Content uploaded by Sue Whatman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sue Whatman on Dec 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
You should cite this paper as:
Whatman, S. Singh, P., Main, K., Low-Choy, S., Rose, J, Thompson, R., & Kearney, J. (2017).
Mapping the mutually supportive relationships between teacher and student wellbeing in disadvantaged
schools. Paper presented at AARE 2017 Hotel Realm, Canberra. Tuesday, 28th November, 2017
Mapping the mutually supportive relationships between
teacher and student wellbeing in disadvantaged schools.
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the content of wellbeing in schools informing the first phase of a
participatory action research (PAR) project to identify and map the mutually supportive
relationships that exist between teacher and student wellbeing in disadvantaged schools in the
South East Coast region of Queensland, Australia. Engaging in co-inquiry with a range of low
socio-economic schools, twin questions frame the research approach: 1) What are the core
characteristics of schools that promote health and wellbeing in students and teachers? And 2) In
what ways can schools be reconfigured to promote health and wellbeing in students and
teachers? The broader scope of the project will map the impact of these relationships upon
student achievement (including attendance, engagement and learning outcomes and other
achievement data) and teacher wellbeing (indicated by incidences of burnout, stress leave,
transfer, teacher wellbeing survey data, etc). This paper specifically outlines the context of
wellbeing in schools, examining understandings of wellbeing, departmental policy, such as the
Learning and Wellbeing policy of the Department of Education and Training and the imperatives
driving research interest in wellbeing such as teacher burnout and increasing student anxiety.
INTRODUCTION
This paper centres on the twin questions of: 1) What are the core characteristics of schools that
promote health and wellbeing in students and teachers?; and, 2) In what ways can schools be
reconfigured to promote health and wellbeing in students and teachers? We suggest that these
relationships have particular impacts upon student wellbeing and therefore achievement
(including attendance, engagement and learning outcomes and other achievement data) as well
as teacher wellbeing (indicated by incidences of burnout and/or length of service in a school,
stress leave, transfer, teacher wellbeing survey data). We share the view of an emerging role of
physical education teachers as "wellbeing coaches" as framed by the Learning and Wellbeing
policy of the Department of Education and Training.
Wellbeing is a central policy focus of the Queensland Department of Education and Training
(DET) for both staff and students. Student wellbeing is attended to under the umbrella of the
Queensland Education Learning and Wellbeing Framework (DET, 2015) whereby student
wellbeing is described as an outcome of “building positive learning culture — providing
challenging, interactive and engaging learning experiences and by nurturing relationships with
families and the wider community” (p.2). The perception of the importance of the role of parents
and carers in supporting student wellbeing is explicitly stated on page one of the document:
Parents and carers have the most significant impact on their child’s wellbeing, and their
partnership and active participation in school activities are welcomed and encouraged.
The prominent positioning of this statement in the document and the implication that schools
have opened the door to parent and community partnership initiatives leads the reader to
potentially conclude that sites and contexts where parents are not seen as supporting student
wellbeing, and school-community partnerships are weak or non-existent must be the
parents/communities’ fault.
What do we know about ‘wellbeing in schools’?
This issue of wellbeing is important to student social, emotional and academic outcomes, and
for teachers it is related to job satisfaction and retention in schools and their profession
(Buchanan, 2010). In 2008 the Australian commissioned a report to examine approaches to
improving student wellbeing (Noble et al. 2008). Part of this process was to create an agreed
definition of wellbeing:
Student Wellbeing is defined as a sustainable state of positive mood and attitude,
resilience, and satisfaction with self, relationships and experiences at school (Noble et
al. 2008, p. 7).
In 2014, another Australian study reported on primary and secondary school students’ personal
accounts of wellbeing (Simmons, Graham & Thomas, 2014). This research found student
wellbeing included perceptions that included be cared for, being respected, and feeling valued .
