Teaching
English to Indigenous Australians
Kathryn Canavan
University of Tasmania
Abstract
Teaching Indigenous Australians is an issue in the Australian schooling
setting which traditionally has been seen a being generated by Indigenous
learners, however, recent research into issues in classrooms with
Indigenous learners found that rather than the learners being the
source of the problem, the cause lies with the teachers. For this
reason, teachers involved with or planning to become involved in
classrooms with Indigenous learners, particularly where English
is a second language, need to confront their attitudes to and beliefs
about Indigenous Australian learners and understand how those attitudes
impact on the learning environment and the learners’ learning
experience and how they can address imbalances in the learning environment.
Disadvantage
The types of disadvantage experience by Indigenous learners range
from a twenty-year lower life expectancy, through dealing with issues
of inadequate water supply, to high unemployment rates (38%). “In
relation to education, Indigenous Australians start school later
and finish earlier than non-Indigenous Australians, are three times
less likely to complete Year 12, and are much less likely to be
attending University (DEET in, McConaghy, 2000:137)”.
Discussing the construction of ‘Aboriginality’, McConaghy
(2000) argues against maintaining traditional approaches to analyzing
issues facing Indigenous learners in the classroom such as postcolonial
theories. “Rather, my approach considers that issues in Indigenous
education are best approached from sociological perspectives, perspectives
that foreground issues of power and knowledge, different degrees
of privilege, how racism and gender oppressions are so often linked,
how Indigenous people and their identities are constructed and stereotyped,
how ideas about whiteness and blackness are produced in schooling,
how schooling often works to maintain oppressive power relations
rather than disrupt them and so on (McConaghy, 2000:135)”.
Postcolonial theories—cultural difference, cultural deficit,
cultural relativism, assimilation and radicalism—engender
and maintain stereotypes through their use of fixed categories of
people; categories that place behavioural expectations on the groups
they have defined theoretically. In the worst cases, such as assimilation,
Indigenous Australians are categorized as Aborigines who are inferior
and deficient.
However, Indigenous Australians have as many ways of being Indigenous
Australian and otherwise as every other Australian. Thinking such
as: To be a real Aboriginal is to be/like/have [stereotype].; To
be a real Italian Australian is to be/like/have [stereotype].; or,
To be a real angloceltic Australian is to be/like/have [stereotype],
denies each Indigenous Australian the opportunity to identify themself
in any way they choose or to be self determining or self representing.
In addition, such theories reinforce disadvantage through a process
of reproduction. Teachers need to remain wary of theories that purport
to really know and explain Aboriginality, argues McConaghy, because
they are only discursive regimes. Each theory expounds explanatory
sets of ideas, narratives and discourse about Aboriginality and
competes with other theories to reveal a true explanation of Aboriginality,
however, little truth is revealed and the competition merely legitimizes
and produces the competing theories.
Another characteristic of such theories is they often give reasons
for Aboriginal education failure and those reasons become a self-fulfilling
prophecy. “That is, teachers’ explanations of the cause
of Indigenous educational failure often also contributes to producing
unsuccessful learning experiences for Indigenous students: the explanation
of the problem becomes the cause of the problem (McConaghy, 2000:139)”.
If these stereotype, such as Indigenous Australian learners are
lazy or unintelligent, are maintained by teachers in classrooms,
they can only serve to reinforce the underlying oppression and disadvantage
for which the stereotypes evolved to support. The task of the teacher
is to eliminate, as much as possible, such stereotyping to enable
Indigenous learners to enjoy the same access and equity as other
learners.
The stereotypes should not become part of teacher discourse because,
as Foucault (1978) pointed out, discourses are the source of knowledge
and supporter of power relationships within societies. As representatives
of educational institutions and holders of power within those institutions
teachers’ contribution to and maintenance of educational discourses
are responsibility for the effect of those discourses on Indigenous
Australian learners, that is, for the disadvantage experience by
those learners in educational settings. It’s not so much as
matter of the learners being powerless as teachers being irresponsible
with their power and failing to take responsibility for the disadvantage,
failure and reproduction.
