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.
Literacy

READING, part five: why teachers must have more than this year’s model of literacy

Literacy teaching, Reading, , , , , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy. This is the fifth post on reading to celebrate Book Week. What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

Three: What is the Simple View of Reading?

Four: What is the Science of Reading?

Reading models do not automatically translate to classroom practice. Instead, it is the knowledgeable and skilful teacher who translates models or theories into classroom practice. A teacher’s beliefs may steer them towards a particular model or theory. 

For example, teachers who believe reading for meaning is critical at all stages of reading, are more inclined to align with a model that embeds meaning throughout all stages of instruction. In contrast, a teacher who believes decoding is at the heart of reading, will align more comfortably with a model or theory that requires a strong emphasis on phonics and decodable text use. 

The reality of Australian classrooms

The teacher who has access to multiple models and a range of possible pathways, can work flexibly. This caters for the diversity of students that is the reality of Australian classrooms in the current landscape. 

Key features of Structured Literacy (SL) are identified as:

‘(a) explicit, systematic, and sequential teaching of literacy at multiple levels— phonemes, letter–sound relationships, syllable patterns, morphemes, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph structure, and text structure; (b) cumulative practice and ongoing review; (c) a high level of student– teacher interaction; (d) the use of carefully chosen examples and nonexamples; (e) decodable text; and  (f) prompt, corrective feedback’.

SL has been shown to be appropriate for students with dyslexia, as it addresses their core weaknesses in phonological awareness, decoding and spelling.

However, SL appears to apply ‘principles of industrial production: linearity, conformity and standardisation’ at a time when we should instead be promoting ‘a creative revolution in education’. Structured Literacy (SL) is a term often used by commercial phonics programs designed for children with dyslexia or reading difficulties.

Commercial programs in question

The quality of commercial programs has also been questioned. Researchers examined over 100 Commercial phonics programs and found considerable problems. For example: 

  • One program introduced the sound /t/ but then provided a follow-up activity that featured words in which the /t/ phoneme did not occur, for example the word ‘the’. 
  • Another example was an activity where children had to identify words that commenced with the /æ/ phoneme such as ‘A’ for apple, but also included images representing words that do not contain /æ/, as in ‘A’ for apron. 

Researchers were also concerned that the linguistic inaccuracies in some of these programs could confuse both teachers and children. Some also used gimmicks and avoided using correct terms to describe phonemes-graphemes.  An additional concern was raised about commercial programs used in pre-schools. It required children to engage in ‘busy’ work, such as colouring in worksheets, as well as drill, practice and memorisation. The ‘individual needs of students and the professional autonomy of teachers’ are de-centred by commercial  programs .

There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted programs for mainstream classes . There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted program for typically developing readers who make up 85-90% of students in most classrooms. SL programs are designed for the 10-15% of children experiencing learning to read difficulties. 

Why our students need skilled teachers

We believe students need knowledgeable and skilled teachers who can create differentiated teaching opportunities to meet the needs of all children; commercial programs simply cannot provide this.

Whole Language instruction refers to an approach which focuses first and foremost on whole texts. It uses these to teach the small parts of language, including words and letters. In the 1980s and 1990s, whole language was a growing movement of teachers, bearing affinities with learning centred, literature-based, multicultural classrooms in the UK and other parts of the English-speaking world including New Zealand and Australia. Whole language teachers use authentic texts or trade books (children’s/ Young Adult fiction, non-fiction, poetry, magazines, etc.) and children’s writings rather than readers and textbooks.

Some advocates of whole language believe that “for some children, a minimum of teaching, and sufficient exposure to print supported by interaction with more advanced readers including family members, is enough to learn to read”. However most children will need explicit instruction to learn how to read.

Whole language is sometimes incorrectly confused with balanced literacy

Balanced Literacy (BL) describes an approach used by many teachers in Australian classrooms until recent policy changes. BL continues to be the dominant approach in Canada, continually successful on the international literacy stage. However Ontario has recently added a Synthetic Phonics element to their curriculum. A Balanced Approach is also common in the republic of Ireland, which consistently does very well in international assessments. The term ‘balanced’ is used to describe how a knowledgeable teacher works to respond to constantly shifting student needs, in the day-to-day teaching of Literacy. There are  five ways to balance literacy learning:

  1. Balancing reading and writing, 
  2. Balancing phonics and comprehension,
  3. Balancing Informational texts and Narrative texts,
  4. Balancing direct instruction with dialogic approaches, and
  5. Balancing whole class instruction and small groups.

BL also offers a teacher a way of being able to cater for the diverse needs of their students. BL classrooms also focus on oral language and include shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, read aloud and writing activities that help students make connections between their reading and writing.

A brand new model

The Double Helix of Reading and Writing is a new instructional reading and writing model. The authors argue that their “model provides a rationale and evidence base for a balanced approach to teaching reading and writing . . .[and argue that] the practice of systematic phonics teaching should be carefully integrated with other main elements in reading and writing lessons and activities in early years and primary education”.

Tomorrow: the impact the media has on the teaching of reading

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

Science of reading

READING, part four: Is the science of reading settled?

Reading, , , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Science of Reading (SoR) in this fourth post to celebrate Book Week. What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

Three: What is the Simple View of Reading?

What do people mean when they talk about the science of reading?

The terms ‘science of reading’ or ‘Science of Reading’ are often mentioned in media reports. Where have these terms come from and what do they really mean?  The science of reading (sor) as a term has been used for more than 200 years to describe reading science or reading knowledge. The  term has no single definition and is currently used in different ways by different stake-holders.   

The sor, (without capital letters) as a “corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught”. This sor is a rich, and constantly growing source of knowledge, a virtual library of research into reading. It has been contributed to by countless researchers from many different disciplines, with various different methodological approaches and a range of findings related to; 

  • what happens when we read, 
  • why some people find it hard to learn to read, and
  • the success or otherwise of different instructional approaches with different groups of learners. 