Students’ perspectives on being valued included their perceived right to ‘having a say’ in
schooling matters, including the school environment and pedagogy. This association between
student voice and student wellbeing is strong and has been evidenced in other studies ( see de
Roiste et al, 2014, Noble et al. 2008; Osler, 2010).
Our focus on schools with a lower level of educational advantage in Queensland’s South East
region (around the 1000 ICSEA scale - see www.myschool.edu.au and
https://acaraweb.blob.core.windows.net/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf) is related to previous
work in social and emotional learning programs with at-risk learners (Whatman & Main, 2016;
Main & Whatman, 2016), Indigenous school aspiration and engagement programs (Sammel &
Whatman, 2015; 2017), literacy interventions (Glasswell, Singh, & McNaughton, 2015;
Glasswell, Colwill & Singh, 2011) and teen bullying (Thompson, 2016)
Figure 1 - How educational advantage (ICSEA) is represented on the Myschool website.
What don’t we know about wellbeing in schools?
Establishing wellbeing fostering school environments is challenging for teachers and schools to
implement in practice (Kellet, 2010). Some research suggests that student wellbeing outcomes
are best achieved through explicit teaching of social and emotional skills, and these skill sets
can help to improve student academic outcomes (Jennings & Greenberg 2009). Yet, it has been
less clear on how best to enact such skilling programs, and whether whole-school approaches,
or targeted programs are most effective in improving student wellbeing.
To date, it has been difficult to know comprehensively how to best optimise student and teacher
wellbeing at school. Moreover, questions remain around how dependent student wellbeing is on
teacher wellbeing, and vice versa? The Noble et al. (2008) study suggested there is a reciprocal
relationship between teacher and student wellbeing, although they did not have the scope to
explore it. Australian workplace data on teacher wellbeing has found that over half of teacher
illness is stress-related, with 40% of newly recruited teachers leaving the profession because of
it (Safework Australia, 2013). However, Buchanan’s (2010) study on teacher turnover found that
a perceived lack of support was the strongest reason teachers gave for leaving the profession,
with one teacher noting ‘there was more pastoral care for the students than for the staff’. This
lack of attention to teacher wellbeing, or need for care, is potentially problematic for both newly
recruited teachers who may be overwhelmed by job demands and experienced teachers who
may become exhausted or suffer ‘burn out’.
The focus on wellbeing in schools - WHY NOW?
Wellbeing is closely linked to learning engagement and student success at school. International
statistics have found that when students disengage from learning, a quarter of them (25%) will
drop out before completing their schooling (OECD, 2012). Student disengagement, and
associated diminished wellbeing at school is typically associated with social and emotional
factors around a sense of belonging, being valued and respected (Main & Whatman; 2016;
Whatman & Main, 2016, Noble et al., 2008 ). Therefore, enhancing wellbeing involves improving
and sustaining student physical, social and emotional health. Furthermore, mental health issues
including anxiety and depression are increasing recognised as contributing to student
disengagement at school and problems such as school refusal (Stroobant & Jones, 2006).
Stroobant & Jones note, ‘school refusal is usually characterised by high levels of anxiety’ (2006,
p. 209).
More problems with the school wellbeing agenda are the complex issues that arise in school
communities that have high poverty and social and economic disadvantage (McLanahan 2009).
Structural inequities (e.g. parental unemployment, housing insecurity) and other traumas
including familial instability and substance abuse all have the potential to negatively affect
student wellbeing (Bourke & Geldens, 2007). Children living in disadvantaged communities are
more likely to experience physical and emotional trauma related to violence at home, and in
their community, than their more advantaged peers (Nicholson et al., 2012). Evidence shows
that children being raised by parents with mental illness or who abuse drugs or alcohol are at
higher risk of physical and emotional mal effects than other children, and that these risks are
more prevalent in disadvantaged communities (Kezelman et al., 2015). In addition, such trauma
related conditions impede children from reaching their academic potential and place children at
greater risk of diminished mental and physical health and wellbeing (Vostanis, 2014).