- Postcolonial discourse manifests in descriptions of Indigenous
Australians which Hodge (1990) terms as Aboriginalism. Attwood
(1992) adds that there is an Aboriginalist project which takes
three interdependent forms;
- Researching and speaking about Indigenous people—there
is a fine line between speaking out and speaking for someone and,
when research is not carried out or controlled by Indigenous Australian
researchers about themselves, issues of ownership and representation
become mixed up with objectification and dehumanization of the
research subject;
- Constructing “them” as oppositional to “us”—the
oppositional nature of research and theories obsessed with comparisons,
differences, convergences and culture lists constructs a them/us
binary where there can only be competition and therefore a winner
and loser, or superior and inferior and, therefore, distance between
the two sides; and
- As a corporate institution for disciplining, administering and
ruling over Indigenous Australians—strategies of disenfranchisement
and racialization practices and discrimination are ways in which
existing education discourse and institutionalized power contribute
to the ongoing disadvantage and impoverished material lives of
towards Indigenous Australians (Guywanga, 1991).
Strategies for interrupting disadvantage
In the classroom, teachers can disrupt the old power structures
by engaging in a number of strategies.
Firstly, teachers can engage in critical reading of Aboriginalist
texts (descriptions of Aboriginal culture, culture lists, policy
documents and so forth) to undercover underlying assumptions about
privilege and power and then consider their implications (Nakata,
1991).
Secondly teachers can work on developing respect at the individual
level for Indigenous Australians and each person's right to define
their identity. “Respect for people’s history, social
and family situation, prior experiences with education, aspirations
and cultural practices, in whatever way they themselves represent
these cultural practices, are key aspects of a post-Aboriginalist
approach to Indigenous education (McConaghy, 2000:148)”.
Malin’s (1990) research into the treatment of Indigenous Australian
learners in a classroom where the teacher held stereotypes about
Indigenous Australian learners revealed that the teacher provided
the learners with far fewer of the important classroom resources
than non-Indigenous learners as follows:
- The availability for ‘time on the task;
- One-to-one or small group-to-teacher instruction;
- Teacher time spent reflecting on his or her relationship with
each student and the academic progress of that individual student,
and how to enhance both;
- Teacher personableness through say, the sharing of private
jokes and informal conversation;
- Gestures of affection and appreciation;
- Communication of high expectations for each student for both
academic achievement and ability to handle responsibility; and
- Simple tolerance (Malin, 1990:27).
Next, understanding how shame is used a tool of oppression and
that it is the victims who take responsibility for their own oppression
when they experience shame—for example, the victims are led
to believe that by simply being Indigenous Australians they have
done something wrong and should be complicit in their own oppression
such as by accepting less than others or enduring hardship in silence.
By turning the tables, teachers can work instead on building pride
and responsibility for one’s liberation (Huggins & Huggins,
1994; McConaghy, 2000).
One approach to helping learners deal with shame culture is to
encourage a sense of resilience in learners. Whilst many Indigenous
Australian learners are vulnerable, disadvantaged and at risk, learning
experiences can enable learners to deal better with the problems
they confront both inside and outside the classroom. “Many
professionals involved in the fields of child care, education, and
psychology believe that children are uniquely vulnerable to emotional
damage. We have lost sight of the fact that frequently a child develops
new strengths in the aftermath of an emotionally difficult encounter
(Furedi, 2002)”. Furedi adds that luckily there is little
empirical evidence to support the notion that children become damaged
and scarred for life and that, in fact, such a mentality is a form
or tool of cultural prejudice. Teachers should not accept disadvantage
as a kind of determinism about which they or their students can
do little about.
Also, to join Deleuze (1995) and other post-structuralists in suggesting
ways forward and thinking about what life could be, teachers should
encourage Indigenous Australian representations in education to
ensure Indigenous Australian voices are heard equally with others—for
example, through the exploitation of texts produced by Indigenous
Australian writers about their oppression and experiences of being
an Indigenous Australian.
“Discourses do not just formulate and express public consensus
and satisfaction, fostering stability and hegemony; they also express
discontent and engender cultural and social change (Rice, 1996:21)”.
Just as discourses engender cultural stability, they also encourage
social change. Teachers can build their learners’ ability
to become advocates of social change by making them symbolic specialists.
After all, who knows better the experiences of Indigenous Australians
than Indigenous Australians themselves. By providing learners with
the literacy and other tools of the core subcultural group, learners
are better positioned to represent their subculture within the broader
community and to win support and understanding from the majority
whose beliefs and conduct form the basis of the controlling discourses.
And then, teachers need to be flexible in how they interpret anger
in the classroom, that is, teachers have a choice of viewing a learner’s
anger as negative and relationship ending or as a positive attempt
to connect and to build on that attempt (Lorde, 1988).
