, 2007). Consequently
showing noticeable evidence of the subjective nature and assumptions behind
what is believed to be important and unimportant learning in the learning area.
Additionally, the social science achievement objectives lack any acknowledgement
of transferable skills relevant to building students citizenship. Comparatively the
technology learning area highlights both technological practice and technological
knowledge, emphasising both knowledge and skill (Ministry of Education, 2007). As
Gilbert (2005) argues, the requirements of students have changed from a focus on
learning knowledge to a focus on knowledge as a learning process. This change is
not evident in some learning areas of the NZC, which highlight what students
should understand as knowledge (Ministry of Education, 2007). Consequently,
Gilbert (2005) argues that an integrated curriculum approach to teaching and
learning emphasises the removal of discipline specific boundaries and broadens
students perception of knowledge and how it is applied.
Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
In reflection of the unit and lessons planned and taught, there is a huge
disparity of the intended curriculum in comparison to the taught and learned
curriculum. I discovered through the process, that my expectations of what we
could achieve in a three week period were well overstated. As a consequence the
taught curriculum barely touched the surface of the concepts and skills intended,
and did not bring the depth of learning that I had intended to achieve.
If I was to repeat this unit, I would spread it out across two more in depth
units; one investigating and exploring ICT in a variety of ways and the second
completing two or three inquiry cycles investigating our own communication
apparent in our community and society. As part of the first unit, we would compare
different technologies across time and explore how the technologies influence and
change our lives and communication. This could be achieved through co-operative
learning activities where students research a technology across time and teach
another group about it, and both groups compare the similarities and difference
between them. Or students could interview parents about how they communicate
and how it has changed over their lifetime. Or students could dismantle a
communication technology. As part of the second unit, I would firstly ensure that
students could complete the project independently, by ensuring all barriers are
reduced for increased student agency and ownership. Students would then choose
an ICT and investigate what effective communication looks like, trial it and
12

evaluate it. This cycle would be repeated, to build the knowledge and skills around
effective communication in todays society.
In order to achieve this, I believe that I need further professional
development in modern learning pedagogy. Specifically in managing students
individual learning paths, as well as managing and assessing project-based
learning. Modern learning pedagogy is an area that I am interested to learn more
about and apply to my practice. I also feel that I need further professional
development in ICT, specifically ICT within a school system of servers and school
restrictions. Therefore when there is a technology problem in the classroom, I have
the confidence and knowledge to solve the problem without outside help as many
schools do not have ICT support. Lastly, I would like to further develop my
knowledge and skills in facilitating student inquiry. I feel there is a wide range of
ways that builds student initiation and curiosity that I failed to access during my
teaching and learning of this unit.
Despite the units clear relevance and importance for the students, I
struggled to fit the focus of democratic citizenship into the clearly defined
outcome-based NZC. Following this unit, I still have unanswered questions in
regard to the infinite knowledge, skills and graduate attributes that sit outside of
the NZC that cannot be measured or observed (Codd, 2005). I also have
unanswered questions around how I decide my priority for the students learning,
as it is based on my subjective judgement of what I believe the students need and
what I can assess. How do I assess a student against a specific and small range of
learning objectives and achievement objectives? What happens when they may
not be showing the criteria I have decided is needed but instead showing a range
of other knowledge and skills that are essential and highly relevant to their lives?
What happens when simply the process of engagement and participation in
discussion is an achievement in itself?
Who am I to say that it is right or wrong, when it is simply a matter of
perception and perspective? (Gilbert, 2005).
Lastly, what is my purpose? Are we educating for work or are we
educating for life?

