EduResearch Matters

EduResearch Matters is a blog for educational researchers in Australia to get their work and opinions out to the general public. Please join us here. We would love to get your comments and feedback about our work.

We must embed the full histories of this Country or rob all Australian students of understanding our home

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, Indigenous education, Indigenous education policy, professional development of teachers, professional standards, Resources for Indigenous education, , ,

This work came to life through the painting of Elder, educator, artist and Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Aunty Denise Proud.

We are at a time where educators are thirsting for information, not just about Indigenous peoples, histories and cultures, but also how to address professional standards of practice in Indigenous education. The Australian Professional Standards (particularly 1.4 and 2.4) require teachers to understand and respect Australian histories and be capable of delivering education to Indigenous students. There are compulsory courses now in teacher education programs, yet, many teachers continue to report that they aren’t confident in practising the many aspects of Indigenous education.

In response, we decided it was important to listen as teachers said they weren’t confident in doing this key part of their professional roles.

We wanted to create resources to support them in this work, along with the other resources already developed. We felt there was an urgent need to bring together some of Australia’s top educators to develop and deliver a strengths-based book, “Indigenous education in Australia – Learning and Teaching for Deadly Futures”. 

Front cover artwork by Aunty Denise Proud

We have come together as Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal collaborators for this book because we share a strong desire to see all of the excellent policy reforms that have happened in Indigenous education in Australia come to life. Marnee, who has several research projects in schools around Queensland and has been coordinating Indigenous education coursework for pre-service teachers at the University of Queensland, and Rhonda, who is also regularly in schools in Western Australia for her research and is also the Head of the School of Education at Curtin University, have for too long witnessed the impact of the deficit perceptions that frame Indigenous students and their families. 

To us, there are still large inequalities needing to be addressed. 

That is why we decided at the beginning of this project that a strengths approach must underpin the framing of the book. That is, our work would start from a position where we emphasise the strengths of Indigenous peoples, their capacities and capabilities. Indigenous peoples are experts in their lives; and if there are problems then the problem is the problem, the person is not the problem. There is a power in stories which reimagine change. 

Yes, power in reimagining change but also power in the many opportunities for educators to learn more about the richness and wealth of embedding Indigenous knowledges and perspectives into Australian classrooms. As one of the world’s oldest continuing cultures with 65, 000 years of knowledge and history, if we as educators don’t embed the full histories of this Country, we will effectively rob all Australian students of understanding the Country they call home.

As Indigenous knowledges and perspectives are a national cross curriculum priority, we know educators are eager to ensure they can develop authentic, accurate curriculum. There are chapters in the book that help educators understand how to locate suitable resources and materials and how to work in partnership with local communities in ensuring the curriculum is as localised as possible. 

There are many examples across chapters in the book of positive outcomes that have resulted in schools and communities working together to achieve outcomes for their students. There is also a chapter that provides another tool or framework called ‘YARNS’ – this tool aims to support teachers to think critically and with rigour in relation to the types of materials and sources they introduce into their classrooms.

The chapters use literature, research and practical experience to inform discussions about different aspects of Indigenous education. That is, within each chapter there has been an attempt to translate research and theory into practice, focussing in particular on the question: what can teachers can do in their practices to incorporate Indigenous education in their professional practices? There are chapters that speak to the diversity of Indigenous learners, how to support the identities of Indigenous students, how to support students from diverse language backgrounds. As editors, along with the authors of each chapter, emphasis is given to the ideas that: Indigenous students are diverse and unique; that there is no one way of supporting Indigenous learners, and that excellent and innovative teaching practices should serve students positively from all cultural backgrounds.

The story of our book came to life through the painting on the front cover of the book. This was done by Elder, educator, artist and Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Aunty Denise Proud. Aunty Denise tells the story of two knowledge systems coming together, using black and white symbolically to represent Indigenous and non-indigenous people sharing, learning and collaborating for brighter futures of young people. The Aboriginal symbols for people are used, the smaller U shape symbols represent the children/young people and the larger U shape symbols represent the adults who support and nurture them with the rich knowledges of this Country. 

The field of Indigenous education has been led by ground-breaking Indigenous education scholars: Professors Nerida Blair, Peter Buckskin, Tracey Bunda, Paul Hughes, Kay Price, Lester Irabinna Rigney, Cheryl Kickett Tucker, Jay Phillips, Lynette Riley, Grace Sarra, Chris Sarra – there are far too many to mention all by name, but we recognise the hard work and tenacity of these scholars who paved the way for the opportunity to create the space where we can continue to support educators to improving their awareness and understanding, and their practices in relation to Indigenous education. We also acknowledge the Elders, parents and community members who have shown incredible persistence and patience in advocating for better outcomes for their children and young people; and of course the many school leaders and teachers who have been doing this work constructively and effectively, sometimes in the face of resistance and complexity.

We have brought together an impressive list of authors for this book who have written about a wide range and diversity of topics. Some are well established voices in the field, and some emerging. We tried to find a balance of voices including practitioners and researchers, but we recognise that there are many more voices and stories yet to be told in this space. 

We have also curated a podcast series to accompany the book. The link to the podcast series will be available on the Routledge page and anyone interested will also be able to access the podcasts through their usual podcast app. The podcasts are yarns with authors about their journeys in Indigenous education and where they talk about key topics in their chapters. 

The book is by no means a ‘one stop shop’ – but we believe the book will be a useful resource for anyone interested in strengths-based approaches to Indigenous education. This book may also be of interest to people working in policy settings as many of the ideas put forward in the book are evidence-based and speak to the current Indigenous education policy setting. We hope the book makes a positive contribution to the already excellent array of resources available to educators in Indigenous education.

“Indigenous education in Australia – Learning and Teaching for Deadly Futures”: a new strengths-based text book for pre and in-service teachers on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education (Routledge)

Marnee Shay is an Aboriginal educator and researcher and a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Queensland

Rhonda Oliver is professor and head of the School of Education, Curtin University, Australia.

Six factors that impact student mental health

assessment, belonging, higher education, Inclusive Education, Mental health in higher education, Participation in higher education, student engagement, , , ,

Young people attending university experience higher rates of stress, depression and anxiety than their peers who are primarily engaged in full or part-time work. What is going on here? And how can universities better support their students’ mental health?

I’ve been investigating the mental wellbeing of undergraduate and postgraduate students at The University of Melbourne since 2011.  Results from our most recent (pre-Covid-19) survey of the mental wellbeing of coursework students in eleven Bachelor and coursework Masters programs have just been published. Our study confirms many university students are struggling with mental health difficulties: more than 4,500 students responded to our anonymous, online survey and, of these, almost one-third reported ‘severe’ or ‘extremely severe’ levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety or (chronic) stress (as measured by the DASS-21). These symptom levels would impede students’ daily functioning (sleep, memory, cognitive processing), social interactions and learning. So there is definitely a problem.

What is going on here?

It seems that university study and university experiences are highly variable. For many, and even most, young people, university study affords positive experiences of personal and intellectual growth, exploration and achievement; university is a time and place for thriving. For some, however – around one in three in our study – their experiences are negative, and this appears to contribute to a spiral of stress, dis-engagement and mental health difficulties.