The development of a healthy personality and sense of self enables
teachers to step back from situations and analyze them critically
rather than just react emotionally and compound negative situations.
That is, teachers need integrity and ego strength to deal with many
issues in the classroom and to confront their own beliefs and attitudes
in order to overcome stereotypes and discrimination that lead to
learner’s alienation and anger. Teachers then not only improve
their learners’ environment but act as role models for their
learners.
Erikson, (1963) formulated the following central concepts:
- Ego identity formation, by which he means that the ego (person)
stands outside itself judging the continuity, reliability, and
the consistency of life as it is lived;
- Developmental progression of the human life cycle through eight
stages from infancy to old age. A human life is a psychological
success for Erikson if the earliest achievement is the acquisition
of basic trust in self and others and the last achievement is
a sense that one’s life was good exactly as it was lived;
and
- Ego strengths that mark each of the eight stages and that are
actually classical virtues such as hope, will, purpose, competence,
fidelity, love, care and wisdom (Yates & Chandler, 1991:369).
Finally, rather than focus on the significant differences between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, teachers are better
off focusing on explaining significant differences that affect
each learner’s experience in the classroom; “class,
gender, ability, age, sexual orientation, history and so on (McConaghy,
2000:152)”.
Strategies for the ESP classroom
To encourage genuine achievement among all learners, teachers need
to change old ideas about academic achievement which are value-laden
and culturally determined. Too often schools measure intelligence
as behaviour that contributes to the effective running of the school
itself. Intelligent students are those that achieve according to
the teachers’ curriculum, testing, classroom techniques and
so forth. The learner does not rate within such an approach, it's
simply a matter of the learner being able to conform to and succeed
in an unimaginative institutional environment. That is, they have
been prepared for life in the workforce.
Teachers have a choice in how they approach learner differences
in the classroom from two perspectives: learner styles and cognitive
styles.
Learner Styles
- One example of intelligence and learner styles is Gardener’s
Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardener used criteria such
as physiological location in the brain, development and so forth
to determine nine areas of human achievement which have been adapted
by teachers to classroom use to take into account variability
in learner styles. The nine intelligences are as follows:
- Bodily kinesthetic intelligence—people who can and enjoy
connecting mind and body during physical activities such as sport,
have a good awareness of the body, like doing things and learning
by doing and are constantly active;
- Existential intelligence—people who understand the universe
in that it is infinite and infinitesimal, the human condition,
can create psychological worlds and value profound experiences;
- Interpersonal intelligence—people who communicate well
and enjoy all forms of social interaction even the negative which
they resolve well, lead and cooperate and empathize with others;
- Intrapersonal intelligence—people who function well on
their own and have independent hobbies, are self motivated and
know their strengths and weaknesses, understand their relationship
to others and concentrate well reasoning at high levels;
- Logical / mathematical intelligence—people who are good
at discerning relationships and connections between ideas, situations
and so on, who are good at experimenting, reasoning and classifying,
enjoy puzzles and play with numbers;
- Musical rhythmic intelligence—people who are sensitive
to sound and music, can create, remember and perform rhythms and
melodies, and understand the structure of music;
- Naturalist intelligence—people who are good identifiers
and classifiers of aspects of the physical environment, recognize
patterns, are good at sciences and have scientific interests,
keep pets, like to spend time outdoors and collect things from
the physical environment;
- Verbal / linguistic intelligence—people who are good
at languages and linguistics, analyze and play with words, have
a good memory for facts and so forth and ask a lot of why questions;
and
- Visual / spatial intelligence—people who perceive, form
and manipulate objects well, can draw and imagine maps including
their details, use graphics as learning aids and enjoy art, plays,
graphics, design and space.
Knowledge of such intelligences is useful for teachers looking
to understand their learners’ preferences in greater depth
and many teachers use the intelligences as a guide to design classroom
tasks with the aim of incorporating activities that cater to all
students’ intelligences.
The reason being that all learners have all intelligences but some
are more developed than others; from this standpoint intelligence
can be assessed as something that is relative rather than fixed,
comparative and competitive. It also enables teachers to move away
from the traditional curricula biases toward verbal/linguistic intelligence
and logical/mathematical intelligence, thereby expanding their own
and their learners' repertoire for understanding and interacting
with others. Another aspect of the theory is that just because learners
are weak in one area that does not mean they are deficient but rather
that it’s an area for them to work on. All learners have the
potential to develop all their intelligences and the classroom is
one environment that can be adapted to contribute towards that development
through the selection of appropriate tasks. The speed at which learners
do so is a variable.