13

References
Absolum, M. (2006). Clarity in the classroom: Using formative assessment-building
learning-focused relationships. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Education.
Alacapinar, F. (2008). Effectiveness of project-based learning. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 8(33), 17-34.
Amos, D. S. (2014, October 13). Benefits of project-based learning: Test
preparation isn't emphasized; students develop critical thinking. Florida
Times Union. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/1617471871?pqorigsite=summon
Andrade, H. L., & Cizek, G. J. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core democratic
education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bonjour, R. H. (2011). The essence of good teaching--humor. Language in India,
11(12), 152-161.
Bourke, R., & St. George, A. (2008). Understanding learning through theory. In R.
Bourke., A. Lawrence., A. McGee., J. ONeill & J. Curzon (Eds.), Talk about
learning: Working alongside teachers (pp. 1326). Auckland, New Zealand:
Pearson Education.
Brodhagen, B. L. (2007). The situation made us special. In M. W. Apple & J. A.
Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2 nd ed.,
pp. 83-106). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bruggink, M., Meijer, W., Goei, S., & Koot, H. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of
additional support needs of students in mainstream primary education.
Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 163-169.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.005
Cason, M. G. (2011). Activating prior knowledge with cues and questions as a key
instructional strategy to increase student achievement in low
socioeconomic middle schools (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/891793576?accountid=17287

14

Chu, R. H., Minasian, R. A., & Yi, X. (2012). Inspiring student learning in ICT
communications electronics through a new integrated project-based
learning approach. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education,
49(2), 128-135. doi:10.7227/IJEEE.49.2.3
Clark, L. (2009). Where Thinking and Learning Meet. Cheltenham, Australia:
Hawker Brownlow Education.
Codd, J. (2005). Introduction: Is there a Third Way for education policy? In J. Codd
& K. Sullivan (Eds.), Education policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand
(pp. xiii-xviii). Auckland, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Dangel, J., McIntyre, C., & Guyton, E. (2004). Constructivist pedagogy in primary
classrooms: Learning from teachers and their classrooms. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 24(4), 237-245.
doi:10.1080/1090102040240404
Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating Integrated Curriculum: Proven ways to increase
student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eddy, P. L., & Bracken, D. (2008). Lights, camera, action! The role of movies and
video in classroom learning. The Journal of Faculty Development, 22(2), 125134. doi:10.1037/e481752006-021
George, P. (1996). The Integrated Curriculum: A Reality check. Middle School
Journal, 28(1), 12-20.
Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? Knowledge society and the
future of public education. In J. Codd & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Education policy
directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.53-70). Auckland, New Zealand:
Dunmore Press.
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept
mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes,
learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4),
417-433. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5
Hames, M. (2002). The crisis in New Zealand schools. Palmerston North, New
Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Harasim, L. M. (2012). Learning theory and online technology. New York, NY:
Routledge.

15

Hedberg, J. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice

with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International,
48(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/09523987.2011.549673
Hipkins, R. (2010). More complex than skills: Rethinking the relationship between
key competencies and curriculum content. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Education and Development of Civic
Competencies, Seoul. Retrieved from
http://www.nzcer.org.nz.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/research/publications/morecomplex-than-skills
Hope, W. & Stephenson, I. (2005). Global capitalism and the knowledge economy:
The New Zealand experience. In J. Codd & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Education
policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 19-51). Auckland, New
Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J. R., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project
based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Licht, M. (2014). Controlled chaos: Project-based learning. Education Digest, 80(2),
49-51.
Mason, T. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal or Teacher
Education, 47(4), 263-270. doi:10.1177/0022487196474004
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New
Zealand: Learning Media.
Myhill, D., Jones, S. M., & Hopper, R. (2006). Talking, listening, learning: Effective
talk in the primary classroom. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Prakash, E. S. (2010). Explicit constructivism: A missing link in ineffective lectures?
Advances in Physiology Education, 34(2), 93-96.
doi:10.1152/advan.00025.2010
Pritchard, A. (2013). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the
classroom. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
Pritchard, A. (2014). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the
classroom (3rd ed.) Oxon, NY: Routledge.
Roach, R. (2014). Teaching to the test. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 31(3),
32-36.

16

Rychen, S., & Salganik, L. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life
and a well-functioning society. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe and Huber.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21stcentury teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
doi:10.1177/003172171209400203
Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2002). Reaping the benefits of technology immersion.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(1), 18-21.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New
York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203878842
Wayne, E. K. (2008). Is it just talk? Understanding and evaluating intergroup
dialogue. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(4), 451-478. doi:10.1002/crq.217
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wong, H., Wong, R., Rogers, K., & Brooks, A. (2012). Managing your classroom for
success. Science and Children, 49(9), 60-64.
Zubrowski, B. (2009). Exploration and meaning making in the learning of science.
Dordrecht, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2496-1

17