Student engagement is a multidimensional and interconnected construct that has been
recognised as a significant factor in student learning. However, the “popularity and seemingly
familiarity of engagement as a concept…means many different things to many people” (Eccles,
2016, p. 72). As a concept, engagement has been defined in the literature as a concept where a
student or students are actively involved and positively connected to both the learning task and
to the learning environment. That is, student engagement is a dynamic, fluid and context
dependent experience (Shernoff et al., 2016). It has also been argued that engagement is not
a dichotomy (i.e., it is either present or it is not) but, rather, it falls along a graduated continuum
(Schlechtly, 2011) and is underpinned by three key dimensions, namely, behavioural, emotional,
and cognitive engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfield & Paris, 2004; Poskitt & Gibbs, 2010).
Each of the three key engagement dimensions have particular observable characteristics
indicating differing levels of investment and commitment to learning, both across the three
dimensions and within them. Studies have shown that students can appear to be engaged but,
in reality, were being compliant. That is, on task and non-disruptive but not emotionally
connected or cognitively challenged by the work. Compliant students were shown to receive
less support and guidance from teachers as opposed to those students who were disruptive
(Angus et al., 2009). In their longitudinal study, Angus et al. (2009) also noted that students who
were behaviourally engaged (compliant) but were not emotionally or cognitively engaged
achieved only marginally higher outcomes than those students who were uncooperative and
displaying disruptive behaviours. However, for the most part, teachers often focus on ensuring
that students are behaviourally engaged only (compliant). Despite low-level disruptive and
disengaged behaviours reportedly being quite common in classrooms, many teachers find these
behaviours difficult to manage and “tend to attribute unproductive student behaviour to
individual student[s] and out-of-school factors rather than to school factors” such as the
curriculum or pedagogies (Sullivan, Johnson, Conway, Owens & Taddeo, 2013, p. 5). However,
Sullivan et al. also argued that a holistic model of the learning environment that included the
physical environment, teacher characteristics, curriculum, and the student themselves needed
to be considered when trying to understand both productive and unproductive behaviours in the
classroom.
CONCLUSION
The problem we have attempted to articulate in this paper is that both teacher and student
wellbeing is currently conceptualised in the neo-liberal school through a pathological, deficit
model - manage ‘your’ stress, grow a ‘positive mindet’ etc. Despite much curriculum innovation
in HPE for example to move away from solutions which place the cause and effect at the feet of
the individual (c.f. McCuaig et al. 2013), the over-arching policy discourses (and funded
initiatives) have swung back there. It therefore turns attention away from what it is that schools
and communities could be doing in partnership, and with appropriate state resourcing, to
support teacher and student wellbeing.
We are greatly concerned with the deleterious effects of teachers and students’ experiences of
poor wellbeing and are not advocating that approaches currently focusing on individual needs or
deficits should cease. Student anxiety is at an all-time high, teacher turnover in hard to staff
schools, and leaving the profession permanently, is astounding. Schools are spending more on
wellbeing initiatives, through state policy drivers (eg learning engagement officers employed at
regional level, and wellbeing coaches or ‘champions’ in individual schools). What we don’t know
is how and why some schools are addressing and improving teacher and student wellbeing
more systematically or comprehensively than others with the same demographics, state
infrastructure and resources.
In synthesising the aspects of effective social and emotional learning/wellbeing programs that
we already understand from existing projects like the Titans Learning Centre evaluation (Main &
Whatman, 2016; Whatman & Main, 2016) and Literacy for All in Logan schools (c.f. Glasswell,
Singh, & McNaughton, 2016; Glasswell, Colwill & Singh, 2011) we can work with schools to
elicit and unpack the ways they believe that they already support wellbeing and/or could do
other things. In doing so, we add to our preliminary conceptual model outlined in this paper to
capture elements that support wellbeing in schools and therefore can be used to guide the
development of effective approaches in other educational settings. Thus, this project can make
a significant difference in identifying those characteristics and relationships in place that appear
to support teacher and student wellbeing, and can be attempted in other schools, particularly
those disadvantaged schools which may be geographically disparate, but demographically
similar.