What can universities do about it?

Most universities are taking active steps to improve mental health services and information for their students and many now offer stress-management tools and strategies such as mindfulness. But such services are responsive, rather than preventive. My colleagues and I at the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education want to understand what university administrators and educators can do to ensure that more students thrive, not just survive, during their time at university. 

Our latest study identified six common course experiences that predict substantial variations in students’ levels of mental wellbeing. This is really important because it means that universities, and university teachers (academics) in particular, can do more to make a difference to student mental wellbeing than they, and others, might imagine.

But before explaining those course experiences, I need to first explain that we didn’t only consider course experiences. We all have lots of ideas about why university students might be experiencing high levels of stress and mental strain these days. For example, it’s widely discussed that the increasing costs involved in attending uni are putting many students under financial pressure. Most Australian uni students graduate with considerable Fee Help debts that may take decades to pay off and, in many disciplines, there is no guarantee – or even a reasonable prospect – that all graduates will find a job in their chosen field at the end of a degree. 

As a result, there’s pressure on uni students to do more than pass; they may need to graduate in the top X%, or to build a grade-point-average that is, ironically, ‘above average’ to secure a job. Such expectations might be particularly onerous for local students whose educational backgrounds haven’t prepared them for the styles of teaching and learning at university, those who speak English as an additional language, international/overseas students, those who are the first in their immediate family to attend a university, and so on.

We took stressors like these into account in our study. What we wanted to find out is: Do students’ course experiences – that universities can influence through curriculum design and teaching practices – predict mental wellbeing after students’ individual circumstances and backgrounds are taken into account? The short answer is, yes, they do. In fact, our study found that the six coursework experiences are stronger predictors of students’ mental health than demographic factors (such as age, gender, living situation, hours of paid work and family care per week etc) and individual stressors including financial stress, worry about job prospects or English language difficulties.

For example, in our statistical model of DASS-Depression, demographic factors accounted for 6% of variance in scores, individual stressors accounted for an additional 7%, while course experiences accounted for 16% (after taking all other factors into account). 

What this means is that ensuring that all students have positive course experiences can make a substantial difference to their mental wellbeing, notwithstanding common pressures on uni students, such as juggling family care and paid work commitments; financial strain; career uncertainty; or English language difficulties. 

Which course experiences predict students’ mental wellbeing? 

Course experiencesExample items
Sense of belonging (in the course, or to the university)‘I sometimes feel that I don’t belong here’
Assessment pressures‘When I work on assessment tasks I think about how poorly I am doing compared with other students’
Positive engagement with other students in the year/program/school‘I have made at least one or two close friendships with other students in my course’
Finding course content interesting or useful‘I’m really interested in what I’m studying’
Teachers perceived as supportive of students‘My teachers convey confidence in my ability to do well in the course’
Academic workload ‘The course workload is too heavy’

Feelings of not belonging and worry about assessments were most strongly predictive of both DASS-depressive and DASS-anxiety symptoms; while perceiving the course workload as unreasonable is independently associated with DASS-Stress. ‘Autonomous’ motivation for study – being interested or perceiving value in what you are studying – is strongly predictive of positive Psychological Wellbeing and Satisfaction with Life. Engagement with other students in the course is independently associated with all – positive and negative – mental health outcomes; while perceptions of Teacher Support are most strongly associated with DASS-Depression and Satisfaction With Life.

So. What can universities do to better support students’ mental wellbeing? Our findings suggest a twin focus – on (course)work and relationships. Rationalising and organising students’ academic workload will be helpful, as will ensuring that assessment tasks are well-spaced and designed to assess and promote learning, not only to normatively rank student performance (see, eg, Slavin, Schindler & Chibnall, 2014; Tang & Ferguson, 2014). Promoting respectful and accepting relationships among students and between staff and students is also vital if students are to form positive, rather than competitive, peer relationships (see Larcombe et al., 2013) and feel that they ‘belong’ within the program or university (van Gijn-Grosvenor & Huisman, 2020). The value of academic teachers showing interest in their students is difficult to over-state (Baik, Larcombe & Brooker, 2019). Our findings confirm previous studies that have found students thrive psychologically when teachers acknowledge their perspectives, offer meaningful choices and justify course requirements (see Su & Reeve, 2011). Student motivation for study is also known to be maintained when teachers support students to pursue their intrinsic interests and goals (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and when feedback on assessment is consistent and informative (Hoskins & Newstead, 2009). Recent research also suggests that students’ sense of belonging is strengthened when teachers value and respect all students’ contributions in class, and create welcoming and empathic learning environments (Wilson, Murray & Clarke, 2018; see also http://unistudentwellbeing.edu.au/).

Of course, there are already many pressures on curriculum designers and academic teachers. If supporting student mental wellbeing is to be added to, or elevated among, the list of priorities for academic teachers, they will need to be supported and resourced to explore evidence-based strategies and approaches. And those strategies and approaches in turn need appropriate resourcing. 

We hope that our research prompts university administrators and funders, not only university teachers, to think about how students’ course experiences might impact their mental health – both positively and negatively – and about the steps that can be taken to address students’ high levels of psychological distress. We have long known how much teachers matter for student learning; our study provides new insight into how much teachers and teaching practices matter to student wellbeing.

Dr Wendy Larcombe is a Principal Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education and Melbourne Law School.

Photo of Pauline Hanson because her comments prompted a school developed response

Ditching school-based courses cuts passion and wonder. Shame the bureaucrats don’t see that.

Curriculum review, NSW Education Standards Authority, racism and schools, ,

The NSW response to cut more than 80 school-developed courses highlights a key flaw in current educational policy – a complete misunderstanding of schools, teachers and curriculum by bureaucrats who are sufficiently distanced from frontline teaching as to not see or feel the impacts of their decisions.

One of the key issues arising from the 2020 curriculum review is overcrowding or too much content in syllabuses, with many teachers struggling to meet individual student needs as they feel under pressure to cover large numbers of ‘dot points’ and course outcomes.

Too much content

School-based courses are not the problem per se but rather the overcrowding within discreet NESA syllabuses – too much content to cover in a limited time particularly in the highly prescribed Stage 6 courses where the HSC exams directly address course outcomes. So, the problem is one of prescription rather than the number of courses available. In fact, depth and breadth of subject selection is often a key factor in parental school choice. 

The SMH article (15 January, 2021) initially represents the ‘curriculum cleanup’ as one that will remove courses such as drone studies, puppetry and cartooning which the general public are likely to interpret as trivial. This unfortunately overshadows key points Jordan Baker goes on to make; that this clean up will not ease the burden on teachers and students, and that these courses are developed by schools to meet specific local student needs not met by general syllabuses. NESA (and previously the Board of Studies) has a long history of endorsing school-based courses, many of which were developed into state-wide syllabuses due to their success in meeting student and school needs. 