Yates (2000:349) reflected on the application of learning styles
in the classroom asking, “But is such individualized teaching
even desirable? Should students be exposed to different learning
opportunities? And what is the basis for matching student characteristic
to input experience? Gardner was striving to help educators recognize
the broad range of human achievements, not attempting to restrict
student instructional practice opportunities to specific domain
tasks”.
Further, Gardner’s theory puts learners back into categories
and is not supported by psychological processes—the process
for identifying the learners’ categories is a series of questionnaires;
there is no evidence to show the data links with brain functioning
or how learners cope with complexities. Also, learning is a cumulative
process so how do the various intelligences actually work together?
Should the teacher give priority to the learner’s knowledge
level and Zone of Proximal Development or think they’re a
musical learner so we’ll do songs today? There is no strategy
within the theory for dealing with learner difficulties.
The benefits of Gardner’s theory may lie elsewhere; the approach
could be adapted to classroom use for Indigenous Australian learners
and it should be used as a discovery tool to identify each learner’s
preferences or to add variety to staid learner environments.
We know that learners have key areas and stages of development
including capacities to focus, account for and exploit information,
organize and interrelate information, form abstractions and generalize,
take perspectives and hypothesize and reflect on and understand
experience (University of Cambridge, 1994/5). This being the case,
Gardner’s theory needs to provide more of the psychological
and cognitive aspects of learner styles.
Personality issues that affect classroom interaction include anger,
as mentioned above, and also self worth and esteem. Typical examples
of classroom personalities include the quiet child, the child with
poor verbal expression, the dominant child, the disruptive child
and the loner or uninterested child (Dalton, 1985).
Learners differ cognitively and those differences do not necessarily
relate to any of the points mentioned so far. Cognitive styles relate
more closely to the process of learning and the acquisition of knowledge.
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives goes a little further
toward recognizing the different cognitive styles of learners.
Learners use a series of thinking skills in the classroom which
build on each other to aid learning. The levels range from most
frequently used to the least used as follows:
- Knowledge—the lowest but most frequent level of thinking,
involves memory and recall of information such as facts but no
complex thinking;
- Comprehension—increases in the degree of intellectual
complexity required and when tested indicates the level of the
learner’s understanding of a subject;
- Application—learners can apply principles such as calculations
using the knowledge developed at earlier levels;
- Analysis—a process of breaking down and analyzing the
parts of information begins to aid true understanding and enable
the learner to reconstruct the knowledge to suit different circumstances;
- Synthesis—learners include the knowledge in creative
thinking and apply the knowledge to different scenarios to provide
insights or solutions; and
- Evaluation—the knowledge supports learners' judgments
and justifications when they find they can evaluate movies, other
people’s behaviour and so forth and explain what and why
they think both subjectively and objectively.
Looking back at McConaghy’s (2000) strategies for dealing
with disadvantage and stereotypes in the classroom—critical
reading; respect; shame; Indigenous Australian representations in
education; anger and significant differences—there is value
in taking a cognitive learning styles approach. By working toward
the development of synthesis and evaluation skills, teachers can
provide themselves and Indigenous Australian learners with the cognitive
technology to genuinely engage in critical reading, demonstrate
respect based on reasoned thinking, identify and question shame
tactics, creatively develop representations that enable Indigenous
learners to contribute to and have a say in educational and other
discourses and identify significant differences in society which
in addition to stereotyping contribute to continuing disadvantage.
The challenge for teachers is how to set up classroom experiences
that develop the cognitive styles of learners. For a start, it is
important for teachers to design tasks at all levels of the taxonomy
with a variety of tasks at each level which is where teachers might
exploit Gardner’s intelligences to add variety to the range
of tasks available to learners. Demonstrating an environment of
respect, teachers could encourage learners to choose the tasks they
wanted to do at each level but also stipulate the number of tasks
to be completed at each level.
In addition, the tasks could be assigned as group work with each
learner taking responsibility for one key knowledge area, which
when they contribute that to the group, not only develop a sense
of pride and satisfaction thereby building their self esteem and
personal development, but also contribute to the success of the
project overall.
