AARE blog

AARE conference

#AARE 2024 now! Hello and welcome to the first day of our AARE conference blog

AARE blog, AARE conference, , , ,



Table of contents

Day One, December 1, 2024.

We will update here during the day so please bookmark this page. Want to contribute? Contact jenna@aare.edu.au

Our EduResearch Matters social accounts are:

Please write, comment, participate about our AARE2024 blog on social media using this hashtag #AARE2024.

Matt Bower shares some thoughts on AI

The recent generation of increasingly powerful artificial intelligence is having a disruptive impact on education. Students can use any number of tools, such as ChatGPT, to help them complete any text based assignment tasks. But there are also a wide range of multimedia tools that can help them create images, videos, music, presentations and more. We need to fundamentally rethink our priorities when it comes to teaching – what should education be about?

Teachers at educational institutions understand they do need to change their work and they have understood that since the beginning of generative artificial intelligence, marked by ChatGPT. Most agree that they need to make major changes to what they teach, the way they teach and how they assess. But most teachers do not feel well-supported to make the requisite changes to their teaching, assessment and supportive practices.

Educational institutions are understandably striving to uphold academic integrity to ensure that students are using generative AI in ways that help them learn, rather than having AI supplant that learning. But there is an increasing acceptance that any student who wants to hide the fact that they’ve used generative AI can normally do so. 

One of the key messages is that we really need to work with students on dispositional aspects of learning, to help them understand that they will have greater benefits from their education if they use AI as a learning machine rather than an answer machine – that learning still needs to take place in the mind and you can’t have anyone else do your laps for you. AI has the potential to be a wonderful mindtool and amplifier of creativity, but we must ensure that students are motivated and know how to use AI well, rather than as a way to bypass their learning.

There’s an urgent need for research along a number of dimensions.  How  do students interact with these technologies inside and outside of classrooms? How we can effectively help students develop their AI literacies so they can engage with AI in ethical, critical, safe and productive ways. How should we need to rethink assessment to ensure that we are assessing humans and not artificial intelligence? How can teachers be best supported to navigate through this major educational transition? And how do we support educational leaders and the system as a whole to rethink policy and professional learning?

There are a number of ways that we can also use AI to help us conduct research. The way to do this ethically is an evolving area but we need to consider how we can use AI to expedite some of the more tedious and menial aspects of the research process, for instance, cleaning and coding of data to help accelerate our research progress in the education field. It’s an exciting time in educational research, and as always with technology, the benefits we derive will depend on how we use it.

Matt Bower is a professor or educational technology in the School of Education at Macquarie University. His work focuses on how contemporary and emerging technologies can be used to enhance learning.

Thanks to Steph Wescott and Ben Zunica for the images.

Gamilaroi woman Michelle Bishop speaks passionately about Reclaiming Research

By Ren Perkins
Michelle started off by proving an intimate and emotional Acknowledgement of Dharug
Country. In acknowledging Country and Ancestors, Michelle mentioned it was because of
them she was here.

Images below thanks to Ren Perkins, Naomi Barnes and Ben Zunica

In reclaiming the research space, Michelle spoke to Indigenous sovereignty in research. As
Michelle stated, “ education has been occurring here on so-called Australia for tens of
thousands of years”. This was emphasised by the words of Torres Strait Islander scholar,
Prof Martin Nakata, curriculum did not arrive by boat and pedagogy did not arrive by boat.
Also in reference to Nakata, Michelle stated that the education system in Australia was
designed by the colonisers for the colonisers. As Michelle said, the state of the schooling
system is not broken, it is working as intended. That is to promote the hierarchy of race,
individualism and meritocracy.

Michelle shared that research demonstrates that schools can be sites of harm for many
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In fact, schools can re-traumatize, re-
marginalise and create experiences of racism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students. As Michelle said, “There is evidence of how our kids are suffering”. Michelle
shared a traumatic experience where she witnessed first hand how an Aboriginal student
was treated by a senior school staff member. Michelle recalled the student was told, “ Well
what are we going to do with you, now we can’t use corporal punishment?”
Talking Indigenous research, Michelle asked the audience what they knew about Indigenous
research. This was to try and shift the focus of being the subject and object of research. As
Michelle stated categorically, “Nothing about us, without us!” To assist researchers, Michelle
outlined the AIATSIS research code of ethics, which is underlined by integrity and acting in
the right spirit.

The theme of AARE2024 is education in a changing world. Michelle posed the question to all
of us: What is our collective responsibility? For Michelle, her responsibility is towards
Ancestors, young people and future generations.

Michelle underlines this with three questions:
How to make schools safe®?
How to step outside colonial-controlled schooling?
How to assert our knowledge systems as rigorous and valid?
Michelle presented the Kin & Country Framework (Bishop & Tynan, 2024).
To finish, Michelle left us with the thought-provoking question, “How can we become good
Ancestors?”

Lightning Talks – thanks again to Steph Wescott who wrote about this session

Lighting Talks A 

Following a brilliant talk from Dr Michelle Bishop, we reconvened for the pre-conference lighting talks – three minutes to tell us about your research and two minutes for questions. Rapid-fire, no slides. This post provides a brief overview of the talks presented in one of two lightning talk sessions. 

Alice Elwell (Deakin University) 

Knowing differently means feeling differently: affect in the critical English classroom

Alice tells us she’s writing about ‘vibes’ (or, the affective intensities that occur in the classroom when teachers are using critical literacies). In the English classroom, Alice explains that when big topics are engaged with, ‘big’ things happen. These vibes are pedagogies, shaping what happens and what can be known. When you do this, what do people feel in the classroom? Alice introduces us to a set of metaphors she has designed to work through her data, leaving us ready to think and feel powerfully in our own work and classrooms. Alice is also wearing very cool earrings, so make sure you say hi to her today. 

Stef Rozitis (University of South Australia) 

“People need to know that we are doing important work here”: Early childhood educators in their own words

Stef’s research explores how do gendered of maternalistic discourses shape the identities of early childhood educators. Arguing that maternalism persists in the work of policy and in people’s perceptions of early childhood work, and using post-qualitative inquiry to find multiples meanings and resonances, Stef’s found the participants used multiple discourses to speak about their roles. Stef’s participants distanced from maternalism but also slid into at times, evoked discourses of care and care ethics, market discourses, complex discourses around value of the work, and discourses of being skilled and experienced workers. 

Stephanie Milford (Edith Cowen University) 

Parental Mediation in the Digital Age: Insights from My Research

Stephanie’s research explores the parental mediation of device use among children. She says that oarents’ roles are made difficult by conflicting messages they receive about children’s screen time; that there are both benefits and harms. But what should they do about it? Parents must navigate these complexities, but Stephanie is interested in what informs their choices. Her research found that both micro and macro factors influenced parents’ decisions, and that parent self-efficacy played an important role. Findings highlighted the need for clear, consistent and non-judgemental support for parent decision-making.

Giorgia Scuderi (Aarhus University) 

Crafting Creative Ways of Conducting Qualitative Research on Young People’s Analogue-Digital Relations

Giorgia shares that her PhD focusses on how gender is negotiated by young people and their parents, using ethnographic research in both Italy and Denmark. Giorgia also used workshop-based focus groups but encountered ethical problems around attempting to use relational approaches in her research. Giorgia is keen to chat through ethical barries others encounter in their research while she’s here at AARE! Giorgia also invokes ‘vibes’, which is beginning to emerge as a key theme of this session. She is also jetlagged as she travelled here from Italy; perhaps someone should buy her a drink this week! 

Tracey Sanderson (University of the Sunshine Coast) 

Supporting parents to promote a passion for reading

Tracey begins by telling us to get comfy while she tells us a story. This story is about a literature-loving teacher whose work aims to inspire a love of reading in her students and to develop a culture of reading in her classroom. At this point the audience begins to suspect that this story is about Tracey, but this remains unconfirmed. Tracey reminds us that if we want to know what kinds of support parents need to support reading in their homes, we need to ask them. Her research found that the stories of reading exist within families, not in textbooks. The story ends unexpectedly with our heroine working to develop an app to store resources and provide support to families looking to develop a love of reading in their children. 

Ben Archer (James Cook University) 

The Impact of Opportunity – Educational Access and Career Outcomes in Regional, Remote and Rural Australia

Ben wants to know what young people make the career choices they do. He tells us about his son, who was born vision impaired, and how that led him to consider a regional lifestyle for his family. However, the closest specialist was in Sydney, which led Ben to consider the skill shortage in regional places. This led him to his PhD journey, which traces students from year 7 to the time that young people make pivotal career decisions. He is looking at the ‘missing piece’, which he says is career advice. ‘What’s happening?’ he asks. He found that in year 7, students look at anything beyond rugby league player or TikTok influencer as ‘hard to get’; in particular, careers that require university entrance. Unfortunately, Ben is ‘stuck in ethics hell’, and is hoping to make progress and begin to conduct his work in schools. 