How one school fought racism

An example of the value of a school-developed course, is one we implemented in a school with a high population of Aboriginal students in the late 1990s when Pauline Hanson was elected to parliament. With this election came a significant increase in overt and vicious racism towards Aboriginal people in particular to Aboriginal teenagers like the kids we were teaching. This was aggravated by media reports of Aboriginal teenagers being arrested for swearing at racists with no apparent consequences for those provoking the incidents. Our students were angry and distressed and felt voiceless and powerless to express this reality on their daily lives. And so we implemented a school-developed media studies course where we could focus on understanding the media, how it is reported and how to address the misrepresentation of Aboriginal people. A key factor in this was identifying these ‘myths’ and the ‘busting them’ through learning how to clearly articulate facts, statistics and well-reasoned arguments rather than rely on emotional responses. We refused to refer to Pauline Hanson by her name, rather referring to her as ‘the fish & chip shop lady’.  For the students, this immediately disempowered her and her comments, dissipated the anger and allowed them to direct their energies into changing the discourse. The value of this was not only for individual students, but for buoying school morale and engaging local families and communities in school curriculum.

While but one example, many teachers can tell similar stories about the positive impact school-developed courses have, about being able to harness their passion into a course with direct benefit to students such as broadening their perspectives, developing critical thinking and practical (dare I say, job-ready) skills. These courses are not a burden to schools or teachers but rather enhance school culture and morale, often bringing families and communities into schools as local skills are drawn on to support course delivery.

Perhaps rather than the simplistic solution of scrapping what the department see as expendable courses, perhaps they could turn their attention to reframing key syllabuses to increase flexibility to better meet local needs including time to differentiate these courses to cater for all ability levels. Rather than prescription and compliance, let’s focus on a framework where ‘big ideas’ are placed at the centre, supported by a suite of options that promote creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, cross-cultural communication, empathy and relationality – all skills identified by many employers as essential for 21st century work practices. This is clearly the intent of the curriculum review as noted in the executive summary of the curriculum review:

The long-term vision is for a curriculum that supports teachers to nurture wonder, ignite passion and provide every young person with knowledge, skills and attributes that will help prepare them for a lifetime of learning, meaningful adult employment and effective future citizenship.

Unfortunately, while governments continue to be obsessed with assessing the ‘basics’ and comparing results between students, schools and education systems, the likelihood of seeing any innovation in curriculum design is slim, and so they continue to shuffle the deck using the same cards.

Associate Professor Cathie Burgess coordinates undergraduate and postgraduate Aboriginal Studies teaching methods, Aboriginal Community Engagement, Learning from Country and Leadership in Aboriginal Education courses. She has extensive teaching and leadership experience in secondary schools with expertise in Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogies, and implementing innovative literacy strategies to improve student outcomes. Cathie’s research involves community-led initiatives centring Aboriginal voices and positioning Aboriginal community-based educators as leaders through projects such as Learning from Country in the City, Aboriginal Voices: Insights into Aboriginal Education, Culturally Nourishing Schooling Project and Aboriginal Middle Leaders in NSW Schools.

.

Curriculum review: where was NESA’s consultation?

Curriculum review, equity in schooling, , , , , ,

This column by Debra Batley is the first of two columns discussing the recent NESA announcement.

NESA’s announcement on Monday 15th January that its curriculum overhaul was powering on into 2021 by cutting over 80 elective school developed courses not deemed “core” had several disturbing aspects to it. There was next to no consultation in this decision and it was particularly unsettling given that it followed closely on the heels of NESA’s December blanket dis-endorsement of all providers of professional learning in NSW (with the exception of DOE, AIS NSW and Catholic Schools). The decision around professional learning was also done in the name of curriculum reform, and was completely without consultation – the Professional Teacher’s Council lost endorsement, along with almost every professional teaching association in NSW. 

This is not what the Geoff Masters‘ review promised. This document was aspirational: it gave a reasonable time frame, talked of the importance of collaboration with key stakeholders in the writing of new curriculum documents, and left teachers with hope that the review process would be positive for both students and teachers. 

Unrealistic timeline

Instead, we have an unrealistic timeline. How can curriculum possibly be written, piloted, tested, sent out for consultation, adjusted, and teachers trained in the 18 month time frame that the Minister’s office has given NESA? The results of a short timeline are already emerging, with shortcuts in collaboration and consultation with key stakeholders being taken. Education is often a political football, however there is a growing perception that minority parties such as One Nation are ‘running the table’. It would be good to see the evidence basis for these latest reform decisions. 

Had teachers had been consulted on the culling of elective subjects, they probably would have replied that a large body of evidence suggests students do better when they are intrinsically motivated in their learning, have self-determination and autonomy. They maybe would have mentioned that researchers such as the late Sir Kenneth Robinson have found that educational outcomes are improved by learning across domains. 

Furthermore, they may have argued that school developed electives are particularly relevant to the school’s context. The culling of electives assumes a ‘one size fits all’ approach for their organisation (100 hours or 200 hours). Some schools in NSW take the opportunity to offer electives on a semester basis (50 hour courses). One well known Northern NSW School includes subjects such as Philosophy and Cosmology amongst their semester long elective offerings. Performing Arts High Schools have developed courses such as Circus Skills and Musical Theatre. Two of the biggest electives at my school are content endorsed courses; they are looked forward to by students, and I am certain they attract enrolments to the school. As a teacher I dread finding out that Year 9 Music has been placed on the same line as Outdoor Education – I know this means a small music class. 

Whilst the Hon. Sarah Mitchell may not see the value in these courses, for some students, these are the subjects that ignite their passions. 

It is somewhat ironic, that whilst the curriculum reform agenda is pushing for a depth as opposed to a breadth of understanding, the NSW Government is opposed to the idea of a child becoming an expert in printmaking – “this can be included in visual arts”. I would have thought that 100 hours of printmaking – which can include nine main types, and a multitude of subtypes – would actually model deep learning and provide students with practical skills. Disturbingly, even though the  Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration expresses a desire for “all learners to explore and build on their individual abilities, interests, and experiences”, the recent curriculum review decision seems to contradict this. 

What is core curriculum anyhow?

The elective decision also raises the question of what is ‘core’ curriculum. A blanket rule with this decision was that all languages were to be retained. The result of this is that some subjects with very low enrolments are protected (such as Sanskrit), whilst subjects with large enrolments (Physical Activity and Sports Studies – CEC) are potentially listed as electives to be ‘cleared out’. The weight of evidence supporting the idea that educational outcomes are better for students who have access to a broad curriculum is enormous. Furthermore, it is the students who need it most, who are the ones in danger of missing out. The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration states that students, whilst needing the fundamental skills of literacy and numeracy, also require learning in other domains. The study of elective subjects can contribute to this learning. Often through the well-being and motivational benefits this brings, a student’s overall learning is supported. It is clear that there is an academic hierarchy in NSW; however, a blanket decision to remove electives won’t fix it. A better solution would be using the knowledge of teachers evidenced in designing and writing some of the outstanding Endorsed Courses available for everyone. Philosophy anyone?