REFERENCES
Angus, M., et al. (2009). Trajectories of classroom behaviour and academic progress: student
engagement with learning. Mount Lawley: ECU.
Athanasou, J. (2016). Occasional Paper 4.3: Appraising the importance of bullying for the
national Safe Schools Framework (ISSN: 2206-3889). Retrieved from
https://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/OP4.3-Appraising-the-
importance-of-bullying-for-the-National-safe-Schools-Framework.pdf
Bourke, L., & Geldens, P. M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing and its meaning for young people in a
rural Australian center. Social Indicators Research. 82, 1, 165-187.
Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 30(2), 199-211. doi:10.1080/02188791003721952
Carmona, G., Varela-Ortega, C. & Bromley, J. (2011), The use of participatory object-oriented
Bayesian networks and agro-economic models for groundwater management in Spain, Water
Resources Management. 25, 5, 1509-1524.
Carriger, J. F., Barron, M. G. & Newman, M. C. (2016), Bayesian networks improve causal
environmental assessments for evidence-based policy, Environmental Science & Technology
50, 24, 13195-13205.
Casey, A. (2013). Seeing the trees, not just the wood: steps and not just journeys in teacher
action research. Educational Action Research, 21 (2), 147-163.
Culbertson, M. J. (2015), `Bayesian networks in educational assessment: The state of the field',
Applied Psychological Measurement. 40, 1, 3-21.
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales [DEC] (2015). The Wellbeing
Framework for Schools. Retrieved from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/wellbeing/about/16531_Wellbeing-Framework-for-
schools_Acessible.pdf
Department of Education and Training, Australian Government [DET] (2016a). Student
resilience and wellbeing: The National Safe Schools Framework. Retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.au/national-safe-schools-framework-0
Department of Education and Training, Australian Government [DET] (2016b). Student
resilience and wellbeing: Safe Schools Coalition Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.au/safe-schools-coalition-australia
Department of Education and Training, Queensland [DET] (2015). Learning and Wellbeing
Framework. Retrieved from
http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/learningandwellbeing/resources/learning-and-wellbeing-
framework.pdf
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government
[DEEWR] (2008). Literature review: Scoping study into approaches to student wellbeing (PRN
18219).Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/appendix_1_literature_review.pdf
de Róiste, A., Kelly, C., Molcho, M., Gavin, A., & Gabhainn, S. N. (2012). Is school participation
good for children? Associations with health and wellbeing. Health Education, 112(2),88–104.
doi: http://dx.doi.10.1108/09654281211203394
Donnelly, K. (2016, February 11). Safe Schools Coalition is more about LGBTI advocacy than
making schools safer. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/government-and-teacher-union-hypocrisy-as-lgbti-agenda-
plugged-in-schools-20160208-gmp18h.html
Düspohl, M., Frank, S. & D•oll, P. (2012), `A review of Bayesian Networks as a participatory
modeling approach in support of sustainable environmental management', Journal of
Sustainable Development. 5, 12, 1-18.
Ferreira, J-A., et al (2017) Paper presented at the ATEA 2017 Conference, 5-7 July, 2017.
Brisbane, Stamford Plaza Hotel.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59‐109.
Gibbs, R. & Poskitt, J. (2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (Years 7-
10): A literature review. Wellington: NZ Education.
Glasswell, K., Singh, P., & McNaughton, S. (2016). Partners in design: co-inquiry for quality
teacher in disadvantaged schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39 (1), 20-29.
Glasswell, K., Colwill, R., & Singh, P. (2011) Literacy lessons for Logan Learners: Principals and
teachers using data for school improvement. Curriculum Leadership, 9 (22), 1-3.