Amy Kaukau (Te Wananga Aronui O Tamaki Makau Rau – Auckland University of Technology) 

Exploring Mātauranga Māori in Bicultural Physical Education: A Tool Based Approach for Teacher Development

Amy is exploring bicultural experiences in physical education. Her ‘why’, she explains, is found within her family and her work as a teacher; she began to see the world from her children’s perspective and wanted to understand education from a Mātauranga Māoriperspective. She says that there is a need to understand the ‘how’ and ‘what’ in relation to what we incorporate into our curriculum and teaching programs. Amy’s research design is participatory action, and she believes in the transformational work that can take place in this space. Māori data sovereignty is important to her work, and participatory action research allows her to ensure that this is protected. In Amy’s research, she worked with knowledge leaders in Mātauranga Māori to design a tool that helps incorporateMātauranga Māoriknowledge into PE experiences, which has been shared with 4 teachers in their work. Amy hopes that she can develop something tangible at the end of the research that can be used for bicultural education. 

And that concludes this session of lightning talks. Be sure to catch these researchers’ other papers throughout the week! 

So what? What matters when it comes to research

Ben Zunica was at the panel discussion which offered perspectives on getting published.

Panellists were: Helen Watt, Stewart Riddle, Susanne Gannon and Stephanie Wescott. 

Here’s a brief summary.

This was a session designed to help early career researchers and postgraduates with getting published. It included tips on how to get published and what to do to make your articles more attractive.

Should it be quantity or quality? Our panellists agreed that quality mattered. Stewart Riddle spoke from his perspective as editor of the Australian Educational Researcher. He said that abstracts were crucial – more important than you think.

“Everything comes down to your abstract – it’s like an advertisement for your paper. If you stuff up the abstract, the editor will just desk reject. The abstract sells the paper to the team.”

He recommended signing up to be a reviewer for a journal as a good strategy for becoming a successful academic writer.

“You read other people’s work, read and provide feedback. Sign up to be a reviewer.”

Susanne Gannon talked about what made a good article – and how that provides inspiration for your own writing. Stephanie Wescott talked about how she began her career and had been published often. She had also engaged with the media. She said it was important to publish thorough and reliable work. 

It’s not about getting clicks, it’s about publishing good work. 

Helen Watt talked about the dos and don’ts of academic publishing and how to get onto the trajectory of getting published in the educational space. Her top twos – you need to have something important to say. That’s like the “so what?” mechanism. Publishing is not all about writing. Good writing will not save bad work. Networks and communities matter – not just to disseminate but to interact and join in the conversation. 

Bad work will follow you. Don’t do it. 

We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be clear about your point of departure about what is known and join the conversation.

There was also further discussion about the implications of AI and publishing, following on from Matt Bower’s at today’s keynote.

No honour in the honour roll

ATAR, Higher School Certificate, , , ,

This is part three of an ongoing commentary begun in 2021 and continued in 2022.

The current HSC grading model is unfair –  well past its use-by-date.  It was adopted at the turn of the millennium, way before recent HSC students were even born. 

Now, many schools are gaming the system to maximise the percentage of Band 6 results and consequent rankings. That’s to the detriment of the availability, uptake and performance in STEM subjects. While I present a lot of doom and gloom stemming from my research (with some silent partners), I also offer some easy solutions that will even save time and money.

The doom and gloom

Every year, the Sydney Morning Herald releases its ‘HSC Honour Roll’ of the Merit List of every NSW student with a top Band 6 in a subject (‘Distinguished Achievers’). It includes the top students in a course (‘Top Achievers’) and the NSW Premier’s List of ‘All Rounders’ who achieved Band 6 in 5+ subjects. 

The Honour Roll figures then feed into the notorious high school ranking league tables. But this marketer’s dream is being manipulated and weaponised in the highly competitive high school education industry, to the detriment of STEM subjects in particular. 

Firstly, students studying vocational education subjects such as Electrotechnology are ineligible for the All Rounders accolade. 

More fundamentally, while the ATAR scales subjects like the sciences favourably, the HSC is stacked against students studying a science.

Before you look at my graph below, please note the following:

There are four unequal quadrants in the graph:

  • Top Left: relatively difficult as a subject, with only a low fraction of students awarded Band 6 = only Chemistry, Physics, Science Extension and Economics
  • Top Right: relatively difficult as a subject, but with a high fraction of students awarded Band 6 = French Extension, plus Maths Extension 1 & 2 and Latin Continuers which are off the scale
  • Bottom Left: relatively easy as a subject, but with only a low fraction of students awarded Band 6 = subjects such as Ancient History, Business Studies, Investigating Science, PDHPE, Community & Family Studies, Food Tech and more
  • Bottom Right: relatively easy as a subject, and with a high fraction of students awarded Band 6 = most of the languages (most of which are off the scale), plus subjects such as Dance, Drama, Music (1, 2 and Extension), Textiles & Design, and Visual Arts 

This graph shows ‘difficulty’ against ‘percentage Band 6’ for every subject that contributed to all Honour Roll awards in 2023. 

As a proxy for difficulty, I used the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC) scaled score for an HSC score of 90 in each subject. UAC scales subjects, essentially according to difficulty, in order to determine student ATARs. In HSC, an overall mark of 90 in a subject is the baseline for a Band 6. English Advanced is used as a baseline for comparison since all students have to study English in some form and English has to contribute to a student ATAR. 

English Standard awards little to none

Notice English Standard awards little to no Band 6, which is an issue in itself – some schools game the Honour Roll and ranking system by only letting their students study English Advanced, even if they’re better suited to English Standard. As UAC states “since NESA places English Studies, English Standard and English Advanced raw marks on a common scale, these courses are combined and scaled as a single course but are reported as separate courses in order to be consistent with NESA’s reporting practice“.

As can be seen on the graph, if a student wants the best chance of being a Distinguished Achiever or All Rounder, then they should study multiple languages, and creative and performing arts. 

These subjects award both an unreasonable proportion of Band 6s, and are deemed relatively easy by UAC (hence they are relatively poorly scaled). It begs the question – what is the purpose of an exam that awards 40 per cent or more of its students the top performance band? It also begs the question – why are so many resources being expended to run so many languages with such small candidatures when the exams aren’t fit for purpose. What do I mean? They do not differentiate within their cohorts and there is “a cost of assessing so many languages and also the problems of validity when the enrolments in many languages are so small“.

Why bother?

When it comes to the sciences, why bother studying Chemistry, Physics and Science Extension (or Economics for that matter)? They are so much more difficult, yet the reward of a Band 6, the metric by which to make the Honour Roll and how schools are measured, is so unlikely? 

This has been a status quo of many years and is naturally having a devastating effect on the sciences:

  • Numbers in Chemistry have dropped to their lowest in a decade 
  • Many schools can’t attract enough students for example Physics to run the course, or even steer them away so they don’t have to offer the subject (an awful, cynical strategy to deal with the specialist teacher shortage and low chances of Band 6) 
  • Accordingly, many of the best science students are choosing not to study the sciences or are even being pressured away from them into other subjects
  • Quite often, the Dux of a school is a different student to the All Rounder since the Dux studied e.g. Biology, ‘only’ achieving a high Band 5, negating their chance of being and All Rounder, but achieving the highest ATAR in the school, whereas the All Rounder chose subjects with easier access to Band 6 but was awarded a lower ATAR
  • (There has also been a general decline in the number and diversity of Economics enrolments as highlighted by the RBA)

Of course, there are caveats: able students are capable in most subjects. But which subjects should they choose? Teenagers with self-doubt are opting out of subjects they fear they will ‘fail’ in – girls in STEM anyone?

An Easy Solution

The disparity in percentage Band 6 between the subjects is due to the current HSC being nominally a ‘standards-based’ assessment. I say nominally because the standards are different for every subject, and measured differently by respective subject experts. It is for this reason that UAC completely ignores HSC bands when calculating ATARs. 

The current standards-based model is 23 years old and consequently the system has been gamed over time.  It is no longer fit for purpose. Someone in NESA told me that the recent Curriculum Review, and the consequent Curriculum Reform, should really have been a Curriculum AND ASSESSMENT Review and Reform, to address just this issue. That was a missed opportunity, but there is still time, not least with the new syllabuses coming out in the next few years. 