In this way the learners are both independent and codependent in
their learning. This is important if the teacher takes into account
Gregorc’s Mind Styles which he argues exists in two dimensions;
one for perceiving the world (extreme through concrete); and another
for organizing information (sequential through random). Learners
may have any combination of the dimension as follows:
- Concrete sequential—these learners are practical, predictable,
to-the-point, organized and structured; these learners order the
environment and follow accepted ways of doing things, are exact,
consistent and efficient, like predictability and seek approval
of progress, apply ideas practically and understand how, trust
other participants and follow practical examples;
- Abstract sequential—these learners are intellectual,
logical, conceptual, rational and studious; these learners like
references and expert sources, are sure of themselves, follow
traditional procedures, take time to learn, work alone, have intellectual
ability, are analytical, can write essays, use notes and research
at the library;
- Abstract random—these learners are emotional, interpretive,
sensitive, holistic and thematic; like working and sharing with
other participants, personalize assignments, get personal and
emotional attention and like play as well as work, interpret ideas,
create good environments, use expression, communicate and are
non-competitive, and
- Concrete random— these learners are original, experimental,
investigative, option oriented and risk taking; these learners
try new approaches to solving problems, are self directed and
competitive, create answers and find many ways to do one thing,
like trial and error, brainstorming and open-ended approaches,
want to produce real and creative products, seek ways to improve
and like hands-on experiences.
These styles enable learners to act and think in their preferred
manners. Whilst the argument for learning styles is weak overall
in view of the cognitive styles contribution, pointing out to
learners that different learners in the group may have different
ways of doing things and that each participant should try to respect
each others methods, learners have the opportunity to analyze
and evaluate each other’s behaviour and to develop the basis
of true respect.
By setting an example in the classroom setting of how students
can work together whilst enjoying diversity teachers are perhaps
providing Indigenous learners and themselves with a loose framework
within which everyone works with and learns to manage and accept
diversity and difference and to see each others strengths and weaknesses.
To address the types of classroom disadvantages highlighted by
Malin (1990), at the start of tasks, teachers need to communicate
that they hold high expectations for each student for both academic
achievement and have confidence and trust in their ability to handle
responsibility. During tasks teachers can ensure learners are allocated
an equal amount of time for tasks and can provide all students with
one-to-one or small group-to-teacher instruction. Whilst on task,
the teacher can take time to reflect on their relationship with
each student ensuring each has enhanced access to learning that
enables their academic progress. Whilst participating in small group
to teacher instruction, teachers can demonstrate personableness
as suggested above, through the sharing of private jokes and informal
conversation. If problems arise, teachers can show tolerance and
encourage the learners. On the successful completion of tasks teachers
can show gestures of affection and appreciation to each student.
Dalton (1985) provides other valuable insights into the effective
management of cooperative groups by pointing out the choices and
techniques that teachers can make which impact on the classroom
setting. These include the teacher’s ways of moving from whole
class to small group discussion, types of groupings and how to develop
cooperative learning skills.
Options available for setting up small groups whilst maintaining
management of the classroom include helping learners to engage in
learning independent of the teacher, making gradual transitions,
starting with quite small groups, using group consensus, building
from smaller to larger groups and encouraging shared leadership
so that the whole class is involved in the group work. This is a
long way from the strategies for disenfranchisement experienced
by teachers such as Guywanga (1991) when working with peers and
sets a positive example for modes of interaction available to the
learners when engaged in the broader community outside the classroom.
The problem can no longer be the teacher reinforcing disadvantageous
beliefs and stereotypes but more the teacher’s ability to
manage their learners’ learning experiences and to ensure
they are equitable and productive.
The types of groups teachers can use include:
- Heterogeneous—as suggested above, this is the type of
group where learners act as resources for each other where learners
not only engage with the content but are engaged with the processes
of appreciating and learning from each other, dealing with and
accommodating differences, and learning to discuss their points
of view;
- Friendship—these groups are good for new classes where
learners are adjusting to a new environment during which the development
of friends is crucial for their sense of inclusion and opportunity
to successfully learn in heterogeneous groups;
- Ability—these groups are reminiscent of ability/intelligence
graded classrooms and should only be used when the teacher aims
to address differences in ability; these groups reduce opportunities
for group interaction and learning;
- Interest—these groups build motivation as learners find
they have things in common with the other learners; and
- Skills—better than ability groups, skills groups include
strong and weak skilled students who help each other with the
skill.