Debra Batley is a high school music teacher in North Western NSW. She is a current doctoral student at UNSW and her research area is in educational equity and its interaction with creative arts curriculum. In 2017-2019 with funding from AIS NSW she completed a 2 year long school based research project, examining the impact school based music tuition could have as a remediation tool for older readers who were not meeting stage outcomes. Debra is also the Chair of ASME NSW and is a passionate advocate for high quality music education for all students.

Giving up tenure: “I won’t pretend that I’m not a bit scared about this decision.”

Educational research, , ,

By Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn and Ange Fitzgerald

An introduction from Kimberley

It is widely acknowledged that these are turbulent times in the Australian tertiary sector. Many universities are facing significant budget deficits in 2020 and into the near future largely as a result of international students being unable to return during the COVID-19 pandemic. For academics, there is considerable uncertainty as degrees are put on ‘pause’ or discontinued, as workload models are reviewed, as programs are restructured and staff consider a future in a much leaner working environment. In late November, I found myself discussing my own decision to apply for one of the voluntary redundancies that my university was offering as a few colleagues met for drinks after work. As we talked, one of them turned to me as an aside and asked, ‘So, for you, was it the push or the pull?’ 

For some time, as a teacher educator, I’d personally been feeling the pull of returning to a primary school teaching role. I was feeling increasingly distant from the professional everyday realities of my graduating students. An extended time of working from home during 2020 had really brought into focus how the energy of being physically in the same room as my students was vital to my own sense of satisfaction in my teaching. With my youngest child finishing primary school, my connection to K-6 education as a parent also was ending. I’d sat at the Year 6 parent information session at the start of 2020 feeling somewhat envious of his teachers, imagining the many creative possibilities, challenges and opportunities for collaboration. I was envisaging myself with my own class. The pull of primary classroom teaching again was really strong for me, and after 20 years of working in a university, the time seemed ripe – it was now or never. 

It turned out that I was not alone in feeling the pull. My colleague, Associate Professor Angela Fitzgerald, had reached a similar conclusion. For her, a changing context signalled an opportunity to step away from an academic leadership role in the tertiary sector to return to a rural secondary school as a lead teacher. In this blog post, we share four tensions that we are experiencing as we ready ourselves to return to classroom as teachers, not for a semester’s sabbatical but as a result of resigning from tenured positions.

Kimberley (left) and Ange at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference in Bologna, Italy in August 2019

Tension 1: The departure card test

What do you write as your ‘usual occupation’ on your departure card when you are leaving Australia for international travel? We can conclude from a quick straw poll that many Education academics write ‘teacher’. As teacher educators, we continue to see ourselves primarily as teachers, even when others may not position us as such. A strong identity as a teacher is maintained despite the many other aspects of academic work, including research, service and leadership. As we (re)engage in school-based teaching roles, a tension exists in how we may enact the model of a ‘pracademic’ as we straddle the spaces occupied by schools and universities. As such, we see ourselves occupying hybrid spaces. We both will hold honorary positions in our current universities to enable ongoing affiliation, collaborative research and publications. It remains unknown how this will position us or how others will see us as we attempt to bridge or dwell in the boundaries.

Tension 2: The challenge of maintaining currency in teacher education 

As identified in the 2014 TEMAG issues paper, many teacher educators have spent extended periods of time in the university sector which presents a challenge to maintaining professional currency. One science teacher education colleague’s approach has been to teach science once a week in a kindergarten classroom, over many years. We are aware of a number of teacher education academics who have dipped in and out of classroom teaching roles for semester- or year-long sabbaticals, such as Tom Russell, Jeff Northfield, Dick Gunstone  and Jason Ritter. A point of difference here is that we have both taken up ongoing positions in schools requiring us to resign tenured positions, which is a move that makes our situations somewhat more permanent and undefined.

Tension 3: Are you crazy to give up tenure?! 

The tension for us here lies in what others expect as the ‘next steps’ in our academic careers and speaks to what we consider as a decision of the heart. Our respective decisions to leave continuing academic positions usually have been met with positive and polite reactions, which often include sentiments such as ‘brave’, ‘courageous’,  and ‘How lucky is the school?’ At the same time, there has also been a sense of suspicion from others, either implicit – ‘Why are you doing this?’ – or more explicit – ‘I’m sure you’ll be back after a few years.’ In some cases, sharing our decision has opened up conversations with teacher education colleagues who are likewise deliberating on a return to school-based roles or different educational opportunities that speak to their own decisions of the heart. We also have been anticipating possible reactions from our new teaching colleagues when we arrive at our schools. 

Tension 4: Being a ‘knowledgeable rookie’ 

After extended time and varied experiences in teacher education, we feel as though there’s so much we know, but then there’s so much we don’t know. With significant changes in school education since we last held class teaching positions, in many ways we will encounter similar issues to novice teachers; the very novice teachers whom we’ve been preparing for the classroom! So while we do know what to expect, how it will play out for each of us is not yet known.

A conclusion from Ange 

I won’t pretend that I’m not a bit scared about this decision. I am. I have no idea what this experience has in store for me, but that is part of the ‘pull’ in making this call and embarking on a new educational journey. If something scares me, then I have to do it! The ‘push’, for me, would be realising that I am no longer being equipped with the skills and knowledge to deal with the realities of the classroom. But what sort of teacher educator would that make me if that were the case? 

I was sharing with Joseph, my husband, the fear I was experiencing around this push and pull. He looked at me quizzically and reminded me of where I was 12 months earlier. I was delivering a closing keynote address to 3000 teachers outside of Mexico City in a huge convention centre with a front row of dignatires and high-profiled education bureaucratics. He reminded me that many people would be scared of that scenario when I only felt that initial kick of few butterflies. He reassured that I’d probably be ok with a room full of 15-year-olds! 

While it might all be relative, we both have a lot to give our respective schools, but we also have a lot to learn. The relationship is mutual and reciprocal. We look forward to leaning into these four tensions and teasing them out as we engage whole-heartedly in our lived experiences as classroom teachers. While we will be in the moment and tackling all that classroom life throws our way, we plan to capture our learnings, reflect on them collaboratively and share them with you. This is our way of making sense of our reality in transitioning from tenured teacher educator to ongoing teacher, a little explored area in the research body of knowledge.

Dr. Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn (University of Technology Sydney and Newington College) started her career as a primary teacher, and after time working as a casual academic and research assistant, took up a tenured academic position at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) in 2004. Kimberley’s PhD was awarded in 2010, engaging her in a case study of how a Year 5 class and teacher negotiated and co-created opportunities for students’ interest in science to develop. Highlights in Kimberley’s time at UTS have included opportunities to collaborate in leading externally funded research evaluations of science education initiatives, as well as accompanying preservice teachers on international professional experiences to Samoa and Bhutan. In 2021, she will be joining the staff at Wyvern House, Newington College as a Year 6 classroom teacher.

Dr Ange Fitzgerald (University of Southern Queensland and Mirboo North Secondary College) is recognised for her experience and expertise in science education, particularly through her explorations of quality learning and teaching practices in primary science education from a number of angles. While she entered higher education as a teacher educator and PhD student in 2007, she has previously spent time away from higher education as an Australian Government-sponsored volunteer in the Middle East. In 2021, Ange will reacquaint herself with the classroom as a mathematics and digital technologies teacher. She will also be responsible for a whole-school approach to the development and implementation of programs informing staff professional learning and student transitions.