Instead, I propose a norm-based approach for EVERY subject e.g.:

  • Band 6 = the top 15% of students
  • Band 5 = 35-15% 
  • Band 4 = 60-35% 
  • Band 3 = 80-60% 
  • Band 2 = 95-80% 
  • Band 1 = the bottom 5%

Perversely, while Band 1, a fail, usually only accounts for a few percent, it is currently reported at HSC as marks 0-49, thereby concertina-ing 95+% of students into marks 50-100. Scraping a Band 2 is reported in HSC as a mark of 50, a psychological pass, yet may have only been a raw exam mark of 30%. 

A pointless exercise

This is a pointless exercise to appease parents and employers, even though the students would have likely scored very low (≪50%) marks for two years. This arguably should be changed too, but is less important than fixing the bands.

Rather than the unfair yet non-random scatter gun that is currently Graph 1 (and has caused the editor all kinds of headaches), we would instead have a vertical line of dots since every subject would have an equal 15% of Band 6; UAC would merely differentiate the relative difficulty as they do currently i.e. only NESA needs to change here. 

This simple solution would make for fair comparisons between subjects and greater transparency. Students would have less to worry about when making subject selections. This solution would remove a lot of the gaming of the current system. It would also be a lot cheaper and quicker to run since the expensive judging process against standards would be removed. (Ironically, the current expensive judging process is sometimes disregarded if the statistics don’t match up with what the powers that be wish to be published – what a demoralising waste of money, time and expertise). Give it a couple of years, judging and marking by humans will be superfluous anyway, as cheaper, more accurate AI takes over the task.

Precise profiles

Also, the actual standards for every subject could become more meaningful and specific since we would know the precise profiles of, for example, what a Band 6 looks like in a subject, without meaningless generic terms like ‘extensive’. They could be generated accordingly with meaningful subject specific detail. Further, ‘standards packages’ of student samples of work by band, by subject would be more easily compiled. Only minor, less onerous monitoring over time would be required to ensure that standards were being maintained (rather than massaging the figures to maintain the ‘integrity’ of longitudinal data as occurs occasionally).

Ultimately, the Honour Roll would have more honour – every subject would have the same percentage of students in the Distinguished Achievers list; an All Rounder would be in the top 15% in 5+ subjects; and there would be a fair go for all of meeting the Premier and receiving awards, whether they chose a science or not.

Modified approaches

Perhaps modified approaches might need to be made for small candidature subjects such as languages. Then again, there are much bigger issues to consider with languages. Equally, in subjects where perfect marks are quite possible by many students e.g. Maths and Music, a more nuanced profile may be required. Then again, they could write more difficult exams.

Another improvement which could be adopted by NSW is to follow Victoria’s lead and actively report on ‘most improved’ schools. That removes the focus on the highest achieving (usually the highest socioeconomic) schools, and gives credit for value adding and improvement. (But NSW should ensure it maintains its greater level of exam security compared to Victoria).

There should be a fair go for all in this country. We constantly hear about the need for a STEM-skilled workforce, yet we undermine this constantly at high school level. A simple fix to the HSC would go a long way to encouraging the best young Australians of the viability to study – and subsequently work in – the high-need STEM fields, which are crucial to our economy and progress.

Postscript

Despite the title, this article is by no means suggesting we abandon the HSC in favour of, for example, the IB; we just need to fix the awarding of bands to be more meaningful and equitable across the subjects. Neither am I suggesting we abandon the HSC mark altogether to rely solely on the ATAR. However, I certainly feel that the ATAR should remain, despite some moves to abandon it, not least to keep the HSC in check. This is not yet another EduResearch Matters rant about NESA (see primary science and the arts); the standards-based HSC model was ahead of its time, but that was a LONG time ago. It is well overdue for an overhaul for the reasons stated. Solutions are proffered for consideration.

Thank you to Graham Wright for collating some of the data.

Dr Simon Crook is director of CrookED Science, a STEM education consultancy, and Honorary Associate at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. He works with primary and high school teachers and students around many aspects of science and STEM education, and assists the Sydney University Physics Education Research (SUPER) group with their work, including liaising with NESA regarding science syllabuses. His PhD research evaluated the impact of technology on student attainment in the sciences. Previously, Simon was a high school physics teacher.

Chaos in music and drama syllabus

NESA – it’s murder on the dance floor and in the theatre: how educators fought back

drama, Music education, , , , , ,

The Arts have often been agitators in challenging systems. The NSW Educational Standards Authority (NESA – and there are no equivalent bodies in other states and territories) has stirred a hornet’s nest. How? It introduced a new draft drama syllabus for senior school and new draft music syllabuses for senior school with not enough consultation.

The CEO of NESA even recognised the unprecedented outrage reaction from drama and music educators at the emergency additional NSW Arts Education Inquiry hearing in response to the reaction. 

Teachers and academics, so often pitted against one another, have united together for insurgence against the imposed didactics from the authorities. There is the potential for this collective to have a genuine, positive impact.

Speaking out together

On the release of the draft drama syllabus, there were several immediate responses. Academics and teachers communicated through professional organisations, voicing concerns, rather than awaiting a 6 – 18 month research journal publication or relying on the consultation survey alone. Indeed, many teachers are stifled by their employment obligations to speak publicly. 

But those with freedom to speak contacted politicians across the ideological divide, wrote articles here, here and elsewhere and engaged the media. An e-petition was also set up to suspend and remove the draft syllabus from circulation and restart the review process. 

The community of voices grew in unprecedented ways, gaining a rally of responses from former drama students, industry professionals and celebrities, who made their stand against the proposed changes bold and resolute. 

This week was especially momentous. Drama educators numbering in the hundreds united for an expert panel discussion “Our Syllabus, Our Stories” held at the Seymour Centre in Sydney. Courageously, the CEO of NESA, Paul Martin, attended the event, spoke, and answered questions. 

One backflip

Martin has already announced one significant backflip on the proposed changes, shaking the parameters and rigour of the so-called formal consultation period that was otherwise set to end December 20 2024. Specifically, the Group Performance project will once again be externally examined. He also guaranteed that any proposed changes were not economically based. Despite the cynicism of many, if educators and the system are to work collegially with each other, there must be a belief that we are all working in ‘good faith.’  

 But there are still issues to address. The changes to the syllabus will not necessarily improve declining numbers of students choosing drama as an elective. The socially constructed lower ATAR branding is a major disincentive that needs to be addressed. The syllabus changes will not decrease teachers’ workload, though it is promising that NESA recognises that drama teachers sacrifice their personal time outside of working hours to prepare students for assessments. 

No-one said the COVID responses were an improvement

Arguing that the changes suggested are based on positive aspects of the response to the COVID lockdowns is incorrect. Teachers made changes to support students, but no one suggested these were improvements. By limiting materials that can be used in the drama curriculum, by removing methods of submission of material, or even areas to assess, not only will NESA limit the pedagogical potentials for students, but there is also a real fear that students with a disability will be impacted.

Many students with a disability choose the Arts as areas to engage with as they are taught in inclusive ways through the Arts, and offered a variety of methods to demonstrate deep understanding and success rather than solely through the skill of writing. To be a fully inclusive society, we must offer diverse means to assess the curriculum and offer a variety of means to submit assessments. We need to retain the depth in source material for students to work with. 

Educators united

The NSW drama and music syllabuses at the HSC level are highly regarded internationally for offering real world experiences and authentic assessment. Teachers and academics are united in ensuring it remains so.

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA)  is responsible for developing and implementing the official curriculum. NESA’s role, in part, is to provide the syllabus documents that outline the content for courses in specific subjects. 

The dismay from all involved in music education also, has resulted in a sustained campaign involving an Open letter to Education and Early Learning Minister Prue Car from renowned academics from all states of Australia, a petition signed by over 5,000 teachers and education lecturers, articles in EduResearch Matters (drama and music), the Sydney newspapers, and an extra Parliamentary Inquiry for both drama and music to present their expert opinions regarding the proposed changes. NESA was also grilled by the Select Committee and refused to make any concessions on the three music syllabuses and only a minor one on the Drama Syllabus.

By uniting across disparate groups that often are pitted against each other, teachers and academics are demonstrating their power as a collective. It also shows the wider community that quality teaching and learning in schools is greatly affected by broader factors. Agencies such as NESA play a major role in enabling or constraining the possibilities for both teaching practice and student learning experiences.

Power as a collective

The inclusive design of the original Music 1 course, for example, was the attraction for students who had previously not had the opportunity to have private music lessons, where typical students can “range from those with beginner instrumental and/or vocal skills to those with highly developed performance skills in a variety of musical styles including contemporary/popular music” (Music 1 Syllabus, 2010, p. 8). 