Henderson, C. (2002, October). Bullying. No way! A national initiative to expand thinking about
bullying, harassment and violence and their resolution. Paper presented at The Role of Schools
in Crime Prevention Conference in conjunction with the Department of Education, Employment
and Training, Victoria and Crime Prevention Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hodkinson, A. (2015) “Safe Spaces” in Education: Ghettos of marginalisation and dominance of
places of equality and social justice? International Review of Qualitative Research, 8, 2, 145-
165.
Jennings, P. A. & Greenberg. M.T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social emotional
competence in relation to student outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1, 491-525.
Kearney, S., Gleeson, C., Leung, L., Ollis, D., & Joyce, A. (2016). Respectful relationships
education in schools: The beginnings of change. Final evaluation report. Retrieved from
http://www.ourwatch.org.au
Kearney, J., Teare, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2017). Inclusive pathways for lifelong action
learning. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.). Learning Conferences as sites of learning and development.
UK: Routledge.
Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and
the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In Kemmis, S., & Smyth, T.J. (Eds.).
Enabling Praxis: Challenges for educators, (pp. 37-62). Amsterdam: Sense.
Kezelman, C., Hossack, N., Stavropoulos, P., Burley, P. (2015). The Cost of Unresolved
Childhood Trauma and Abuse in Adults in Australia. Pegasus Economics Report, Blue Knot
Foundation, Sydney.
Larkin, K., Finger, G., & Thompson, R. (2010). Student Health and Welfare in Networked
School Communities. In M. Lee & G. Finger (Eds.), Developing a networked school community:
A guide to realising the vision (pp. 277-289). Camberwell, Vic: ACER.
Leahy, D., O’Flynn, G., & Wright, J. (2013). A critical ‘critical inquiry’ proposition in Health and
Physical Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 4 (2), 175-
187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2013.805479
Low-Choy, S., James, A., Murray, J. & Mengersen, K. (2013) Elicitator: a user-friendly,
interactive tool to support the elicitation of expert knowledge, Chapter 4 in Expert Knowledge &
Its Applications to Ecology, eds Perera, A. H. et al., Springer: New York, p39-67.
Low-Choy, S., Riley, T. & Alston-Knox, C. (2017) Using Bayesian statistical modelling as a
bridge between quantitative and qualitative analyses: training teachers in decision-making using
a digital tool, submitted.
Low-Choy, S. (2015). Hierarchical models for evaluating surveillance strategies: diversity within
a common modular structure, Chapter 4 in Quantitative methods for Designing Surveillance in
Plant Biosecurity, eds Mengersen, K. et al., CABI.
Macdonald, D. (2011). Like a Fish in Water: Physical Education Policy and Practice in the Era of
Neoliberal Globalization. Quest, 63, 36-45.
Main, K., & Whatman, S. (2016). Building social and emotional efficacy to (re)engage young
adolescents: capitalising on the ‘window of opportunity’. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 20(10), 1054-1069.
Marcot, B., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D. & McCann, R. K. (2006), Guidelines for
developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and
conservation, Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36, 3063-3074.
Maxwell, J. A., M. Chmiel, & S. E. Rogers (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and
mixed methods research. Chapter 13 in The Oxford Handbook for multimethod and mixed
methods research inquiry, eds Hesse-Biber, S. N. & R. B. Johnson, pp. 223–239, Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK.
McCuaig, L., & Quennerstedt, M. (2016). Health by stealth – exploring the sociocultural
dimensions of salutogenesis for sport, health and physical education research. Sport, Education
and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2016.1151779
McLanahan, S. (2009). Fragile families and the reproduction of poverty. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 1, 111-131.
Nicholson, J.M., Lucas, N., Berthelson, D. & Wake, M. (2012). Socioeconomic inequality profiles
in physical and developmental health from 0-7 years: Australian national study: Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 81-87.
Noble, T., McGrath, H., Roffey, S., Rowling, L., Carbines, R., & Robb, L. (2008). Scoping study
into approaches to student wellbeing: Final report. DEEWR, ACT: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), ACU National, Erebus International.