Reading research includes; 

  • typically developing learners, 
  • learners who find learning to read difficult, 
  • learners who are learning to read English as extra language or dialect, and 
  • adult learners. 

Should it be the Science of Teaching Reading?

In 2021, the construct  was expanded to the Science of Teaching Reading. Others have argued in 2024 that we should refer to the integration of science of teaching reading AND science of teaching writing. 

The term Science of Reading (SoR, with capital letters) is often used to refer to, or give strength to, approaches to reading instruction that privilege or prioritise synthetic phonics, Structured Literacy (SL) (International Dyslexic Association), or the Simple View of Reading (SVR). SoR has been identified as having a focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction.

Some schools publicise that they are SoR schools and sometimes advertise for teachers who can ‘teach’ the SoR.  Some professional learning providers and commercial programs also identify with being informed by the SoR. 

This SoR, is ‘characterised by a narrow theoretical lens, an abstracted empiricism, and uncritical inductive generalisations derived from brain-imaging and eye movement data sources’.

It has been argued that ‘neuroimaging does not distinguish the phonological processing of a decoding model of reading from the graphophonic processing of a meaning-centred model’.

The practical wisdom of teachers

SoR activists often criticise teachers’ knowledge and any approaches that don’t align with SoR.  But Dehaene, often quoted by SoR advocates as providing the answers for how to teach reading based upon brain scans, suggests the practical wisdom of teachers has an important role to play in the day-to-day decisions of what different children may need. He sums up his concerns in this way:

Our own impression is that neuroscience is still far from being prescriptive. A wide gap separates the theoretical knowledge accumulated in the laboratory from practice in the classroom. Applications raise problems that are often better addressed by teachers than by the theory-based expectations of scientists.

Unfortunately, this SoR movement has led to the breaking down of reading into skills and subskills. It is taking teachers away from the bigger goal of teaching children to become readers who want to read. Some suggest that:

Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake. . . Time spent jumping through PA hoops could instead be spent on activities that expand the knowledge that supports comprehending texts of increasing complexity and variety

Is the ‘science of reading’ settled? 

In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer reviewed journal articles have been published that included the keyword reading based on a PsycINFO search. Our knowledge related to reading is not settled. It  is “ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy”. Other researchers also question the notion of settled science.

The ‘artful implementation of pedagogies and interventions that close the circle – from scientific findings translated into practical applications in education and back to addressing problems in education as impetus for evidence-informed theorizations of learning’. This has not happened with some of the studies that come under the banner of SoR. 

What are these findings really?

Findings from laboratory studies are not tested in mainstream classrooms, before being hailed as miraculous, and studies that focused on students with learning difficulties, are not tested on students without learning difficulties before being heralded as the perfect way to teach all students. This is akin to a medication that has helped control nausea in a particular group of patients with a specific illness, being prescribed to the general population to prevent or treat nausea, without clinical trials. 

Our next post will tease out the terms structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy. 

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

READING, part three: What is the Simple View?

Reading, , , , ,

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Simple View of Reading (SVR) in this third post to celebrate Book Week. This describes reading at a single point in time: decoding x listening/ linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension (D x LC = RC). 

What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

The SVR presumes that, once printed matter is decoded, a reader can “apply to the text exactly the same mechanisms which he or she would bring to bear on its spoken equivalent”. It is not a theory or model of how to teach reading. The SVR is not suggesting that reading is a simple process. These researchers were providing a simple explanation of why some readers experience reading difficulties.

Some advocates have used the SVR as the justification for an emphasis on phonics and decoding first (and fast). This has led to the idea that listening comprehension and reading comprehension happen after decoding. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that decoding guarantees a reader will identify each word in isolation. And then, that reader will be able to bring these words together and understand what has been read. 

The opaque nature of the English language makes this almost impossible. 

In many cases the meaning of a word (in context) determines the pronunciation of the word, rather than the other way around, e.g. I read on the train in the mornings. I read my book on the train yesterday. 

Correct pronunciation does not guarantee meaning

There are many homonyms in the English language. For example, ‘plane’ could be a straight line joining two points OR a level of existence. It could also be a level surface OR an aeroplane. It could also be an open area of land OR a wood working tool. 

Despite this, the SVR is often cited as the justification for the use of synthetic phonics programs in the early years of school, and a focus on decoding as the most important problem-solving approach to an unknown word across all grades.

Building on the Simple View of Reading

The SVR has formed the basis for more complex understandings of reading. For example, The Reading Rope diagram (Figure 1) expands the three elements of the SVR and explains the complexity of skilled reading.

‘Decoding’ is described as a subcomponent of ‘word recognition’ and does not automatically lead to comprehension. “Even if the pronunciation of all the letter strings in a passage are correctly decoded, the text will not be well comprehended if the child:

(1) does not know the words in their spoken form, 

(2) cannot parse the syntactic and semantic relationships among the words, or 

(3) lacks critical background knowledge or inferential skills to interpret the text appropriately and ‘read between the lines’”

The Reading Rope is often used in teacher professional learning sessions, although the language comprehension elements are not always given the same emphasis as the word recognition elements. As a result, word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritised. That’s despite the fact that reading comprehension requires language comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with language comprehension if reading comprehension is the goal. 

Much more to understand

One of the original developers of the SVR, Tumner, agrees that there is ‘much more to understand about reading than what is represented in the SVR’ and has more recently co-developed with Hoover the Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (CFRF). 

Figure two: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020)

In the figure above, “each cognitive component represents an independent, but not necessarily elemental, knowledge-skill set that is an essential, hierarchically positioned, building block in reading and learning to read”. 

This framework includes ‘background knowledge’ and ‘inferencing skills’ as well as ‘phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge’.  The CFRF also demonstrates the complexity of the reading process. 