In 1978, the NSW Minister for Education, Eric Bedford, insisted that ‘society is not made by schools: schools reflect society’ and warned that if ‘society places demands upon schools such that all cannot be met, then the purpose of school loses definition and schools appear to become ineffective.’ Is it Time for an Educational Audit? Introductory Address, Public Seminar, Sydney). The proposed changes to the arts syllabuses suggest that in the supposedly more enlightened times of 2024, NESA has totally disregarded this line of thought and has been intent on revising our NSW syllabuses for the sake of placing their mark on syllabus history (as distinct from the Board of Studies), with disregard for the wisdom of that legacy, intent on insisting that “one size fits all” in arts education.

Highlighting NESA’s failures

Highlighting the failure of NESA to produce robust syllabuses for review and enactment – regardless of the subject – safeguards against wrongly blaming school leaders and teachers for being solely responsible for student learning. Indeed, state level systems must provide conditions for nurturing quality education in school – a view that is applicable in all subjects.  Diminishing the performative aspects of the Arts Assessment, for example, devalues the authenticity of the courses and teaching and learning opportunities in classrooms. 

NESA’s proposed changes to the drama and music syllabuses need to be withdrawn so those with expertise and experience in the teaching of the various artforms can be used to truly create a syllabus that is inclusive, reliable and fit for purpose. 

Biographies


Left to right: Jennifer Carter is a sessional academic at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music after a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools. She was Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW and was a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.

Matthew Harper is an early career researcher in the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. Matt has collaborated with colleagues on a range of research exploring student aspirations, quality teaching in schools and higher education contexts, and curriculum and pedagogy theory and development. His doctoral research compared secondary mathematics and drama in the Australian schooling context.

James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.

David Roy is a lecturer and researcher in Education and Creative Arts at the University of Newcastle (AUS); and was formerly a teacher for 17 years. He uses his research to inform inclusion and equity practices across Australia, with a particular focus on children with a disability, policy, and engagement with the Arts.

school inequality

We know Australia has a private/public divide. But there’s even more inequality

inequity in schooling, public schooling in Australia, , , , , , ,

A major driver of inequality in contemporary education systems internationally is the segregation of students from different social backgrounds into separate schools. Australian education separates students from different backgrounds to a greater extent than many other countries. Research we will present at the forthcoming AARE Conference reveals competition between unequally resourced schools makes many parents feel they must choose an alternative to their local school. Although a major contributor to this separation is the existence of a large fee-paying private school sector that is over-resourced through public subsidies, there are also major divisions within public education. We note in particular the rise of specialist curriculum programs in otherwise comprehensive public secondary schools. These present major risks to equity.

More inequality: The new selectivity in public schooling 

There are over 366 specialist curriculum programs in otherwise comprehensive public secondary schools in Australia. Each has its own admission criteria. Specialist or special interest programs are educational initiatives that focus on specific subject areas, such as sports, language, arts and STEM, delivered through dedicated classes and providing advanced learning and enrichment opportunities not available to other students. 

One avenue for improving equity in education is to support the broadening of curriculum options and programs that can appeal to a diverse range of students and interests and strengthen demand for public education. However, when specialist programs are used by schools to cherry-pick students rather than prioritising the needs of local communities, this generates new problems. Instead of broadening options, this use of specialist programs creates a new hierarchy that further segregates students between and within schools. Some parents have more time, resources and knowledge than others to compete for places for their children in select-entry specialist programs.

A two-speed public system

The reality of high-demand public schools in middle-class neighbourhoods is in stark contrast to that of schools without capacity constraints and located in working-class neighbourhoods. Public schools with established reputations often leverage high demand to grant selective access to those who live beyond their enrolment zone, with specialist and accelerated learning programs providing mechanisms to do so. Those who travel from further afield are also more likely to be middle-class and high-achieving. The ‘choice’ to attend high-demand schools is also available to those who are able to buy or rent within the zone specifically for the purpose of gaining access to a desired school.

Schools face threats to enrolment numbers from private schools. To combat that, public schools make use of specialist programs to shore-up local demand and to build student engagement. In working-class neighbourhoods, vocational and alternative curriculum offerings are particularly popular. Under such conditions, specialist programs do not present such a threat to the model of comprehensive public schooling where education is viewed as an entitlement. In Victoria, where close to one in two students enrol in a government school outside their catchment area, the Education Department has made clear its attachment to this local comprehensive model. That prevents schools from using curriculum grounds to enrol students from beyond their catchment zones.

Learning from the past on the drivers of inequality

For specialist programs to broaden appeal rather than contribute to segregation, it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past. The first lesson is that demand for, and success at, gaining access to selective schools is extremely uneven. Greater efforts are needed to ensure that access to specialist programs is democratic and inclusive so that all benefit. Fees should not be charged for entrance examinations, and enrolment procedures need to be carefully re-examined. The efforts made by many universities to improve equity in access can serve as an example here. That includes the move away from examination results as measures of student potential. 

The second lesson is that competition between schools does not necessarily increase innovation and diversity in curriculum offerings for all. Competition drives schools to attract students who will perform highest on traditional measures and are least taxing on scarce resources. That increases inequality.

Many public school principals are keen to retain high-achieving students and to appeal to middle-class families. Instead, schools should be encouraged to collaborate with each other. That includes the provision of specialist programs at local schools. For example, including participating in programs beyond the school in which they are enrolled. Further, interest in specialist programs should be used to drive offerings available to all students, with no access barriers.

Looking forward towards genuine choice in education

For families and students, availability of specialist curriculum programs across diverse curriculum areas, including sports and vocational courses, is appealing. They demonstrate that public education is doing more than providing a bare minimum, as some parents perceive it to be.

We need to be vigilant against the re-emergence of streaming and academic selectivity as a defining characteristic of public education and a byproduct of the existence of specialist programs. In much of the country, streaming and separate high and technical schools were abandoned in the 1970s and 1980s, as Year 12 completion through a common qualification became the default setting in all jurisdictions.

What’s the best way forward? Reduce market pressure in a system with a large private sector pushing public schools to reintroduce forms of internal differentiation. More equitable resourcing would be a good starting point.

The broadening of curriculum options and choice to appeal to students from all backgrounds is to be welcomed. There is a role for specialist programs and for vocational learning in engaging students who struggle with or are less interested in some traditional curriculum options. Transforming traditional areas, such as STEM and humanities, is also worthwhile and school-level innovation can contribute in important ways to improving the quality of social and learning experiences at school. The proviso is that such benefits must be broadly available, rather than placed within discretionary selection procedures and fee-charging testing regimes. 

Not the only division

Public versus private is not the only division in Australian schooling. But it is one that ends up distorting public schooling through the pressure to attract particular types of students, keeping out others. The big losers are working-class schools and students. They are located in sites that are by-passed by peers being driven to high-demand middle-class schools. Ultimately students, families and societies lose in a system that divides students, rather than bringing them together.

We need policies that broaden options without re-creating the hierarchies of a by-gone era.

Left to right: Joel Windle is associate professor of education at UniSA. He researches educational inequalities and curriculum differentiation in Australia and Brazil. Laura Perry is a professor of education at Murdoch University. She is a specialist in comparative research on educational marketisation and equity.

Quentin Maire is a senior research fellow in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. His research focuses on social inequalities in school systems internationally. 

Open access

Open access. Break the paywall. Reclaim knowledge now

open access, , , ,

In my academic career, I’ve always advocated for not-for-profit academic journals. These platforms support academic freedom and align with the principle that research should benefit society, not merely serve the interests of profit-driven corporations. Unfortunately, the academic publishing landscape, dominated by five major commercial players—Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE—has become a bastion of profit, with universities and researchers paying steep costs for access to their own work.

The roots of this issue stretch back decades. Commercial publishers initially positioned themselves as facilitators of scholarly communication, offering the infrastructure to publish and distribute research globally. However, over time, these companies consolidated their influence and increasingly exploited their role as gatekeepers of knowledge. Today, the academic publishing landscape is so heavily controlled by these firms that universities must pay millions annually to access research produced by their own faculty members.

The Profits Behind the Paywall

The financial model behind commercial publishers is staggering. Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, has historically reported profit margins between 30% and 40%—outperforming even many tech giants like Google. This remarkable profitability is driven by a system where researchers, who receive little to no compensation for writing, reviewing, and editing, must rely on their institutions to pay high subscription fees to access the same content they’ve produced.

While some of these costs are tied to maintaining a peer-review process and publishing infrastructure, the scale of profit points to deeper systemic issues. This paywall not only limits the flow of knowledge but also exacerbates global inequalities in education and research. For scholars and institutions in developing countries, many of whom cannot afford the high subscription fees, access to critical research is often out of reach. The global knowledge divide deepens, reinforcing inequities between wealthier and lower-income regions.

Meanwhile, independent researchers and the general public, who stand to benefit greatly from access to cutting-edge scholarship, are often excluded entirely. This restricted access is particularly troubling at a time when misinformation spreads freely online while verified, peer-reviewed research remains behind paywalls.