Noble, T., & McGrath, H. (2008). The positive educational practices framework : A tool for
facilitating the work of educational psychologists in promoting pupil wellbeing. Educational and
child psychology, 25(2), 119–134.
Pillay, H., Goddard, R., & Wilss, L. (2005). Well-being, burnout and competence: Implications
for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 22-33.
Poskitt, J., & Gibbs, R. (2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (year 7-
10): A literature review. New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Quennerstedt, M. (2008). Exploring the relation between physical activity and health—a
salutogenic approach to physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 13(3), 267-283.
Safework Australia. (April 2013) The Incidences of Accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims for
Mental Stress in Australia. Retrieved from
www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/workers-compensation-
claims-for-mental-stress-in-australia.
Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R. J., Nurcombe,
B., Zubrick, S.R. (2000). Child and adolescent component of the National Survey of Mental
Health and Well-being. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Mental Health and Special Programs Branch,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.
Simmons, C., Graham, & Thomas, N. (2014). Imagining an ideal school for wellbeing: Locating
student voice. Journal of Educational Change. 16, 2, 129-144.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Shernoff, D., Kelly, S., Tonks, S., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R., Sinha, S. and Abdi, B. (2016).
Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms.
Learning and Instruction. 43, 52‐60.
Singh, P. & Glasswell, K. (2016). Differences that Come to Matter. Leading Struggles Against
Educational Inequality. In Johnson, G. & Dempster, N. (Eds.). Leadership in Diverse Learning
Contexts (Chapter 13, pages 255-275). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Singh, P., Märtsin, M., Glasswell, K. (2013). Knowledge Work at the Boundary: Making a
Difference to Educational Disadvantage. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, pp.102-
110.
Simmons, C., Graham, A., & Thomas, N. (2014). Imagining an ideal school for wellbeing:
Locating student voice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 129-144. doi:10.1007/s10833-
014-9239-8.
Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood [SCSEEC] (2003). National Safe
Schools Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publication
s/Archive%20Publications/Safe%20School%20Env/National%20Safe%20Schools%20Framewo
rk%20-%202003.pdf
Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood [SCSEEC] (2011). National Safe
Schools Framework. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_safe_schools_framework.pdf
Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood [SCSEEC] (2013). National Safe
Schools Framework. Retrieved from
https://studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/docs/default-source/nationalsafeschoolsframework-
pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Stroobant, E., & Jones, A. (2006). School refuser child identities, discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 27:2, 209-223.
Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Conway, R. N. F., Owens, L. D., & Taddeo, C. (2013). Punish them
or engage them. Teachers’ views on student behaviours in the classroom, Behaviour at School
Study: Technical Report, 1.
Taylor, A., & Winterton, A. (2009). Trajectories of classroom behaviour and academic progress:
A study of student engagement with learning. Mount Lawley, Western Australia: Edith Cowan
University.
Thompson, R. (2016). Teen Girls’ Online Practices with Peers and Close Friends: Implications
for Cybersafety Policy. Australian Education Computing, 31 (2). Retrieved from
http://journal.acce.edu.au/index.php/AEC/article/view/118
Vostanis, P. (2014). Helping children and young people who experience trauma: Children of
despair, children of hope. London: Radcliffe Publishing.
Whatman, S. (2017). Physical Activity in the Middle Years. In D. Pendergast, N. Bahr & K. Main
(Eds.) Rethinking Curriculum Pedagogy and Assessment in the Middle Years 3rd Ed. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Whatman, S., & Main, K. (2016). Re-engaging ‘youth at risk’ of disengaging from schooling
through rugby league club partnership. Sport, Education & Society, 1-15. DOI:
10.1080/13573322.2016.1184135
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Kearney, J. (2012). Participatory action learning and action research for
sustainable community development. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed). Action Research for
Sustainable Development in a Turbulent World. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