Another aspect of group work that helps provide strategies for
dealing with disadvantage in education for Indigenous Australian
learners relates to the learner’s acquisition of cooperative
learning skills; skills that could be viewed as life long skills.
The teacher needs to help students understand that cooperation itself
is a valuable skill and it involves turn taking, politeness and
idea and material sharing. As learners approach the learning of
new skills they need a clear understanding of what cooperative learning
skills—for example, forming groups, managing groups, maximizing
learning or stimulating higher levels of thinking—involves.
Forming groups, for example, involves a combination skills including
moving and staying in groups, using quiet voices, staying on task,
using names and encouraging others. In addition, groups sometimes
have roles so learners need to develop awareness of what each role
involves or doesn’t involve such as reader, checker, praiser
or observer. Most importantly, learners need opportunities to try
out all these skill and to get feedback on their performance of
those skills. Learners too should be involved in evaluation of their
development and be encouraged to persevere until they have integrated
the skill successfully into their repertoire.
Conclusion
As mentioned at the outset, it is time to stop blaming Indigenous
Australian learners for their disadvantaged status and look at how
education and social discourse instead sets up the power structures
and controls the resources which contribute to the existence and
continuation of disadvantage through stereotyping and other negative
attitudes and beliefs. Through critical reading and self analysis
teachers can start to understand how they contribute to disadvantage
and look at ways to address the problem. One approach suggested
here is to develop respect for and understanding of Indigenous Australian
learners by moving on from stereotypes and focusing on the learner's
cognitive styles and how they contribute to the learner’s
development.
In addition, unfair power imbalances and stereotyping in the classroom
could start to be addressed by supporting an environment of cooperative
learning which not only serves to develop the academic abilities
of learners but provides them with a model for positive social interaction
and a forum to explore techniques to overcome the legacy of disadvantage.
References
- Attwood, B. & Arnold, J. (eds) (1992), Power, Knowledge
and Aborigines, Special edition of Journal of Australian
Studies.
- Dalton, J., & Smith, D. (1986), Extending Children’s
Special Abilities; Strategies for Primary Classrooms, Department
of Education, Melbourne.
- Deleuze, G. (1995), Negotiations, Columbia University
Press, New York.
- Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1989), National
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report,
AGPS, Canberra
- Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding second language acquisition,
Oxford University Press, UK.
- Foucault, M. (1978), ‘Politics and the study of discourse’,
Ideology and Consciousness, vol. 2, pp. 7-26.
- Furedi, F. (2002), ‘The Myth of the Vulnerable Child’,
Paranoid Parenting, Chicago Review, Chicago, pp. 45-57.
- Gardner, H. (1999), Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences
for the 21st Century, Basic Books, New York.
- Guywanga, R. (1991), ‘Hidden Curriculum’, Ngoonjook,
vol. 5, pp.26-34.
- Hodge, B. (1990), ‘Aboriginal Truth and White Media. Eric
Michaels meets the spirit of Aboriginalism’, Continuum,
3/2, pp. 201-205.
- Lorde, A. (1988), The Audre Lorde Compendium. Essays, Speeches
and Journals, Harper Collins, London.
- Malin, M. (1990), ‘Why is life so hard for Aboriginal
students in urban classrooms?’, in The Aboriginal Child
at School, 13/1: 9-29.
- Maxwell, T.W. & Ninnes, P. (2003), The Context of Teaching
(2nd ed.), Kardoorair Press, Armidale.
- McConaghy, C. (2000), ‘Constructing Aboriginality, Determining
Significant Difference, in Maxwell, T.W. & Ninnes, P. (2003)
- Monte, C. (1999), ‘Erik Erikson: Psychoanalytic Ego Psychology’,
Beneath the Mask, pp. 369-406.
Nakata, M. (1991), in McConaghy.
- Rice, J.S. (1996), A Disease of One’s Own, Transaction,
New Brunswick.
- University of Cambridge. (1994/1995), Faculty of Education PGCE
course notes for Language Learning and Cognition.
- Yates, C.R. (2000), ‘Applying learning style research
in the classroom: Some cautions and the way ahead’, International
Perspectives on Individual Differences, Vol. 1 Cognitive Styles,
Ablex, Connecticut, pp. 347-364.
- Yates, G., & Chandler, M, (1991), ‘The cognitive psychology
of knowledge: Basic research findings and education implications’,
Australian Journal of Education, 35/4, pp. 131-153.
|