Image by Adobe Stock

COVID-19 has destroyed academic careers & stalled equity in our universities: Death knell or opportunity?

COVID-19 and universities, equity in higher education, precarious employment in universities, Universities futures, Universities in Australia, university funding, university research funding, , , , , , , , , ,

In mid-March, my university sent me and my colleagues home to work remotely for what everyone thought would be a week, maybe ten days. It was meant to be just enough time for Victoria to get on top of the virus that was increasingly in the news. More than 280 days later, most of us still have not been back. It seems we’ll be able to return to our desks soon, but during this time higher education has altered in ways few people could have predicted would happen so quickly.

For the last few years, I have been involved in research that examines the university from two distinct perspectives: one from a leadership and administration position, and the other looking at what it means to be an academic in the twenty-first century.

From a leadership and administration perspective, Professor Jill Blackmore covered these topics in detail when she presented the inaugural AARE Leadership SIG Neil Cranston Lecture. Professor Blackmore expertly outlined that while COVID was completely unpredictable, the way universities reacted was largely unsurprising due to decades of funding changes and increased corporatisation and managerialism within the sector. She argues that government and university management have been careless of international students and academics and their health and wellbeing, with significant equity and long-term effects as to the role of the university in a democracy. Professor Blackmore pointed out that COVID-19 has fractured and exposed the precarious arrangement in Australia where the rising Asian middle-class demand, particularly from China and India, has been cross-subsidising domestic student growth and research in Australian universities.

This post aims to compliment Professor Blackmore’s work by focusing on how COVID-19 has exacerbated issues with academic careers, career progression, and equity in Australian universities.

Precariously employed university workers bear the brunt

Perhaps the first issue to arise in higher education following COVID shutdowns was financial as student numbers regularly dropped and governments elected to provide little financial relief. The first groups to feel the brunt of this were those who are precariously employed. The last few years has been overflowing with researchers asking questions about universities having high numbers of casual employees that were carrying the bulk of teaching work, which minimised their opportunity to research; often considered the surest way to secure ongoing employment.

Rates of precarious employment vary greatly with figures anywhere from 10 to over 70 per cent depending on university and faculty. As finances became an issue during 2020, however, thousands of casual employees lost their jobs and suddenly academic questions around job fairness and employment potential have been replaced with financial survival. For all of the problems with precarious employment, and I was precariously employed for well over five years, the light at the end of the precarious employment tunnel for me and so many others was academic opportunity that could lead to employment, but that has now largely been lost.

Research positions axed

Faculty finances are also deciders of post-doctoral and research fellow numbers and opportunities, and these too have been negatively impacted. Over the last few years, researchers have noted a shift from academics being teaching and research focused, to more heavily being focused on one or the other. Times of prosperity also led some faculties to increased numbers of post-docs and research fellows to help bolster research outputs and grant opportunities. However, these positions often came in addition to the faculty’s operation. Subsequently, a financial downturn quickly sees those additional post-docs and fellowships as superfluous because the faculty is already operating at full capacity without them.

Career progression disappears

The same situation has also occurred for those on grants and fellowships who do not hold continuing positions. Gaining a grant or fellowship was once seen as the pathway to secure employment, but when finances are down and employment opportunities are rare, transferring grant and research success to continuing employment has become more difficult in 2020 than many ever could have predicted.

For similar reasons (and the forthcoming view is entirely anecdotal at this point), 2020 marks the first time I have heard of colleagues from local and international universities, faculties, schools, and departments sometimes being discouraged from applying for research-only grants. This may seem counterintuitive in the university space, however, it makes sense once you consider the financial implications of someone who was carrying out teaching and researching duties, moving to a research-only position for several years. Regardless of their salary being paid as part of the grant, they still need to be replaced within the faculty (to cover their teaching, administration, or leadership duties etc.) and this is an expense some faculties do not want to pay in times of economic difficulty and downturn. 

The above is only a few of the numbers of changes that are taking place in higher education, but there are other repercussions that must be considered. Primarily, what does the job market look like into the future, and who is in the best place to benefit?

Frankly, for some universities and some disciplinary areas, the outlook is not positive. Employment and career prospects in many areas will be paused, or take backwards steps. There will be more competition for jobs, and due to restructures and employment downturns in some institutions and faculties, researchers with years of publications and experience will be vying for positions that only one year ago may have been more likely to be filled by Early Career Researchers who have recently received their PhD, or researchers finishing post-doctoral work or fellowships.

Will only the privileged survive?

Academics are being told this is just a case of things being postponed a little, or that there’s still casual work out there, or that people could use this time to get their publications up for when things settle down in a year or two. So this really becomes a question of, who can survive this postponement? Who can actually publish without work until things settle down and the job market opens again? The answer, I fear, is one that will set back the forward steps universities had made to diversify their workforce. Being able to wait for the job market to settle, being able to survive on the hope of stringing together casual work, or having the ability to write and publish without financial or institutional support, all seem to point to universities returning to their traditional roots of privileging the privileged.

As we try and move past an impossible year, my primary questions surround just how well attempts to increase diversity and inclusion of academic staff have been. Some researchers would say these attempts were never successful, and they might be right. I would hope some areas have been more successful than others. However, I would also question if any system has been successful if an unexpected issue (such as a financial downturn) causes a sector to return to its default mode; and that default mode remains being one that benefits the economically and socially privileged. 

Opportunity to diversify as universities rebuild

As 2021 approaches and many universities are reporting to their staff that the rebuilding process is being planned or starting to get underway, the sector has an opportunity to review how its workforce is constructed. Nothing will undo the damage of COVID within the sector, but the future could be improved if rebuilding included new structures that were no longer at their core centred around privilege.

Dr Troy Heffernan is Lecturer in Leadership at La Trobe University. His research is centred on higher education with a particular focus on policy, leadership, administration, management, and inequalities within the sector. His current work explores vice-chancellors’ approaches to management, the emotional labour involved in higher education leadership, the consequences of precarious employment, the implication of personal networks in academic promotion and hiring, and understanding the repercussions of higher education’s shift to business models and marketized practices. His work has received numerous awards for research excellence, and he regularly participates in public and invited speaking engagements. Troy is on Twitter @troyheff

Image by Adobe Stock

Differentiation is in our schools to stay. What is it? And why are most criticisms of it just plain wrong?

Differentiation, Inclusive Education, students with disability, , , , , , , , , ,

The use of a teaching practice known as ‘differentiation’ has become more common over time as educators have sought to respond to increases in the diversity of students enrolling in their local school. The term is now used widely by Australian teachers and school leaders, as well as policy makers.

For example, according to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, Australian teachers are expected to “Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities”. They are also expected to implement “Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice to meet the diversity of learners within their classroom”, as part of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability.

Being able to claim and demonstrate high-quality differentiation in the classroom now informs teacher promotion and school improvement review processes. It is also one way schools can meet their obligations under the Disability Standards for Education, as differentiation is a means through which teachers make reasonable adjustments to curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and the learning environment.