Numerous other models have been developed from the SVR including the Active View of Reading (AVR). The AVR highlights the ‘key self-regulation skills’ required to manage all aspects of reading.  Motivation and engagement are identified as key self-regulatory skills. These are overlooked in some other reading models, but other researchers have identified the importance of seeing reading as not just a technical activity but one that needs to engage hearts and minds.

The SVR does not suggest that reading is a simple process and it is not a model of reading instruction. In the next post we will explore the Science of Reading (SoR) and unpick some of the confusions associated with it. 

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

Reading

READING, part two: What really works for readers and when?

Phonics, Reading, , , , , ,

This morning Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone helped us navigate the reading jungle

We start this afternoon’s post with evidence-based instruction (EBI) and then move to a discussion of phonics/phonemic awareness.  

The term ‘evidence-based’ is used widely. It can be appealing even if it is not clear how the evidence being referenced was collected or analysed. Reading related science is complex. Evidence coming from science needs to be viewed from different perspectives and time, so the full picture to emerge. The evidence-based movement includes ‘a focus on behaviourist theory, quantitative research, randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, hard numerical data and high stakes standardised testing’. It often ignores ‘structural inequalities in pursuit of better outcomes’. 

Some claim evidence to support a particular approach. Others use different evidence to claim that the same approach does not work. A common assumption is that if something works with students from one cohort it will work with all students. 

Huge differences

Any parent who has more than one child will point out the huge differences, even between two siblings. When they walk, talk, learn to feed themselves, sleeping patterns etc, etc. Take, for example, a class of 25 children who come into school together, from 25 different homes. They may vary in gender and in age, of up to 18 months. They bring more differences than can be counted and qualified. 

In terms of preparedness for school, there will be a huge range of prior experiences socially and culturally. There will also be a huge range of experience in terms of oral and written language exposure. To assume all children should start at the same point with the same instruction is naive. (For more on EBI read EduResearch Matters posts by Nicole Brinker   and Tom Mahoney. These provided  comprehensive discussions of this vexed topic.) 

The topic that is the most talked about in the current era is that of phonics or phonemic awareness instruction. While all agree that phonics is necessary for reading, the amount and methods are up for debate. Australia’s National curriculum includes the teaching of phonics. But it also recognises that when reading, children will draw on a range of sources. That includes their knowledge of letters and sounds, what makes sense and knowledge of how language works.

Children who can already read when they start school

Let’s start with the children who can already read when they begin school. It is important for teachers to first check that any children who arrive at school with the ability to read, are able to problem solve unknown words, within text, using phonological information. Children who can already demonstrate the ability to apply phonological information effectively should focus on a wide range of engagements with texts. 

Focused, systematic, and explicit phonics lessons should be aimed at children who are just starting to discover, or are still learning, how letters and sounds (phonemes) work in reading and writing. It may be difficult initially to identify those children who we will refer to as typically developing readers. These children make up the majority of most classrooms. Most will need daily focused phonics lessons for the first year of school. 

Those who show early signs of struggle

Assessments of children’s reading will efficiently and accurately determine what children know, what they can do. These same assessments can be used to determine when children no longer need phonics teaching for reading. A small group (10-15%) may show early signs of struggle and may possibly be diagnosed as experiencing reading difficulties. These children will need more focused instruction in addition to the daily classroom program. 

While phonics is a necessary element of reading instruction, and will probably account for approximately 25-30 mins of daily instruction in the first year of school, there are different methods for teaching phonics. 

Synthetic phonics

Synthetic phonics is a particular decontextualised, approach to teaching reading that involves teaching children how to convert letters or letter groups into sounds (phonemes) and then blending these sounds to form words and/or non-words. Commercial Structured phonics programs usually use a synthetic phonics approach.  Even the strongest supporters of a phonics first approach question the need for Synthetic Phonics. ”In our view, the evidence is not yet sufficient to conclude that a synthetic phonics approach should be preferred over an analytic one”.

Analytic phonics

Analytic phonics (also referred to as analytical phonics or implicit phonics) refers to an approach that focuses on teaching the sounds (phonemes) associated with particular letter patterns within the context of a whole word. 

Embedded phonics

Embedded phonics, integrates phonics instruction into the context of reading authentic texts, rather than being taught as separate, isolated skills.  Recent research conducted in Melbourne illustrated the affordances of explicit phonics instruction integrated into a rich literacy environment. It showed the clear benefits for students when phonics was taught in context.

Analytic and embedded methods may be described as contextualised approaches and are often integrated. All approaches to phonics instruction can be systematic and all involve explicit instruction. 

Phonics instruction through writing is often overlooked and yet provides the potential for children to explore letter sound relationships from a different perspective than when reading. Instead of going from letter to sound they go from sound to letter. What can I hear? What letters could I use to make that sound? 

A concern expressed by some, is how long focused phonics or phonemic awareness (PA) instruction should continue. 

The goal is to read

The goal of teaching children to read is reading, not phonemic awareness .

We know learning to read does not require being able to identify 44 phonemes or demonstrate proficiency on phoneme deletion and substitution tasks. How do we know that? Because until very recently no one who learned to read had to do these things. Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake. 

Problems with the way phonics is sometimes referred to by advocates of the Science of Reading have also been identified (more on the SoR in a future post)

The idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the Science of Reading approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”.

An integrated approach

In 2000, The National Reading Panel (NRP) in the US suggested systematic phonics instruction, although important, “should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program”. The NRP even warned against phonics becoming a dominant component in a reading program.  The 2005  Rowe Report on the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading stated the importance of systematic phonics instruction. But it also noted it was equally important that . . .

Teachers should provide an integrated approach to reading that supports the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar, reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.

More recently, it has been argued that the teaching of phonics to typically developing readers should be “contextualised in whole texts, including a focus on comprehension and including the teaching of writing within reading lessons”. This claim is well supported by a seminal 1990 study which compared de-contextualised phonics teaching with contextualised phonics teaching and a ‘business as usual’ control group. Recent research conducted in Melbourne also showed that a contextualised phonics intervention was more effective than de-contextualised phonics because it bridged the learning about phonemes, with input on reading more generally, in order to promote broader transfer of skills.

