Intellectual quality can be identified as pedagogy that focuses on producing a deep and conceptual understanding of important skills, ideas and areas of study (NSW DET, 2003). Classrooms high in intellectual quality encourage all students to engage in challenging work that provides opportunities for the development of higher-order thinking and substantive communication, as students work to actively construct knowledge.
Gender
In terms of gender, Verenikina, Vialle and Lysaght have identified differences between the sexes in a number of areas, including “personality, physical, occupational and cognitive” (2011, p.234). There are significant variations in the learning styles of girls and boys, with more differences between a same-age girl and same-age boy than for example, the age differences between a seven-year-old girl and nine-year-old girl (NASSPE, 2011). Girls are more likely to cooperate and work well in small group settings in which they can discuss a problem or task ideas, compared to boys who prefer to work alone, and will often “argue over who will lead when working in a group” (EduGuide, 2010).
From an early age, girls are more compliant than boys, when interacting not just with peers but also their teachers (Berk, 2006). When students engage in interactions with their teachers, their learning is assisted, as students must demonstrate a meaningful and profound understanding of central ideas in order to communicate these understandings effectively (Hinde-McLeod & Reynolds, 2007). Girls and boys should both be encouraged to engage in substantive conversations focused on their learning experiences in order to “discover new ways of knowing rather than transmit traditional knowledge” (Hinde-McLeod & Reynolds, 2007, p.51).
Academic Outcomes
“High quality student outcomes result if learning is focused on intellectual work that is challenging, centred on significant concepts and ideas, and requires substantial cognitive and academic engagement with deep knowledge” (NSW DET, 2003, p.10). Students are likely to be more focused on their work and perform better when classroom tasks are both challenging and engaging (Churchill et al., 2011). Willms, Friesen and Milton (2009) propose that effective teaching leading to greater academic outcomes amongst students is observable through learning tasks that require and instill deep thinking, immerse the student in disciplinary inquiry, are connected to the world outside the classroom, have intellectual rigour and involve substantive conversation.
Effective teachers, fostering academic achievement in students, are aware that knowledge is interrelated and, in turn, is best developed through experiences and the understandings of relationships between concepts, rather than through disconnected elements (Willms, Friesen & Milton, 2009). This idea stresses the crucial role played by substantive communication amongst students and their teachers in order to develop deep understandings of central concepts. Wells (1999) describes this dialogic process as one that not only contributes to meaning-making amongst others, but a process that extends own understanding. Teachers need to assist their students to “explore ideas both individually and collectively” (Churchill et al., 2011, p.264).
Student Behaviour
The behaviour that students exhibit within the learning environment is largely determined by their attitude towards the skills required of them, and their willingness and ability to engage in challenging tasks. Newmann, Marks and Gamoran propose that students need to be given opportunities to “use their minds well”, which, in turn, “requires standards for intellectual quality” (1996, p.281). One of the major causes of students’ misbehaviour in class is the result of boredom with routine activities (Prensky, 2005), such as those that involve worksheets where students are not given opportunities to develop deep knowledge or understanding of central concepts. In these situations, students will often distract other students, or roam the classroom in attempt to find a more interesting alternative. On the contrary, however, Daniels identifies that misbehaviour could result from the “student’s inability to understand the concepts being taught” (1998, p.26).
It is crucial that teachers know their students, so that the planning of challenging activities is appropriate for the variety of different abilities within the learning environment (Churchill et al., 2011). When teachers pursue positive relationships with students and tailor class work that enables students to construct their own meaning, students are more likely to behave and participate effectively in learning tasks.