Commercial Publishers’ Shifting Approach to Open Access

The increasing calls for open access (OA) have not gone unnoticed by commercial publishers. While they initially resisted the idea of free access to research, many have since adapted by offering OA options—but at a cost. These models, known as “gold open access,” require authors or their institutions to pay article processing charges (APCs) that can be prohibitively expensive. As a result, while OA is becoming more common, commercial publishers still manage to profit from researchers, either through subscription fees or APCs. This nuance complicates the narrative that publishers are entirely resistant to change; instead, they are reshaping their models to maintain profitability.

Despite these developments, the argument that high fees are necessary to cover the cost of peer review and production is increasingly challenged. Not-for-profit journals, especially those following the diamond open access model, have shown that scholarly publishing can be done ethically and affordably.

The Rise of Not-for-Profit Alternatives

Not-for-profit publishing models offer a promising alternative. Unlike commercial publishers, not-for-profit journals, such as those operating under the diamond open access model, charge no fees to authors or readers. These journals are typically funded through academic institutions, libraries, or government grants, ensuring that knowledge remains freely accessible to all.

Prominent examples of this include the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and arXiv. PLOS has revolutionized access to scientific research by offering freely available, peer-reviewed articles across various disciplines. However, it is important to note that PLOS operates on a “gold OA” model, meaning authors or their institutions pay APCs to make their articles accessible. This is different from the truly cost-free “diamond OA” model, which has yet to be widely scaled but holds potential for democratizing access without financial burdens on authors.

In contrast, arXiv, which offers a platform for preprints in fields like physics and mathematics, allows researchers to share their work almost immediately, before formal peer review. By offering a free alternative for early-stage research dissemination, arXiv helps bridge the gap between researchers and the broader public. However, it still relies on external funding and institutional support, highlighting the need for sustainable financial models for all not-for-profit journals.

The Challenge of Prestige in Academia

One of the greatest challenges not-for-profit and open-access journals face is their lack of prestige in comparison to long-established, high-impact commercial journals. In many fields, publishing in prestigious commercial journals remains the most reliable path to securing tenure, promotion, and grants. This reliance on commercial publications creates a cycle where early-career researchers, in particular, feel pressured to publish in these journals to establish their careers.

Institutions, too, are complicit in this system, rewarding publications in top-tier commercial journals while failing to provide similar recognition for work published in not-for-profit journals. As a result, even researchers who support open access often find themselves caught in a system that prioritizes impact factor over accessibility and public good.

Breaking this cycle will require a fundamental shift in how academic merit is measured. Universities must begin rewarding faculty for contributing to not-for-profit platforms and open access journals. Tenure and promotion criteria need to evolve to place greater value on the societal impact of research, not just the prestige of the journal in which it is published.

Emerging Technologies and Decentralized Platforms

The digital revolution offers new opportunities to disrupt the dominance of commercial publishers. Decentralized platforms, such as blockchain-based systems, could transform academic publishing by offering transparent, tamper-proof records of research submissions, peer review, and editorial decisions. Blockchain’s potential lies in reducing the need for centralized gatekeepers, giving researchers greater control over the dissemination of their work.

However, the application of blockchain to academic publishing is still experimental. While it holds promise for greater transparency and decentralization, it has not yet been widely adopted. Similarly, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are beginning to assist in the academic peer review process by helping to identify potential issues with research integrity or bias, streamlining workflows, and matching manuscripts with appropriate reviewers. While AI can enhance efficiency, its current role remains supplementary, not a replacement for human judgment in peer review.

For these technological innovations to gain traction, they will need institutional backing and investment. Universities and governments must commit to funding these platforms, ensuring they are integrated into mainstream academic publishing.

Institutional Support and Global Impact

Institutions and governments have a key role to play in supporting the open access movement. Some universities have already taken proactive steps in this direction. For example, Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication advocates for open access policies across its faculties, and the European Commission’s Open Research Europe platform offers researchers a free, government-funded venue to publish their work.

These initiatives are critical in demonstrating the feasibility of open-access publishing, but much more is needed, particularly in developing regions. Scholars in the Global South, where research funding is scarce and access to high-cost journals is limited, stand to benefit most from open access. The democratization of knowledge can empower these researchers to contribute to the global scientific conversation on equal footing, helping to close the knowledge gap between wealthier and poorer nations.

However, for open access to become the norm, there must be a concerted effort from all stakeholders—governments, universities, funding agencies, and researchers themselves. Governments should mandate that publicly funded research be made available in open-access repositories, while universities should reexamine their tenure and promotion criteria to ensure that researchers are not penalized for publishing in not-for-profit, open-access journals.

A Call to Action for Equity in Knowledge Dissemination

Academic publishing should no longer be an elite, profit-driven enterprise. The solution is not just technological but ideological—rooted in a commitment to ensuring that research serves society, not corporations. By investing in not-for-profit models and supporting open-access platforms, we can ensure that the benefits of research are shared widely, beyond the academic bubble.

The time for systemic change is now. By supporting open access, institutions and governments can reclaim the dissemination of knowledge from profit-driven entities and restore the integrity of academic research.

Allen A. Espinosa is a postdoctoral fellow at the Faculty of Education, Charles University, in Prague, Czech Republic. He is currently on study leave as a professor of Science Education at the Educational Policy Research and Development Office of the Philippine Normal University. Allen holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, Australia. His research covers a wide range of topics, including policy research in education, teacher education, information disorder, and social justice in education. You may reach him at allen.espinosa@pedf.cuni.cz. 

  

Future teachers

Could these be our future teachers, one connection at a time?

teacher recruitment, , , , , ,

Why did over 100 high school students apply to the Future Teachers’ Club (FTC)? The answer lies in the connections they’ve experienced with their own teachers. 

What is FTC? The Future Teachers Club is a school-based initiative run by teachers for public secondary students interested in pursuing a career in teaching and engages its participants in behind-the-scenes activities to understand the scope and depth of the teaching profession.lThe Future Teachers Club (FTC) has been running at Macquarie Fields High School for over a decade under the guidance of visionary senior HSIE teacher Perry Celestino, and dedicated MFHS former school principal Jan Dolstra. 

The conference, held at the Chau Chak Wing Museum on Wednesday this week, saw students come from western and south western Sydney, Dubbo, Armidale and Mussellbrook in regional New South Wales to explore teaching as a profession. 

Where does teaching lead?

They wanted to see where teaching would lead them. They’d already been inspired by their own teachers and now they had the opportunity to explore how teaching creates opportunities to form relationships and make a difference. It offered these prospective teachers a unique combination of inspiration, storytelling, and practical insights into the joys and challenges of a teaching career.

The conference, a collaboration between the University of Sydney’s Sydney School of Education and Social Work and the NSW Department of Education, created a space to delve into the essence of teaching – a profession built on connection, relationships, and the profound impact of shared stories.

From the opening remarks by Professor Mark Scott, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sydney, to the workshops facilitated by expert educators, the event celebrated the intrinsic rewards of teaching. Professor Scott also acknowledged the daunting prospect of a four-year education degree but reframed it as an opportunity to develop new skills and forge a meaningful career.

The power of storytelling

At the heart of the conference was the power of storytelling. Dr Alison Grove O’Grady, Senior Lecturer and Chair of Initial Teacher Education, delivered a session on the classroom as a place for joy, connection, and shared talents. Drawing on her own experiences, Alison shared photos to illustrate her journey in teaching: one of which was from 1992, depicting her first Year 11 Drama class at Whalan High School in Mount Druitt.

The photo from Whalan High was a testament to the enduring relationships that define a teaching career. Alison spoke about the five students in the photo, recounting how their stories had shaped her life in education. In a touching moment, the niece of one of those students from the photo, who was present at The Future Teachers Conference approached Alison after the session to say, “That’s my aunt in that photo.” This deeply personal connection underscored the conference’s key theme: teaching is built on relationships. See photo. Yes permission given

Situated within the Chau Chak Wing Museum, the conference embraced the interdisciplinary nature of education, grounding the day in Aboriginal and First Nations histories and storytelling. The museum’s rich collection of Aboriginal artefacts and materials provided a meaningful context for exploring teaching as a way to preserve and share knowledge.

Forging connections

Speakers like Zoe Cassim, Program Manager for the Indigenous Literacy Foundation, and Kylie Captain, President of the Aboriginal Studies Association, highlighted the importance of Aboriginal ways of knowing and storytelling in education. Their contributions reinforced the idea that teaching is about forging connections—not only between teacher and student but also between past, present, and future.