It’s all about context

Has this started you thinking and perhaps questioning what you may have read about phonics and evidence-based instruction in the media? Tomorrow we explore the Simple View of Reading and how that’s influenced much of the reading research over recent times. 

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

READING, part one: How to find your way through the jungle

Reading, teaching reading, , , , ,

To celebrate Book Week, EduResearch Matters is publishing a six part series on reading by Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone.

A jungle is a land covered with dense forest and tangled vegetation, usually in tropical climates. The jungle metaphor describes the current landscape in regard to science and reading. The huge amount of research published in the last two decades, the media interpretations or misinterpretations of selected findings, and claims the reading science is settled, are akin to a dense forest. The policies and mandates teachers dealing with are like tangled vegetation. The tropical climate refers to the heat in the debate. In this series of blog posts we try to make sense of the jungle and its dense forests and tangled vegetation, challenge the notion that the science is settled, and take some of the heat out of the debate. 

Learning to read

Ever since humans have been writing they have also been reading.  A person who could read often taught a learner to do what they themselves could already do. The instructors had no formal training and no access to theories or methods. In wealthy households there may have been a governess or master tutor to teach children to read. But in many households, a literate parent or friend provided the reading instruction. The most common text used for instruction was probably the bible. And these instructors were not teaching 25 students in a classroom. Instead, they were probably teaching highly motivated individuals, who saw being able to read as a way out of their current situation. 

In the current climate, we need to consider a range of questions:  

  • Why is the teaching of reading such a hot topic in the current era?
  •  Is learning to read a natural process? 
  • Is reading simple or complex? 
  • Is there a right way to teach reading? 
  • What is the role of phonics, and is there a right way to teach phonics? 
  • What does reading research have to say about learning to read and reading instruction? 
  • What is the Science of Reading? 
  • What does evidence-based actually mean? 
  • What impact has the media had on the debates about reading? 

We will respond to these, and many other questions, in a series of 6 blog posts, in an attempt to remove some of the mystery and heat from this topic. 

Both authors have taught many children how to read and have decades of combined classroom teacher experience before moving into academic and researcher roles. Both continue to work with classroom teachers in classrooms. Let’s start!

Learning to read is not natural

It’s not a hard wired skill like learning to talk, although a great deal of learning might happen quite organically within the home and community before formal instruction begins. Children who hear stories read aloud and songs and rhymes repeated often, develop an ear for the sounds of written English. 

From a young age, many are able to recognise some of the differences between spoken and written language, even if they cannot explain the differences. The child who picks up a book and recites using the patterns and rhythms of picture story books is showing knowledge of written language but does not speak to people in these written language patterns. 

In today’s world most people send their children to school to learn to read, but some families choose to homeschool with a parent taking on the instructor role. These parents often have no formal training, although they do have access to resources and curriculum guides. They often respond to their children’s need to learn to read in the same way that they respond to their need to learn to do many other things, (e.g. walk, feed themselves, dress themselves, take turns, share, ride a bike). Children add reading to their set of skills at a time that works for them. 

Different stages, different ages

Parents instinctively understand that children learn in different ways and at different ages. School starting age varies greatly across countries.  In Australia, while we are having debates about how children learn to read at ages 5 or 6, in some countries children do not start formal schooling (or reading) until 7 or 8 years of age (e.g. Finland). Families who homeschool do not feel the same pressure as teachers in schools. So, what does research tell us about reading? 

Reading research has a rich history, a contested and expansive present, and an interesting future, as researchers endeavour to understand what is a multidimensional, neurological process ‘mediated by social and cultural practices’ . 

It is difficult to research foundational educational processes that are as complex as reading. In contrast, it is easy to test the effectiveness of letter learning based upon a particular approach to teaching letters. Short-term gains are also easiest to measure and control for, while long term learning is much more challenging to measure and to control for. Additionally, teaching and learning are sensitive to differences among teachers, students and settings. 

What works with one mightn’t work with another

Even medical researchers agree that what may work in one situation with patient X, despite being faithfully repeated with patient Y, can have a different effect altogether.  

The complexity of the reading act has led to multiple disciplines investigating or researching reading using different theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, some focused on the process of reading, others on the practice of reading and still others on reading instruction. For example, research highlights brain maturation and reading experience.

Reading is a learned skill that is likely influenced by both brain maturation and experience…results suggest that children who are better readers, and who perhaps read more than less skilled readers, exhibit different development trajectories in brain reading regions. Understanding relationships between reading performance, reading experience and brain maturation trajectories may help with the development and evaluation of targeted interventions.

Not all evidence is equal

Perhaps brain maturation and the impact of reading experience deserve further consideration when determining policy and planning instruction. Teachers need access to research evidence in order to make informed decisions about the teaching of reading in their classrooms. Not all evidence is equal. Selective use of limited research by those with a vested interest can give the illusion that the evidence is in, and the reading science is settled, when this is not the case.

In the next post we will continue the discussion of evidence and evidence-based reading instruction.

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

NAPLAN

NAPLAN: There is no need to panic

NAPLAN, , , ,

Table of contents

Jim Tognolini: What do the results really mean

Every year when results for large scale tests such as NAPLAN are released, there is a need to remind parents – and people in general – about the need to reflect judiciously on  what they really mean. 

It is also very important to address the misconceptions that are promulgated by journalists who start off with a preconceived notion of what they want the results to say (for one reason or another) and then proceed to misinterpret and draw unsubstantiated conclusions that they argue support their notions.

This year’s NAPLAN is just another case in point.

Overall, the results are best summarised by the CEO of ACARA, Stephen Gniel when he says, “The data shows that while there were small increases and decreases across domains and year levels, overall the results were broadly stable.”

There are some good reasons for drawing this conclusion. The results, apart from some minor perturbations up-and-down in different domains, are indeed relatively stable. 