Given the emphasis in Australian legislation, policy and practice, it is important that when we refer to differentiation, we are all talking about the same thing. However, if you were to ask 10 teachers what differentiation means and how they implement it in their classrooms, you could receive 10 different responses.

As education researchers with expertise in inclusive education, we were interested in the spread of differentiation and what it means to teachers and researchers. We are also curious as to the basis for some especially loud criticisms of it.

Criticisms based on inconsistencies and misconceptions

There are a range of criticisms of differentiation including that it:

  • Requires teachers to provide every student with individualised lessons
  • Increases teachers’ workloads
  • Makes teachers’ work complicated
  • Waters down the curriculum
  • Lowers expectations of students and their exposure to the academic curriculum
  • Is too difficult to implement in mainstream classrooms
  • Is inconsistent with evidence-based approaches such as Response to Intervention
  • Lacks evidence of effectiveness.

We began this review because we knew that several of these criticisms are just plain wrong. For example, the goal of differentiation is to stretch students beyond what they can already do but not so much that they experience frustration or failure. It is about “teaching up”, not “watering down” the curriculum, where teachers raise expectations for all students and provide appropriate scaffolds to help students to experience success.

It is also not about “‘individualised instruction’”; rather, it offers “multiple avenues to learning” through proactive design. In fact, its emphasis on proactive planning aims to reduce teacher workload, not add to it. By building in accessibility and flexibility, it has the potential to save teachers time in the long run by teaching more efficiently and effectively from the outset, preventing the need to spend additional time replanning and reteaching the curriculum.

Some of these criticisms stem from a lack of definitional clarity. This problem was highlighted in Australian research as long ago as 2014, and has been recently confirmed by two reviews from the United States, published in 2019 and 2020.

A consistent and clear understanding of what is meant by differentiation is therefore vital in order to examine the validity of these criticisms and consider whether they correctly construe the motivation for its use.

To examine these issues in more depth, we undertook a comprehensive scoping review to synthesise what can be known from existing studies. We found that the research literature on differentiation contains a range of definitional inconsistencies and misconceptions about how differentiation is conceptualised and implemented.

This is a huge problem. How can we talk about, implement or indeed criticise differentiation in our schools if we are talking about and doing different things?

So let’s start with a definition

It is essential for teachers and researchers to work from a common understanding of differentiation and so as part of our research we first provided a clear definition. To construct our definition we drew on the work of Carol Ann Tomlinson, an American educator, author and speaker who is well known for her work with differentiated instruction over the last two decades.

This is what we, and others in inclusive education, mean when we use the term. It is:

the use of proactive planning and inclusive practices to create accessible learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners in heterogeneous classrooms, using flexible within-class grouping, as opposed to fixed ability grouping, year-level streaming or withdrawal to separate programs.

For further clarification, we use the term flexible grouping to refer to varied use of whole class and individual learning, alongside heterogeneous and homogeneous small group learning according to interest, learning profile, and readiness.

Our research

We conducted our scoping review of all peer-reviewed research literature published between 1999, when Carol Tomlinson published her influential book, The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners, and 2019, the year we concluded our search. Searches of seven research databases netted 1,235 records, to which we added another six identified through hand-searching.

Our definition was broad and theoretically derived and hinged on practices enacted to meet the needs of all learners in heterogeneous classrooms. We therefore excluded studies that incorporated practices inconsistent with this definition such as ability grouping, year-level streaming or studies in which there was withdrawal of students to separate programs. We also excluded studies informed by misguided practices such as differentiating for learning styles or intelligence strengths, or by ability grouping and segregation as there is either no evidence to support their use or because there is clear evidence against their use.

Multiple screening stages (for those interested in the details of our research process, particularly when it comes to what we excluded and why, please go to our full paper) resulted in a final sample of 34 journal articles. Our review of these 34 articles was guided by two research questions, both of which were exploratory, rather than explanatory:

  1. Are there any discernible patterns in peer-reviewed empirical research conducted on differentiation in school settings between 1999 and 2019 with regard to aim, location, school phase, participant types and methods used?
  2. What are the principal research foci of these studies, how do they conceptualise and research differentiation, and how might research on differentiation be improved?

Findings

Our findings on the research evidence on differentiation were variously pleasing, surprising and of great concern to us. We found that while some teachers can find differentiation a challenge to implement or to implement well, echoing the concerns of some critics, this was not ubiquitous. Indeed we found that the range and depth of teachers’ use of differentiated teaching practices was enhanced by strong and committed leadership. It was also supported by quality professional learning, which contributed to staff buy-in and a school-wide culture of teacher collaboration, as well as supporting the quality and frequency of teacher implementation of differentiation.

We also found great diffusion in how differentiation was conceptualised making it difficult to produce clear findings about whether differentiation works. Despite this, the reviewed studies that examined the impact of differentiation consistent with our definition generally indicated that it typically produced improvements in student learning when compared to regular practice, with some suggestion that this may be even greater in more disadvantaged schools. There was little evidence to support criticisms that differentiation waters down the curriculum or lowers expectations and no studies advocating for the creation of individual lesson plans for individual students. Given the number of studies and participants that are represented in our review, this effectively dispels these criticisms as myth.

The diversity of focus and methodological approaches across the 34 studies, however, prevents a structured comparison of findings and therefore weakens the evidential basis to make stronger claims of either differentiation’s effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness. In particular, strong claims were hampered by the fact that:

  • Half the 34 studies were conducted in the United States and most in the elementary (primary) school phase with very few studies focusing on secondary schools.
  • Survey and case study designs were dominant, as was research of influences on teacher practice.
  • Only a small group of studies focused on differentiation’s impact on student outcomes and these typically only examined specific elements of differentiation or in specific academic domains, such as science or reading.
  • The majority of studies were undermined by methodological weaknesses—such as a tendency to rely on convenience samples and to use weak forms of survey methodology, as well as to attempt to determine the impact of differentiation using only student achievement scores—validating some concerns about the state of the research on differentiation.
  • Poor design weakened the strength of the overall findings because of the incommensurability between the measures used by participants from different schools and districts, and the incommensurability of practices across cases.
  • Although there were some studies that investigated the impact of differentiation using rigorous procedures, the majority of research was compromised by the use of small sample sizes and researcher-developed instruments with no clear theoretical or empirical foundation.
  • A lack of transparency due to poor reporting and very little cross-referencing between studies led to the majority ‘remaking the wheel’ rather than working together to create a coherent evidence-base.

Recommendations

Our research suggests that research on differentiation can and should improve, if the understanding of the practice is itself to improve.

Far too many studies are conducted without a coherent and theoretically informed definition to guide the development of instruments or to provide an appropriate lens through which to analyse the data collected. Having now read a vast number of articles, each claiming to be about differentiation, we observe that new research on this topic must build from and improve on previous studies. This is important to avoid researchers approaching the topic with the assumption that there is common agreement as to what differentiation is, or proposing their own new definition.