For experienced educators like Alison Grove O’Grady and Dr Catherine Smyth, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education (Primary), the conference was a chance to give back to a profession that has brought them long and joyful careers. “As we move toward the end of our careers, it’s important to share our stories and the enormous joys and experiences we’ve had,” Alison reflected.

What the students said

One student remarked in a post-conference survey:

“Teaching creates new possibilities, the career benefits your skills and allows you to make valuable connections to school and staff.”

Another shared:

“I used to believe teaching was draining, but today I learnt that the reward was more important.”

These reflections highlight a key takeaway from the event: teaching is not just a career but a calling. It’s about sharing stories, building relationships, and creating a sense of community – values that resonated deeply with attendees.

The conference wasn’t just about the attendees’ futures – it was about shaping the future of education itself. Murat Dizdar, Secretary of the NSW Department of Education, told students, “Teaching is the profession that creates all other professions,” and even shared his personal email, inviting them to contact him directly for job opportunities. His gesture underscored the importance of nurturing a new generation of teachers.

Students left the conference inspired, with one remarking: “This gave me an insight into behind-the-scenes of teaching.”

One message was clear

By the end of the day, one message was clear: education is a cornerstone of community and connection. As Alison summed up, “Teaching is about relationships, sharing our own stories, and creating moments.” Held in the inspiring setting of the Chau Chak Wing Museum, surrounded by ancestors and grounded in First Nations histories, the conference embodied this vision of teaching as a dynamic and deeply rewarding profession.

For those who attended, the Future Teachers Conference was an invitation to step into a career that shapes lives and creates possibilities, one relationship at a time.

Left to right: Alison Grove O’Grady is Chair of Initial Teacher Education and Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, School of Education and Social Work. Her research focuses on pedagogies of empathy, as performed and action-oriented methods, to develop teachers’ understanding of self, multiple identities and voices.

Kate Smyth is Program Director (B.Ed. Primary) in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Kate works extensively with initial teachers, alumni and other educators in supporting primary teacher professional learning collaborations in rural, remote and urban schools in NSW, and she has been co-leader of professional learning experiences in Vietnam and Indonesia. 

Thomas De Angelis is the Research Associate – Strategic Projects at the CREATE Centre, a research centre based at the University of Sydney that investigates the impact of the arts on education, health and wellbeing. Thomas also works as a lecturer and tutor and is currently completing a PhD and Academic Fellowship with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

Virtual reality

Virtual reality: We wanted to future proof our students. Here’s what we did

virtual reality, , , ,

Simmi is enrolled in the Postgraduate Course in  Early Childhood Teaching course at Swinburne University of Technology. She is concerned about her need for more knowledge about interacting and working closely with young children, especially as an international pre-service teacher starting her first placement in Australia. She has learned about Mursion, a virtual reality (VR) simulation tool utilised in her course to address this. This technology aims to help international students navigate the cultural differences and classroom dynamics in Australian early childhood settings.

Research shows one in five of 1,200 surveyed individuals working in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) intended to leave their workplaces within 12 months. With the increasing diversity in Australian education and the current teacher workforce shortage, finding new ways to prepare international students for the early childhood setting is necessary. Virtual Reality (VR) revolutionises Initial Teacher Education (ITE) by providing international pre-service teachers with immersive experiences in early childhood education. Integrating VR technologies can better prepare pre-service teachers for working with young children.

Realistic scenarios

Such a program enables Simmi to become immersed in realistic early childhood scenarios using virtual reality. It allows her to practice managing and engaging with diverse children’s avatars in a risk-free environment. Integrating VR into ITE can benefit international students by providing immersive, reflective, and culturally responsive experiences. This, in turn, can enhance adaptability, improve teaching methods. It also bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application for pre-service teachers in the Australian early childhood context.

Education is no stranger to transformation in an era of rapidly advancing technology. But how does this technological shift impact future teachers, especially in Early Childhood Education (ECE)? At Swinburne University, we explore this through Mursion, a VR simulation platform integrated into Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs.

Why this particular platform?

VR is already common in fields like aviation, medicine, and military simulation and training. Its use in teacher education is relatively new. The Mursion platform generates a virtual world, typically a multi-user, computer-based environment enabling users to interact through pre-programmed avatars. Other Australian universities have utilised Mursion to enhance their courses, including teacher education. But Swinburne is unique through its application to the early childhood context. Through the Mursion platform, pre-service teachers engage in “situational simulations” that authentically replicate genuine early childhood environments. It enables them to have interpersonal interactions with live avatars. This level of realism is valuable for developing crucial teaching skills and strategies before encountering real-world classroom challenges.

These simulations are particularly advantageous for pre-service teachers, especially international students. It allows them to familiarise themselves with the context of Australian early childhood education. What sets Swinburne apart is our tailored approach to integrating Mursion specifically for early childhood educators. But why does this matter? Early childhood educators have a profound impact on children’s development and learning. We prepare them to navigate the complexities of real-world EC settings by equipping them with practical skills through immersive VR.

Australian Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers face the critical task of ensuring that pre-service teachers meet the Graduate career stage of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. This includes the essential ability to manage classroom situations effectively. While practical placements are indispensable for developing these teaching skills, they demand significant resources and time. Recognising these challenges, ITE providers are exploring innovative approaches like Virtual Reality (VR) to complement traditional placements.

Virtual reality gaining traction

VR-based simulations are gaining traction across Australian universities. They offer immersive and interactive learning experiences that support the development of teaching competencies. VR improves in several key areas.  

  1. These simulations provide a safe and controlled environment where pre-service teachers can practice and refine their skills without the pressures of a real classroom. For instance, the University of Newcastle has implemented a suite of VR technologies. That allows pre-service teachers to engage in realistic teaching scenarios and receive immediate feedback. 
  2. These simulations increase student motivation, improve collaboration and knowledge construction and enhance classroom practices    
  3. Enable students to revisit and review lessons as often as needed to solidify their grasp of key concepts. 
  4. Additionally, minimising feelings of unease and self-consciousness that might otherwise hinder students from fully engaging in activities like role-playing. 

Bridges a connection

Unlike other virtual simulations like SimSchool, Mursion’s Human-in-the-Loop interaction model stands out. In this model, live actors control avatars, offering realistic and responsive classroom scenarios for pre-service teachers. These actors can observe pre-service teachers via webcams and dynamically respond to their speech and body language. That creates an interactive and responsive simulation environment. It bridges a connection between Artificial intelligence (AI) and the human world. We firmly believe this human element is essential for creating authentic, culturally responsive simulations. It’s particularly true for international students who need to understand the nuances of the Australian education system. At Swinburne, we’ve found Mursion’s interactive platform uniquely caters to our students’ diverse needs. It provides them with the practice they need before stepping into a real classroom. Therefore, our research aims are 

  1. Explore the transformative power of immersive VR Mursion in boosting the self-efficacy of international students.  
  2. Uncover the profound impact of immersive VR Mursion on enhancing international students’ cultural understanding within the Australian educational landscape.  
  3. Pioneer a sustainable ECEC system on a global scale, empowering international students to apply their cultural insights in diverse educational environments.  
  4. Empower pre-service teachers to hone their pedagogical and classroom management skills, enriching their teaching journey.  
  5. Craft a secure simulated environment for refining teaching approaches that transcend cultural-educational boundaries. 

Supporting early childhood educators

The field of Early Childhood Education (ECE) presents significant challenges. To excel in this field, early childhood teachers must possess foundational teaching skills and the ability to effectively manage the developmental needs of young children, navigate family dynamics, and create inclusive learning environments. Mursion VR simulations are designed to address these challenges, providing pre-service teachers with a platform to engage in lifelike interactions that mirror real-world EC settings.  

During their practical placement, pre-service teachers in the EC field may encounter a variety of demanding scenarios. These could range from supporting a child showing signs of emotional distress to engaging in difficult conversations with parents or implementing early intervention strategies for children with learning differences. By immersing themselves in these scenarios using Mursion, pre-service teachers can cultivate the professional skills, confidence, and cultural competence necessary to overcome these challenges.  

Providing a place to practise using virtual reality

In our Postgraduate Course in  Early Childhood Teaching course, most students come from diverse educational backgrounds and hold bachelor’s qualifications. As part of the course, they engage in interactive sessions using Mursion to practice and refine their interactions with children, preparing them for the intricacies of the EC environment and the art of conversing with young children. For instance, within the Mursion environment, students find themselves in a typical early childhood setting, surrounded by avatars of children engaged in conversations, mirroring the real-life dynamics of an Australian early childhood setting during group time. Refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of this immersive experience. 