JT: Only so much “growth”

To be honest, this should be expected because there is only so much “growth” that can occur across one or two years of learning and the only other data we can compare to is the NAPLAN 2023 data because the scale that is being used for comparison was only calibrated in 2023. 

A trend requires more than two points to be able to be reliably interpreted. It is a relatively naïve view that would expect strategies that have been introduced to address issues identified in the 2023 results would generate significant changes across a system in one year.

It is also important when reflecting on these results to stress several points. Firstly, there is some emotive language used to summarise performance which should not be allowed to go unchallenged. 

Students who have performed in the bottom two proficiency levels have been summarised as having “failed”.  However, when interpreting results like NAPLAN it is important to go beyond the “label” and look at what skills these students have displayed. The proficiency levels describe what students in these levels know and can do and an analysis of these skill sets suggests that they have a wide range of skills that will serve them well in later studies. 

JT: A sound springboard

The students in the bottom two levels have not “failed”. Knowledge and skills that students have displayed in the developing proficiency level are a sound springboard for learning within disciplines and through life.

 Let’s focus on what it is that students know and can do rather than jumping to labels that detract from the real meaning of the results.

While the NAPLAN is a battery of psychometrically sound tests, they are only tests of literacy and numeracy (there is a lot more to schooling than a test result on literacy and numeracy only). 

In addition, the results represent the outcomes on a particular day and a particular time. The key point here is that these results are only indicative. It is the trend data that are important at a system level. At an individual student level it is the cumulation of a range of data which provides the best evidence as to the overall performance of the student. The NAPLAN test scores must be interpreted by teachers using a wide range of data collected under different circumstances in the classroom. 

Parents who are concerned because the results are not consistent with what they expect from their child/children should seek clarification from the teachers.

Jennifer Gore: We know what to do. Let’s do it

These NAPLAN results are not new and not surprising. They reflect the results we saw last year with the new NAPLAN testing and reporting process and results we’ve seen for years. The fact that a third of students are not meeting proficiency standards is of great concern and the fact they disproportionately come from disadvantaged and other equity backgrounds reflects our nation’s failure to reduce educational inequality.

Education Minister Jason Clare is correct that we need reforms. The important thing is we get the reforms right.

First, we need to fully fund our public schools and end the political football over funding. Second, we need to support teachers to deliver excellent teaching. The current push for explicit teaching and synthetic phonics can only be part of the solution. Students are more than their brains. They learn in social and emotional conditions that also need to be addressed. For example, after a decade of explicit teaching and synthetic phonics, students in England are at an all-time low for enjoyment of reading, languishing toward the bottom of all OCED countries on this measure.

JG: You too can be like Cessnock

A decade of research at the University of Newcastle, including five randomised controlled trials, offers an alternative approach to school reform. Results from Cessnock High School, one of the most disadvantaged schools in NSW, shows how our evidence-based approach to improving teaching quality, regardless of the instructional strategies used, can change lives. Cessnock High achieved the most improved NAPLAN growth from Year 7 to 9 in the Hunter region and 11th overall in the state by engaging in whole school Quality Teaching Rounds. Simultaneously, teachers reported greater morale and improved school culture, which are critical factors in addressing the current teacher shortage crisis.

Thanks to funding from the Australian Government, thousands of teachers from across the country can now access this evidence-backed professional development for free.

From left to right: Jim Tognolini is Professor and Director of the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) at the University of Sydney. Jennifer Gore is the Laureate Professor and director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. She developed the Quality Teaching Rounds.

Why these quick fixes won’t work for teaching today or tomorrow

21st century teaching, leaving teaching, quality teachers, teacher attrition, teaching, , ,

If you belong to a social media group for teachers, you’ve inevitably seen a post that goes like this: Jane, a twenty-something early career teacher writes…

“I’ve been teaching for three years but am burnt out and ready to quit. I’m thinking I could get a job writing classroom resources for teachers. Where can I apply?”

These 30 words capture the impact of a flawed ideology that has been shaping education in Australia for several decades. A new job market for teachers has been created as a result of governments regarding schools as production lines with standard inputs and outputs.

We need to talk about the n word (neoliberalism) on teaching 

Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to education policy. It sees economic rationalism and general business principles applied to the way the schooling is managed. The story goes that education can be streamlined, neatly packaged and marketed like any other commodity. Standardising the way schools operate – making the curriculum and the delivery of teaching, learning and assessment more similar than different across locations – will ensure equality of access and produce better outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged students. Think tanks describe this as ending the lesson lottery. With “commonsense” messaging that appeals to policymakers and voters alike, neoliberalism exercises power by framing teachers and students as human capital. It sets out to measure and monitor their productivity and performance. In some parts of the world, teachers might be understood to be tailors of distinction. In Australia they are more likely to be cast as sweatshop machinists under quality control. 

One flow-on effect is that teachers’ work has been expanded to include new administrative, accountability and reporting activities. At the same time the core business of educating and caring for young people has also become more complex and relationally demanding. Another flow-on effect is that when experienced teachers lament the loss of professional trust and creative agency over the course of their careers and the competing demands on their time, policymakers defer to the market for scalable responses that tell teachers what to do and how to do it.

Framing and reforming education in this way has led some scholars to describe the sector as at risk of being privatised by stealth. 

Enter stage right, edupreneurism! (education entrepreneurism)

From edu-tech platforms that deliver content and assess learning “wholly online” to large consulting firms generating templated lessons, the market is now flooded with quick fixes at teachers’ fingertips. The quality of commercial solutions offered is variable and the burden of proof is very low.

The term “evidence-based” is widely used. But it serves as little more than faddish advertising language that has been recruited for commercial gain. In fact, some of the biggest brands in education have achieved market dominance despite defying educational research and never being properly evaluated.

While teachers want time to design innovative learning experiences, this aspect of their work has been identified as outsourceable. Lesson creation is a growth industry.

At what cost to teaching?