To achieve this, we believe future research on differentiation could:

  • clearly define differentiation as a range of evidence-based practices that teachers can use to meet the needs of all learners in heterogeneous classrooms
  • investigate the planning and enactment of these practices in both primary and secondary general education settings
  • use rigorous mixed-method research designs capable of assessing the adequacy of those practices for meeting the full range of individual learning needs, whilst determining the effect on students’ engagement, educational experiences, and academic outcomes; and
  • monitor implementation fidelity and the impact on teachers’ work.

We see our paper and our considered definition of differentiation grounded in prior research as a starting point to build useful evidence on differentiation for schools and teachers in Australia. If we are to use differentiation to meet the needs of students with and without disabilities in our schools, teachers need to be on the same page and confident in the evidence behind the practices they are using.

For those who want more, here is our full paper: A scoping review of 20 years of research on differentiation: investigating conceptualisation, characteristics, and methods used

Professor Linda Graham is Director of The Centre for Inclusive Education (C4IE) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Her research investigates the role of education policy and schooling practices in the development of disruptive student behaviour and the improvement of responses to children with language, learning and behavioural difficulties.

Dr Kate de Bruin is a senior lecturer in inclusion and disability in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. She has taught in secondary school and higher education for two decades. Her research focuses on inclusive education in policy and practice, examining system, school and classroom practices that are supported by evidence, and that promote quality and equity for all students, with specific attention to students with a disability.

Dr Carly Lassig is a Lecturer in The Centre for Inclusive Education (C4IE) at QUT with a passion for social justice, equity and inclusion. Her research and teaching interests include: inclusive education, disability, differentiation, Universal Design for Learning, gifted education, and creativity. Carly’s PhD, “Perceiving and pursuing novelty: A grounded theory of adolescent creativity” investigated young people’s experiences of creativity within and beyond the school environment. Carly’s background is as a primary and middle years teacher, having taught nationally and internationally.

Dr Ilektra Spandagou is an Associate Professor of Inclusive Education at The University of Sydney. Ilektra worked as a special education teacher and completed her PhD at the University of Sheffield in the area of inclusive education. She worked as a researcher at the University of Sheffield,and as a lecturer at the University of Athens and the University of Thessaly, Greece before moving to The University of Sydney. Her research interests include disability, classroom diversity, and curriculum differentiation.

Image by Adobe Stock

How children describe their role in organising the materials in a kindergarten classroom

Early Childhood, , , , , , ,

Early childhood teachers have many roles in a classroom – mentor, therapist, nurse, scientist, and judge, to name a few – but one of the main roles is teaching the foundational skills through organising and providing resources in the classroom space.

Recent research indicates that teachers have the predominant role in organising early childhood classrooms in Australia, but there is a growing body of research investigating the role of children in organising the kindergarten classroom. I wanted find out more about how young children are involved.

We do know that participation or involvement of children in organising their learning environment has a positive effect on their sense of belonging, behaviour, learning and development. This could be true for children of all ages but particularly so for young children experiencing their earliest encounters with learning spaces.

I wanted to specifically research how children describe their role in organising the materials in the indoor kindergarten classroom space in the Queensland, Australia context.

The challenges of organising such a classroom are real for teachers. In Queensland kindergarten classrooms there are usually two teachers in the room educating up to 22 children with a play-based curriculum daily. Teachers have to organise learning activities with a range of resource materials, including furniture, and be compliant. So, what is required of teachers in the approved learning frameworks to be compliant?

Requirements of children’s participation in classroom organisation

In Queensland the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (QCAA) provides kindergarten teachers with a guide for their teaching practice, programming and the facilitation of children’s learning. It emphasises that children play an active role in planning and organising their own learning. Also, according to the Australian Government’s Early Years Learning Framework, teachers ‘can encourage’ the participation of children and families to contribute their insights and ideas about the early learning space. But neither of these suggestions mean that this will happen or that children participating in organising their classrooms will be taken seriously and valued.

Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) also requires children’s perspectives to be heard and taken seriously on matters affecting them. Literature has referred to Article 12 and the right to participate in many ways, but I have identified two categories (which should not be taken as exhaustive):

  1. Participation: the process of sharing dialogue and listening to children,
  2. Active participation: children making decisions

There is an increase in research showing how children’s perspectives are heard in the classroom space, however more is needed. My study aims to add to this field.

My Study

I used a sociomaterial and spatiality theory. (For details please see my full paper). This theory had me think of the classroom and the things in it as having an influence and transforming educational practice. In a nutshell, I considered how the materials (resources, learning activities (closed/open- ended), furniture, equipment, and utensils), children, teachers and the kindergarten space influences and transforms children’s ability to organise the space.

My study was conducted in a kindergarten setting within a childcare centre in Brisbane, Queensland. Six children conducted child-led tours describing their role in organising the classroom and then discussed their tours in a follow-up video-stimulated recall interview.

Child-led tours are a participatory tool for research, as it is a method where children lead the data collection and does not rely solely on children’s verbal abilities but draws on their non-verbal abilities. During the child-led tour, the researcher asked each child questions, such as ‘what do you put in here?’ and ‘do you play with it?’. One educator was present in the room at the time. Child-led tours were conducted while other children were playing outside to minimise their being captured in the video recording.

Dingo’s number line

I noted one specific departure from the expected organisation processes. Dingo, one of the six children in my study, indicated during the child-led tour and video-stimulated recall interviews, that he had set up a number line. Sandy, Dingo’s teacher, in an informal conversation with me, spoke about the number line being something that she and Dingo had created together. The creation of Dingo’s number line resulted in him taking ownership of it, as he reinforced the rules to children about using it.  For example, he told them, “Don’t step on it because it’s still dry”.

Dingo making the number line was unexpected as we know research suggests teachers usually have the main organisation role. However, Dingo showed that he had a role in the category of participation where he was involved in creating the number line and his participation was taken seriously by his teacher.  So his participation aligns with Queensland’s Kindergarten Learning Guidelines and the Early Years Learning Framework where early childhood teachers are encouraged to work with children to design and plan the classroom space. (For more details of Dingo’s number line please see my full paper)

Recommendations from my study

A crucial implication of this study is the amount of child involvement and the ‘hearing’ of their voices about the processes and practices of organising a kindergarten classroom. A strong breadth of literature supports the importance of involvement of children in the classroom, with children having the immediate right to be heard, taken seriously, and given due weight on matters that affect them.

A review of the literature suggests that a teacher’s decision to involve children in the classroom is influenced by the large educator-to-child ratios, the perceptions teachers have on children, the lack of support in facilitating children’s verbal and non-verbal languages and the little acknowledged phenomenon that non-human materials and the early learning space have an effect on practice.

Contrary to studies finding that educators have the predominate role in organising the classroom, a child in my study described that he clearly participated in the organisation of his classroom by constructing his number line.

Hear the children

I believe there is a need for researchers, educators, and organizations to hear, through different modes, the views of children.