Figure 1: Using the Mursion in Postgraduate Course in  Early Childhood Teaching Class at Swinburne 

A year of success in early childhood teaching

Swinburne University’s Postgraduate Course in  Early Childhood Teaching course has used Mursion successfully for over a year. The course was developed to prepare an international student cohort, and Mursion was implemented as a placement preparation tool before entering early childhood settings. Mursion allows our students to practice challenging scenarios—like managing classroom behaviour or adapting to cultural differences—without the high stakes of a real classroom. Aligned with Swinburne’s broader strategic goals, Mursion’s role in the course has been crucial in adapting teacher education to a rapidly evolving, tech-driven landscape. Positive student feedback embraced the simulation technology, which helped pre-service teachers build essential skills, particularly in classroom management and teacher identity. This enabled academic staff to continue its utilisation alongside traditional placements when students could return to classroom settings.   

Overcoming initial reservations

Of course, there were concerns. Could virtual simulations substitute face-to-face teaching practice? Would pre-service teachers engage meaningfully with virtual avatars? As we reflect on a year of student feedback, the answer is clear: yes. Mursion has exceeded our expectations by providing a “risk-free space” where students can make mistakes, reflect on their experiences, and improve their teaching strategies. 

To ensure the simulated lessons remain practical, we’ve aligned them with the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and National Quality Standard (NQS). This alignment makes the experience immersive and deeply relevant to the real-world standards our students will face in their placements. 

Enhancing student learning through virtual reality

The primary goal of using Mursion is to enhance learning outcomes. How? By bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and its application. Pre-service teachers can experiment with lesson delivery, refine classroom management strategies, and receive immediate feedback while engaging in a safe, controlled environment. The simulations enable students to gain confidence, especially in situations they might find intimidating or unfamiliar. 

For instance, students reflect on their VR experiences using platforms like Padlet, sharing how simulations have helped them better understand classroom dynamics. These reflections provide valuable insights into how Mursion has impacted their learning. They are then unpacked in class debriefing discussions, where tutors and students work together to address challenges and refine their teaching techniques. 

Constructive feedback

We have received positive and constructive feedback from students, which is helping the academics to redevelop the Mursion lesson plan. A student said, “We have received positive and constructive feedback from students . . . helping us to redevelop the Mursion lesson plan. The students gave positive feedback about the Mursion and self-reflected on how to improve themselves during interactions with children. One student mentioned, “I learned a lot through this session and how to interact with children and make them comfortable. I enjoyed this. However, it was a bit hard to remember all the children’s names and sometimes hard to hear what they said.”

Some students realised remembering names is important for continuing conversations with children. They devised a solution by quickly writing down the children’s names during the process. This feedback not only gives us a chance to refine the lesson plan. It also allows us to work together to address the challenges and find techniques. 

Adapting to a new education system with unfamiliar norms can be challenging. Yet Mursion’s simulations offer a realistic, low-pressure environment where teachers can practice culturally responsive strategies. These simulations reflect the diversity of Australian early childhood education (ECE) settings. It allows pre-service teachers to build confidence in managing real-world situations. We found that the Mursion simulations gave pre-service teachers the practical tools to implement the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), enhancing their cultural competence and readiness to support diverse, inclusive, and responsive early childhood environments.  

Looking Ahead: The Future of Virtual Reality in Teacher Education 

The high attrition rate among early childhood educators in Australia is largely attributed to the demanding nature of working in diverse early childhood environments. Our current research highlights the transformative influence of VR and AI technologies on teacher preparedness, particularly in empowering educators to navigate complex and ever-changing classroom dynamics. Australian initial teacher education (ITE) providers are at the forefront of this innovation, fostering a thriving national community of practice in simulation-based teacher education. Through further advancement and integration of VR and AI technologies, ITE programs can effectively equip future teachers to address the evolving needs of their students and the broader educational landscape. Envisioning a future where VR simulations are seamlessly integrated into teacher training programs across Australia is exciting and essential for advancing education. 

One year

As we celebrate one year of Mursion’s successful implementation, it’s clear that this is only the beginning. VR offers immense potential to revolutionise teacher education further, especially as we continue to refine our approach and expand its use. Our aim is to prepare future educators to survive and thrive in culturally diverse, ever-changing teaching and learning environments. By embracing innovative tools like Mursion, we’re ensuring that our pre-service teachers are equipped with the skills, confidence, and cultural awareness they need to succeed in early childhood education. 

Mursion is more than just a VR tool—it’s a transformative educational experience that bridges the gap between theory and practice, allowing international pre-service teachers to adapt, learn, and grow. 

Jennifer Cutri is a lecturer and researcher at the Department of Education, School of Social Sciences, Media, Film and Education, Swinburne University of Technology. She is the Course Director for the Bachelor of Education Early Childhood Teaching and Bachelor of Education Studies. During her six years in the department, Jennifer has lectured and Unit-Convened various units in the Bachelor of Early Childhood and Primary, Masters of Primary, and Postgraduate Course in Early Childhood Teaching courses.

Anamika Devi brings over 13 years of research, teaching, and industry experience in early childhood education to her role at Swinburne. Prior to joining Swinburne, Anamika served as the lecturer and program director of the Postgraduate Course in  Early Childhood at RMIT, where she made a significant contribution to the field of early childhood education. She has been working with a diverse range of teams, including casual staff, workforce, L&T, enrolment, adminstrative, placement, production and marketing teams. She has experience in re-accreditation process, with a particular focus on documentation.

AI in the classroom

Teachers truly know students and how they learn. Does AI?

artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence in schools, , , ,

Time-strapped teachers are turning to advanced AI models like ChatGPT and Perplexity to streamline lesson planning. Simply by entering prompts like “Generate a comprehensive three-lesson sequence on geographical landforms,” they can quickly receive a detailed teaching program tailored to the lesson content, complete with learning outcomes, suggested resources, classroom management tips and more.

What’s not to like? This approach represents a pragmatic solution to educators’ overwhelming workloads. It also explains the rapid adoption of AI-driven planning tools by both schoolteachers and the universities that train them.  

And what do we say to the naysayers? Don’t waste your time raging against the machine. AI is here! AI is the future! 

Can AI know students and how they learn?

But what does wide-scale AI adoption mean for the fundamental skills and knowledge that lie at the heart of teaching – those that inform the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers? Take Standard 1.3, for example, “Know Students and how they learn”. This standard requires teachers to show that they understand teaching strategies that respond to the learning strengths and needs of students from diverse linguistic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Can AI handle this type of differentiation effectively? 

Of course! Teachers simply need to add the following phrase to the original prompt: “The lesson sequence should include strategies that differentiate for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds”. Hey presto! The revised lesson sequence now incorporates strategies such as getting students to write a list of definitions for key terms,  using scaffolding techniques, implementing explicit teaching, and allowing students to use their home languages from time to time. 

Even better, AI can create a worksheet that includes thoughtful questions such as, “What are some important landforms in your home country?”, “What do you call this type of landform in your home language?” and so on. With these modifications, we have effectively achieved differentiation for a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. Problem solved! 

Can AI deal with the mix?

Or have we? Can AI truly comprehend the complexities of diversity within a single classroom? Consider this scenario: you are a teacher in western Sydney, where 95 per cent of your class comes from a Language Background other than English (LBOTE). This is not uncommon in NSW, where one in three students belongs to this category. 

Your class comprises a mix of high-achieving, gifted and talented individuals—some of whom are expert English users, while others are new arrivals who have been assessed as “Emerging” on the EALD Learning Progression. These students need targeted language support to comprehend the curriculum. 

Your students come from various backgrounds. Some are Aboriginal Australian students, while others come from Sudan, China, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Some have spent over three years in refugee camps before arriving in Australia, with no access to formal education. Others live in Sydney without their families. Some are highly literate, while others have yet to master basic academic literacy skills in English.

Going beyond

In this context, simply handing out a worksheet and expecting students to write about landforms in their “home country” can be an overwhelming and confusing task. For some students, being asked to write or speak in their “home language” while the rest of the class communicates in English may trigger discomfort or even traumatic memories related to the conflicts they have escaped. Recognising these nuances is essential for effective differentiation and raises important questions about whether AI can sufficiently navigate the complexities of such diverse classrooms. 

Teachers must go beyond merely knowing their students’ countries of origin; they need to delve into their background stories. This includes appreciating and encouraging the language and cultural resources that students bring to the classroom—often referred to as their virtual schoolbag. Additionally, educators must recognise that access to material resources, such as technology and reading materials, can vary significantly among students. Understanding how students’ religious backgrounds may influence their perspectives and engagement with the content is equally important. Only by taking these factors into account can teachers create a truly inclusive and responsive learning environment.

Then there’s the content itself. Teachers need to critically evaluate the content they plan to teach by asking themselves several important questions. That includes: What are my own biases and blind spots related to this subject matter? What insights might my students have that I am unaware of? What sensitivities could arise in discussions about this content concerning values, knowledge, and language? Most importantly, how can I teach this material in a culturally and linguistically responsive  manner that promotes my students’ well-being and achievement?