The cost is more than financial: consultants are cashing in on standardising projects. The quality of instruction is being compromised. And young teachers like Jane are exiting the profession to take up alternative employment writing lesson content from home.

Academic critiques of neoliberalism argue its key messages and mechanisms strip teachers and students of the material, social and cultural qualities that we know are determinants of educational outcomes in settler colonial countries like Australia. Schools remain inequitably funded and under-resourced and disparities in Australian 15-year-olds’ OECD PISA performance based on student background persist. Equally important, research shows that neoliberal policy moves are reducing teachers’ job enjoyment, negatively impacting their health and wellbeing, and contributing to attrition. Teachers are stressed, burnt out and leaving the profession in droves.

Ultimately, education has turned on itself and real economic and educational progress is being undermined. 

Questions

It’s time to ask tough questions. Questions about the purpose and direction of education policy in Australia. Questions about the impact on teachers and students.

Right now, it seems that for every issue that neoliberalism might solve, it sustains and creates several more.


Carly Sawatzki is a teacher educator and educational researcher at Deakin University. She supports teachers of mathematics to teach differently, by helping them to connect students’ classroom learning with the real world. Carly is internationally recognised for her thought leadership on young people’s financial education.


Carly Sawatzki is a teacher educator and educational researcher at Deakin University. She supports teachers of mathematics to teach differently, by helping them to connect students’ classroom learning with the real world. Carly is internationally recognised for her work on young people’s financial education.

Homework:  what we could do to make it better for students, teachers and parents

homework, , , , ,

There have long been debates over homework and children’s resistance to doing it. It is seen to lead to fights at the kitchen table after school. This may stem from time-poor working families or parents and carers unsure of how to do it in the ‘right’ way.

 As teachers, and parents, we too have struggled with homework. We decided to research this further. Homework is widely used in primary school. There is also a continuing  debate in the media. But  there is a limited body of research to explain the purpose, evidence for the practice or explanation of the power dynamics which underpin current homework approaches.

Homework doesn’t always lead to increased learning

Homework is generally given to revise learning concepts taught within the classroom.  But studies have shown homework does not always add to increased learning and could, in fact,  have the opposite effect. Teachers have reported that designing quality tasks, along with marking homework was time-consuming. It also proved difficult to meet the needs of the diverse students in their classes. Don’t we know it! Similarly, parents have shared concerns detailing the pressure of homework and how its expectations can create tensions within the home. 

Since current practices are not working, what if the purpose of homework was to help children and their parents enjoy and engage in learning together, rather than purely consolidate learning and preparing for the next test? 

Grej of the Day

We found a case study which offers a potential alternative to homework, all the way from Sweden. ‘Grej of the Day’ is an approach to homework that seeks to connect learning between school and home. Mikael Hermansson, teacher of the year in Sweden 2015, may have an idea here that works! 

When using Grej of the Day in the classroom, children are given a clue (for example a giraffe playing a tuba below) to guess what it is about. Children take the clue home to discuss with their families then bring ideas back to school the next day. The class learns from all the ideas shared then have an 8-minute micro lesson from the teacher, who shares one WOW fact. For each topic a pin is put on a world map to show where it was from. Homework is then for children to retell what they learnt to their parents.

We saw this innovative approach, thought about the diverse learners we see in the classrooms, and wondered how it could support children in Australia. 

What we found

We conducted an international online survey, which received 2025 responses from 16 countries. 240 teachers gave us further details as to how and why they use ‘Grej of the Day’ in their classrooms. Our initial analysis shows teachers reported mostly positive changes in the classroom to children’s behaviour and engagement in learning. Fewer parents reported a lack of interest.  

We found three main benefits to using Grej of the Day:

  1. Cultural appropriateness: Potential to engage children from diverse backgrounds in meaningful ways inclusive of their home languages, time, skills and knowledge to learn new things beyond a narrow curriculum. Teachers have discussed that they can ‘use Grejs to cross bridges, to understand each other better, to learn about other religions, values, points of view and customs’.
  2. High engagement: Children were excited to participate in their learning and do homework. A huge step if you have a child who hated school! Micael Hermannson saw this in his own class where he found he was able to take a difficult group of children, who he could not reach, to being the class of the year in Sweden. Suddenly children wanted to be at school and learn. One teacher highlighted this ‘GoTD can absolutely be a way to support the [sic] diversity. I remember this student who really had a hard time at school and suddenly he said, ‘Now I know more than my mum, I think I`m going to become a teacher…’.
  3. Authentic learning: When discussing the impact GoTD has had to support authentic conversations to add to and build on the learning in school with families, teachers explained that parents suddenly became keen about homework, ‘There is a high participation. I have had parents waiting outside the classroom to find out whether they had solved the riddle’.

A way forward?

We are excited to present this case study as a potential paradoxical way forward that is authentic and enjoyed by children, teachers, and parents alike. Possibly it is a way that we can all enjoy homework and harness its true potential? The results from our case study pose the question to teachers and policy makers. Is it time for us to rethink homework in schools to make it an equitable playing field that values diverse funds of knowledge, ideas, and ways of learning?

Have you considered an answer to our Grej of the Day clue yet? What does the giraffe have in common with a tuba?

Monique Mandarakas (left) is a casual lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland. She has a background from both early childhood and primary teaching. Her research includes parent and family engagement in education and the support of pre-service teachers. This research is supported by her current PhD study. Melissa Fanshawe is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Southern Queensland. She has over twenty-five years experience within Queensland schools as a teacher, deputy and principal. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and has won several teaching awards.

Evidence based practice - Community of practice

How we can challenge oppression from the ground up

community of practice, evidence-based practices, , ,

The use of “Evidence-Based-Practice” (EBP) as a discourse harms teachers. I’m not the first person to say that here. Nicole Bunker, in a previous post, describes the landscape of Australian education as awash with the dominance of the “what works” agenda. 