This qualitative study, and the use of child-led tours and video-stimulated recall interviews, proved a successful measure of investigating how young children describe their role in organising the indoor kindergarten classroom. More research is needed to further under children and their interactions with non-human material to organise their early learning space

Due to the long period of time required to conduct research, the researcher recommends conducting workshops with teachers (in kindergartens, childcare centres), leaders (director, educational leader) and pre-service teachers in ways to discuss how children’s voices can be and are involved in organising their early learning spaces. Participating teachers would be networking and learning from each other.

Finally, it is emphasised by the inclusion of children in research, as seen in this study, children are capable and competent to interpret their world. The decisions made in how a classroom is organised and, with the use of a research story, any feedback about the daily operation of an early learning setting in a kindergarten classroom, can be investigated.

For those who want more detail Children’s participation in the organisation of a kindergarten classroom

 

Evangeline Manassakis is a research assistant for Griffith University in Queensland. She completed the Master of Philosophy (Education) that investigated children’s involvement in the organisation of the kindergarten classroom. Evangeline received for her study the Jean Ferguson Memorial Award and was made the runner up for Outstanding Thesis Award 2020. Her current research interests include children’s voice, classroom design and organisation, spaces, participatory methodology and design, Rights of the Child.

Image by Adobe Stock

More help needed for vulnerable learners in the age of COVID-19 school closures

COVID-19 and schools, , , , , , , ,

During lockdowns due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak, school closures were hotly debated. Complete school closures were perceived by some as being a way to protect both students and teaching staff. Although initially children appeared to be at low risk for contracting the virus, many families were deeply concerned about the health implications of sending their children to school. Many families made their own decision to keep their children out of school even before the regulatory bodies made the call to close schools and some were slow to return their children when schools reopened.

While a vaccination for the COVID-19 virus may well be available soon, it is possible future outbreaks of the virus will continue to force school closures or partial closures across Australia well into 2021 at least.

We were interested in the educational, psychosocial and emotional repercussions of school closures, in particular the long-term ramifications for vulnerable or disadvantaged children.

Educationally at-risk children in Australia

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that as of 2019 there were 3,948,811 students enrolled in 9503 schools in Australia, with 2,263,207 primary students and 1,680,504 secondary students. Mass school closures thus have the potential to impact nearly four million students.

A significant proportion of the Australian student population experience disadvantage in some form, with 20% of the school student population, approximately 800 000 students, being in the lowest quintile for family income.

Students come from vulnerable backgrounds for a number of equity reasons, such as the household economic situation (low income or jobless households, financial stress), lack of social support (e.g. social networks), personal characteristics (poor household health, low educational attainment), and race/ethnicity. Many students don’t just fit into one category but rather multiple categories of disadvantage. For these students who are already at an educational disadvantage, the educational gap widens by not attending school.

Over 2020, the Australian schooling sector experienced varying levels of lockdown, with the recent outbreak in Victoria resulting in up to two terms of school closures and a state-wide move to online learning. Until recently there were school closures in South Australia. Such a move to online learning foregrounds educational inequalities that exist within a multi-tiered educational system.

Each state or territory differs in their educational governance, as well as their diverse regional, rural and remote schooling opportunities, across states and within states educational participation may not occur on an equal playing field.

Implications of school closures

We undertook a deep dive into the emerging literature and existing knowledge to consider what implications there might be for long-term school closures for students in more vulnerable contexts.

Whilst remote learning can be challenging for many learners, those from materially disadvantaged backgrounds face a number of additional barriers to learning from home. These additional difficulties include, but are not limited to

  • digital exclusion,
  • poor technology access,
  • increased psychosocial challenges, and
  • educational disengagement.

There are inherent issues around the unequal division of resources and support for students learning at home. Some students may have limited access to a computer, some may share a computer with other family members, and with others having limited internet access and if access is available it may be through expensive mobile plans with restricted data.

These issues did not go unrecognised during COVID_19 with many schools and communities implementing innovative solutions to address inequalities – for example

  • loaning out computers,
  • buying dongles for internet plans for their students,
  • supplying paper packages to their homes,
  • having community businesses supply computers and
  •  local prisoners building desks for students  for their home study. 

Although these interventions were innovative, they were ‘band aid’ in nature. Yet they went a long way to mitigate the inequalities of resources for students studying at home.

Despite these interventions, it is estimated that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have learnt at half their usual rate during lockdown, so the longer the students were away from school, the more learning was lost.

Equally, what these responses could not address was the fundamental emotional and psychological difficulties that school closures presented. Many students need structure in order to learn and the school system provides such a structure. Importantly, the school environment provides the basis for the teacher-student relationship to flourish, which is known to be particularly important for student engagement. When students are engaged in their learning, they learn more.

If students become disengaged they are at risk of a range of adverse academic and social outcomes, such as daily absence, disruptive behaviour, and poor school connectedness. Furthermore, for some students, once the physical link to school is broken through COVID-19 disruptions it stays broken, and even though the school reopens they do not return. For these students who continue to disengage, they fall further behind their peers, and for some, the learning deficit won’t be recoverable.

Building capacity and resilience

Moving forward and learning to live with further disruptions, requires future generations to become adaptable to possible changing learning environments, building capacity and resilience for future crises becomes an imperative. Proactive and multifaceted responses and planning for any future crises will best meet the educational needs of our diverse student populations to ensure vulnerable children are not left behind in their learning.

Governments should re-examine resource allocations to schools to ensure all students have equality of access to up-to-date resources, especially technology. The pandemic has shown us that learning online is possible, but if we are to avoid widening existing educational disparities, we must ensure that learning is equitable for all students.

For those who want more, here is our full paper Drane, C.F, Vernon, L & O’Shea, S. (2020). Vulnerable learners in the age of COVID-19: A scoping review. Australian Educational Researcher.

Catherine Drane is a Research Fellow in the NCSEHE. Previously, Catherine has worked on large-scale National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) projects across Australia. Catherine’s research interests include adolescent development and public health interventions, and quantitative research methods. Her teaching in the areas of research, measurement, design, and analysis led her being awarded a Murdoch University Vice Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence.

Lynette Vernon is a Senior Research Fellow at Edith Cowan University with the School of Education and an adjunct researcher with the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education at Curtin University. Lynette was a secondary science teacher for over 20 years retraining to complete her PhD in psychology at Murdoch University. She directed the Murdoch Aspirations and Pathways for University project (MAP4U) working with high schools to support students aspirations. Her research interests are in developmental psychology, especially related to technology use, sleep and their impact on academic attainment and wellbeing.

Prof. Sarah O’Shea is the Director of the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) which is hosted by Curtin University. Sarah has spent over twenty-five years working to effect change within the higher education (HE) sector through research that focuses on the access and participation of students from identified equity groups. Her institutional and nationally funded research studies advance understanding of how under-represented student cohorts enact success within university, navigate transition into this environment, manage competing identities and negotiate aspirations for self and others. This work is highly regarded for applying diverse conceptual and theoretical lenses to tertiary participation, which incorporate theories of social class, identity work, gender studies and poverty. Sarah has published extensively in the field and has been awarded over $AUD3 million in grant funding since 2009, she is also an Australian Learning and Teaching Fellow (ALTF), a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (PFHEA) and a Churchill Fellow.