She says that the all-encompassing desire to impose EBP has become an oppressive force upon teachers. It promotes a narrow base of evidence in relation to “what works”. It removes teachers from the position to make judgments of what is best in their contexts. And it obscures the structural problems that perpetuate inequity in Australian schools. This is something that teachers need to push back against.

I want to add to the discussion surrounding this issue for teachers. I’d like to propose communities of practice (CoPs) can serve as an important opportunity for teachers to challenge the oppression of EBP. It can also be a means of supporting teachers to reclaim their voice and agency in education.

Where we find ourselves

Due to the complexity of the Australian education landscape, teachers are often left to navigate diverse and conflicting educational ideologies about Australian schooling. Yet, when EBP is applied in education this fact is ignored in favour of narrow ideas of education. EBP relies on ideological perspectives that see the role of the teacher as one that has a causal effect in student learning. This view is uncritically accepted by many. The tendency for policymakers over the past 20 years has been to follow this logic by applying top-down reform to teaching and initial teacher education (perceived as inputs). These are then assumed to achieve increases in various quantitative measures of student success (viewed as the expected outputs).

Ideas about “what works” in education always get caught up in ideologies of how schools should function and how teachers ought to teach. This is rarely acknowledged. As a result, EBP becomes more of a legitimation tool to enforce reform and discourage critique rather than move the project of Australian education forward to a more desirable future. We cannot expect that “what works” in one school community will inevitably achieve the same result in another. Teachers therefore need to be given opportunities to engage with evidence that considers its appropriateness to their context. By ignoring the importance of context, EBP ideologies ultimately limit the ability for teachers to engage in this important work of navigating and challenging “evidence”, as policy continues to favour “top-down” mandate approaches.

It attempts to redefine what it means to be a teacher

EBP also attempts to redefine the very nature of what it means to be a teacher. It places itself within a paradigm that wants to claim teaching as an effective and efficient profession. That is unrealistic. We need not – indeed we can’t – see the teacher as wholly efficient or effective. There are many aspects of education that are neither effective nor efficient, but are still valued. The move to support young Australians in understanding consent and respectful relationships is just one example of this.

What counts as evidence is highly contested. It therefore needs to be considered in light of the group or organisation citing it. This is especially true now, as the push for “what works” in education becomes increasingly driven by vested interests. Ultimately, the uptake of evidence depends upon the ideological perspectives of teachers, school leaders and the wider community in which schooling takes place. Professional development that allows opportunities for teachers to thoughtfully consider research evidence (including EBP) and evaluate its worth in relation to context affirms the authority that each school has to meet the needs of their communities.

We need to remind ourselves that it is not evidence that will move education forward, but the current and future decisions of teachers and school leaders. 

Why we need to centre on teachers

Although it has long disappeared in the media cycle, teacher supply in Australia remains at crisis level. The focus of our federal government has been on recruitment. In the meantime, state governments continue to pile on the mandates ignoring the messages this sends to our current teachers.

If educational discourse continues to treat teachers as simply obedient implementers of somebody else’s EBP, we will continue to lose many passionate and powerful teachers. 

What we need – maybe now more than ever – is to find ways of empowering teachers to enact intentional practice that supports the purposes and aims of education in their communities.

Creating new futures

My research is interested in how a community of practice (CoP) model can be used to provide a space for teachers to explore and challenge the ideologies that currently impact on their teaching practice, including (but not limited to) that of EBP.

A CoP consists of a group of teachers that join together regularly around a common concern. They learn how to improve their practice as a result of their interactions with one another. CoPs respect teachers as public intellectuals, who engage with one another to discern from “what works” in their context in tandem with (as opposed to being dictated to by) evidence.

Along with supporting teacher retention, belonging and agency, CoPs are a powerful opportunity for teachers to reclaim their voice and ownership of their practice, through the interrogation of the ideologies that impact on their work, including those of EBP.

EBP favours “top-down” approaches to educational problems and displaces questions of purpose with questions of process and effectiveness. CoPs provide an important counter-practice to EBP, which is “bottom-up” in its approach and allows space for teachers to critique and wrestle with EBP in light of the ideologies that they – along with their colleagues and broader school community – hold about education. CoPs allow for teachers to be heard, in a climate where teacher concerns are at best ignored, or at its worst, silenced.

My research will investigate the extent to which providing space for this kind of reflective practice might make a difference in the lives of teachers currently working in Australian schools. 

Interested in taking action?

I am currently looking for teachers who are interested in participating in a CoP to explore and reflect on the various ideologies impacting on their work in 2025. 

Are you, or someone you know, interested in participating in this project? I have included details of the project at the end of this post to consider.

It’s about time we prioritised spaces for teachers to critically engage with the ideologies that seek to claim education on their behalf. 

This project seeks to do just that.

Are you a critically reflected teacher?

Are you a teacher who thinks deeply and critically about your practice? Or is this something you have never really had an opportunity to do but would like to engage in with others who think the same way?  

I am seeking a group of committed critically reflective teachers, who are eager to experience what kind of transformational impact individual and collective critical thinking can have on their practice. Where you perceive yourself on the path of becoming “critically reflective” is unimportant. What is important is that you have a desire to think deeply about your practice! 

In 2025, as part of my research project exploring critical thinking and teacher agency, participants will have the opportunity to join together in a community with other like-minded teachers, exploring the ideological nature of education and their work as teachers. Participation in this study will involve approximately 7 hours of commitment over a period of around 18 months. Participation will involve dialogue and reflection upon the various ideological impacts of teacher work in various Zoom conference meetings and through an asynchronous private chat group, followed by an individual interview at the conclusion of the project. I am interested in your personal experiences and opinions, not in information about specific schools and their practices. 

For many of you who have either listened to my podcast segment, Ideology in Education, on the TER Podcast, or have read my posts on my Substack, The Interruption, you will know that this is something I am deeply passionate about and believe to be truly important for all teachers. 

So it doesn’t matter whether you:

  • teach primary or secondary,  
  • have been a teacher for 20 years or have just started, 
  • work in the government, independent or catholic systems, 
  • are on-going, part-time or casual.  

If you’re a registered teacher currently teaching in Australia, you can get involved! 

If this seems like something you would be interested in being involved in or have further questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me via email at tdmahone@deakin.edu.au and I will get back to you with further information about participating in the project.  

Know of anyone who might be interested? If so, feel free to forward this information on (as is) via email or social media! 

This study has received Deakin University ethics approval (reference number: HAE-24-046). 

Tom Mahoney is a teacher and educator of secondary VCE mathematics and psychology students. He is currently completing a PhD in Educational Philosophy part time through Deakin University. His research explores the influence of dominant educational ideologies on teacher subjectivity. Tom is on LinkedIn.

Science : this new syllabus is so last century

ACARA, NSW Education Standards Authority, Science, , ,

Imagine asking a five year old to name basic body parts. That kid’s known an eye from an elbow since the age of two.

This is the clearest indication we have that NSW syllabus writers have it so wrong. Some of the science knowledge is too simple, other ideas are too hard. Worst of all, it could lead to a return to regurgitating facts.

Why don’t syllabus writers take advice from education researchers? This question applies to both the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA). 

Advice largely ignored

Twice in the last two years a group of science education researchers from multiple NSW universities gave extensive, research-informed advice on primary science syllabus drafts. That advice was largely ignored. 

Problems which exist in the new NSW Science and Technology K-6 syllabus released last week could have been avoided. The consultation process is flawed when the people whose job it is to keep up with research about learning and teaching in science (and technology) are brushed aside. We need to create a school curriculum fit for contemporary students that gets the balance of intrigue and difficulty right. The views of primary teachers who usually lack strong knowledge in science must be balanced by research insights from science educators. NSW now has a syllabus like a leaky bucket, full of holes that science educators now must help teachers fix.

In developing the previous, 2017, syllabus, three science educators – Anne Forbes from Macquarie University, Helen Georgiou from Wollongong University and myself – spent a day with the syllabus writers advising on knowledge content. This collaboration resulted in a higher quality syllabus with accurate science ideas that were sequenced to match student ages.  

NESA claims: that “For the first time the K-6 curriculum is being developed cohesively to support depth of learning and enhance student engagement.” The science and technology section falls short of this aim.

Facts vs Inquiry

When you download the Science and Technology K-6 syllabus from the NSEA website, it reads like a list of facts to be remembered. I worry the lists of facts followed by specific examples will mean more rote learning and less engaging practical work for children. 

Inquiry is an essential science practice. Eminent science education scholar Roger Bybee (UK) argued over a decade ago “Inquiry is central to science . . . it should be basic in the design of school science programs, selection of instructional materials and implementation of teaching strategies”. Critically the word inquiry is not found in the Science and Technology K-6. Syllabus. Distinguished Alfred Deakin Professor of Science Education Russell Tytler agrees that in this time of wicked problems like climate change and advancing technologies we must build a generation of thinkers capable of advanced problem solving.

Kindergarten is too easy, other years’ content is too hard

Some topics do not suit students of different ages, despite advice from experts at four universities. Kindergarten ideas are too easy – naming basic human body parts is pre-school level. That means young learners will be bored and not engaged. 

Why does that matter? In kindergarten, children’s initial views about science and technology form. Their self‐perceptions as learners of science and technology matter and potentially impact future STEM‐related pursuits. I argue that the first year of school is the ideal time to engage children in practical inquiry. It’s also the ideal time to inspire a love of learning in science. School science learning should be stimulating from the start. Insufficient focus on basic physics misses the opportunity for children to explore how toys work.

In later years knowledge does not match students’ learning capabilities. Aligning knowledge with age-level is vital for successful learning. Some topics are slated for vastly different year levels than the Australian Curriculum, whilst content and examples are more suited to – and already taught in – high school. Examples include:

The topic of Light is Year 5 level in the national curriculum, but is to be taught in years one to two in NSW – Why? That light can be reflected and refracted is better suited to late primary (years five to six). Extra ideas of light dispersion and absorption would be misplaced in late primary, let alone years one and two.  

It gets worse

It gets worse, the more abstract ideas have been added to topics, which will hinder deep learning. Despite aims to ‘declutter’ the primary syllabus, more knowledge has been taken from secondary level. Take, for example, the transfer of heat energy taught in years three to four. It was previously limited to conduction (contact) but now includes ‘convection and radiation’. These processes cannot be observed directly which makes it difficult to understand them. The expectation that students will be able to ‘compare how different materials absorb or reflect heat energy’ is unrealistic for primary level.   

Example content includes ideas that students cannot observe directly, which makes it difficult to learn in primary school. Complex ideas in years three to four include ‘force of gravity keeps Earth, moons and planets in their positions in the solar system’ and years five to six ‘coordination of human body systems’. Both are high school level in the national curriculum. 

Writing is privileged over multimodal communication

Writing alone is not a good way to learn science and technology ideas. Australian research shows that learning and thinking is advanced when children use many ways to communicate. Teachers should encourage children to draw, talk, move their bodies, use gestures, make models as well as writing to support science and technology learning. Research led by Deakin University colleagues Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain and Peter Hubber and my own study (with Peter) show when students create multi-modal representations they engage with and learn ideas deeper. The approach also helps students see how scientists generate knowledge and motivates their learning in science and technology.

It is not too late

We cannot afford to rely on a syllabus that looks like a litany of everything that we had last century – Human biology, reduced physics in the early years and jumbled facts for memorisation and recall. Hopefully the web-based syllabus will allow NESA to review the content lists and examples. The compound outcomes, that don’t make sense, can be made more achievable by getting the content and examples at the right level for students.The opportunity exists with the help of science educators to fix the problems outlined here before the syllabus is implemented in primary schools in 2027. 

Christine Preston is an associate professor in science education in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has taught science in primary and secondary school and her research interests include science for 5-year-olds, embodied learning in maths and science, citizen science, teacher quality.