One overarching concern

All of these questions point to one overarching concern: Can AI truly address all of these considerations, or are they essential to the inherently human and relational nature of teaching?

Australian linguist and emeritus professor of language and literacy education at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Joseph Lo Bianco says the benefits of AI have been significantly overstated when it comes to addressing language and culture effectively in classroom teaching. 

Although AI excels at transmitting and synthesising information, it cannot replace the essential interpersonal connections and subjectivity necessary for authentic intercultural understanding. The emotions, creativity, and personalised approaches essential for meaningful teaching and learning are inherently human qualities. 

AI, an aid not a replacement

While AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity offer impressive efficiencies for lesson planning, they cannot replace the nuanced understanding and relational dynamics that define effective teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Teachers need to recognise that AI can aid in differentiation but lacks the capacity to fully comprehend students’ individual experiences, histories, and emotional landscapes. The complexities of student backgrounds, the significance of personal narratives, and the critical need for empathetic engagement cannot be reduced to algorithms. 

As we embrace AI in education, we must remain vigilant in advocating for a pedagogical approach that prioritises human connection and cultural responsiveness. Ultimately, teacher AI literacy should encompass not just the technical skills to integrate AI into classrooms but also the profound understanding of students as whole individuals, fostering an inclusive environment that values each learner’s unique contributions. In this way, we can harness the power of technology while ensuring it complements the irreplaceable art of teaching.



Sue Ollerhead is a senior lecturer in Languages and Literacy Education and the Director of the Secondary Education Program at Macquarie University. Her expertise lies in English language and literacy learning and teaching in multicultural and multilingual education contexts. Her research interests include translanguaging, multilingual pedagogies, literacy across the curriculum and oracy development in schools. 

Music: Enthusiastic singers

Our nationally-leading music courses are now under threat

Curriculum review, Music education, , , , , ,

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) curriculum review puts music courses at risk, not just in NSW, but across Australia. NSW has twice the number of students taking music than any other state. That makes it a leader.

The proposed changes fall short of research, best practice, and teacher expectations. This is despite NESA’s claims of strengthening post-school pathways and fostering lifelong learning, . 

Worst of all, the “revamped” Music 1 course—the country’s most popular Year 12 offering — severs meaningful ties to further study or the music industry.

The back story

NSW has historically enjoyed the leading music curriculum in the country, when measured by innovations and research internationally.NSW modernised its senior music syllabuses in the 1980s and embraced integrated learning: students performed, composed improvised alongside traditional literacy and aural skills. This inclusive approach reflects real-world diversity and career pathways. It was strengthened in the 90s and in 2000 by a focus on multiculturalism, contemporary Australian music, and student specialisation.

“Music 1” is by far the most popular course. It’s a music-for-everyone course. You don’t need to have studied an instrument privately for years to take Music 1. You can be a Chopin-loving pianist, a shredding guitar soloist, or an Electronic Dance Music producer. You can study any music of the last 1,000 years. You can elect to specialise in performing, composing, or musicology. Or you can balance each of those learning experiences. 

Envy of the nation

This broad choice has made us the envy of the nation. Dr Emily Wilson, senior lecturer in Music Education at the University of Melbourne, usually speaks jealously when she talks about our courses, because she says that at around 7% of the total HSC candidature, it’s twice the rate of student engagement compared to Victoria and Queensland. 

“Music 2”, in its own words, “focuses on the study of Western art music”. Even this more traditional course was really cutting-edge for its time. It insisted all students learn to compose, even if their specialisation was in performance. And in the HSC year , it focuses on contemporary Australian Music rather than classical or romantic repertoire. Music Extension can only be taken by Music 2 students, with a Western art music focus. It has allowed these students to do a further specialisation in one area of their choice.

These courses were far from perfect. They feature outdated elements like requiring song submissions via written scores. Also, the obsolete “Concepts of Music” highlighted the need for more authentic approaches to music theory and literacy. Pedagogical breakthroughs in other countries would benefit NSW. These include  the extensive research and practice in informal learning, and culturally responsive pedagogy.

The problem at NESA

Concerns about NESA’s reform began early. Educators experienced disappointment with the new K-6 and 7-10 syllabuses. They regressed from evidence-based integrated approaches and added rigid content. The opaque process was marked by non-disclosure agreements and vague public feedback summaries. By NESA’s own admission, it left educators guessing how their input shaped the final drafts.

The NSW syllabuses since the 1990s had been based on Swanwick and Tillman’s 1986 Curriculum Spiral model . NSW used to pride itself on a continuum from year 7 to year 12, with skills  built on at each stage of learning. The proposed changes erase the continuity in the senior curriculum, performing, listening, and composing in years 7-10.

NESA relies on a workforce with varied professional backgrounds – rather than subject experts with deep teaching experience. That leads to poor decisions and leaves specialists grappling with flawed syllabuses. Meaningful consultation—such as face-to-face sessions across the state, not just online updates—would boost teacher morale. That’s particularly true in rural areas, where the process currently feels like a steamroller, pushing ahead despite clear deficiencies.

NESA’s shortcomings in understanding music education have been replicated in the recent release of an equally poorly researched and written drama course. All of the evidence (in the syllabuses themselves) suggests this is because of NESA’s intransigent position toward making the Arts subjects fit into the same template and nomenclature as the more “important” subjects such as maths, English, and science.

Attacks on Music 1 – Time Travelling, backwards

Music 1 has been the leading music course in the country because of its breadth of choice and inclusion. The draft syllabus destroys the diversity and inclusivity of the existing course, while at the same time making it weaker against its own evidence base.

Gone are the wide range of topics that can be studied, and in their place a restrictive list of mandatory “Focus Areas”. While many have incorrectly thought of Music 1 as “the pop course”, it actually served as a conduit for many classically-trained musicians in public schools that could not afford to run both courses. Sadly, that is most of them. Under the new mandatory list, this is impossible. Now songwriters, DJs, producers, and other contemporary musicians will be forced to study topics of little interest to them or relevance to their future careers. It is an aggressive narrowing of the curriculum which experts believe will lead to widespread disengagement from the course. Prescribed topics were part of the early music syllabuses for the 1950s Leaving Certificate, carried over to the first HSC music syllabuses, then relinquished in the 1980s in line with leading research and practice.

The proposed examination includes the introduction of a two-hour aural exam with increased weighting. The composition and musicology electives are being binned, reminiscent of the 1970s.

Attacks on Music 2 and Extension

The proposed Music 2 examination allocates 40 marks each to written and performance exams, with restrictive performance options and limited topic choices. That curbs students’ ability to pursue their interests. The composition component, worth 20 marks, mandates a duet, trio, or accompanied solo within a narrow focus on recent Australian art music. While these changes may aim for equity, they undermine the syllabus’s flexibility and breadth. Similarly, the Extension examination now limits specialisations, requiring either two performance pieces (including an ensemble) or two compositions, alongside another 50-mark written aural exam focused on unspecified ‘prescribed’ repertoire—an approach reminiscent of rigid external testing. NESA’s pushing of written exams is a return to post-Sputnik debates about legitimising music in the curriculum in the 1950s. 

We assume – we hope –  NESA does not realise that it is repeating the mistakes of 70 years ago.

What does the research base really tell us?

The current curriculum reform, meant to be based on the Geoff Masters review Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, diverges significantly from its recommendations. The report called for simplifying an overcrowded curriculum but the new music syllabuses introduce more content points and prescriptive structures. It advocated integrating knowledge and skills, yet the new syllabuses prioritise what Elliott & Silverman term “verbal knowledge”—written knowledge about music—over musical knowledge, assessed through music-making. 

Instead of flexibility, the new syllabuses impose mandated content, reducing teachers’ ability to adapt to their students. As Fuller notes, what works best may not work best for music education. Carter critiques NESA’s focus on the HSC, which pressures teachers to prioritize exam preparation over broader learning. Hughes highlights NSW’s fixation on maintaining standards and traditional benchmarks, with assessment driving curriculum changes. Teachers, however, recognise the importance of holistic approaches, and research confirms that successful teaching builds on students’ understanding of the subject.

A restrictive, exam-focused syllabus will inevitably result in restrictive, exam-focused teaching.

We need transparent curriculum reform led by experts

NSW is the biggest education system nationally and has led the way with senior secondary music enrolments for many years. This is due to its focus on active music making and promoting choice for students. That in turn places value on the musical interests of students, their autonomy, agency and inclusion. 

We asked our Melbourne colleague Emily Wilson what she made of the new draft syllabuses and she said “Following a recent major review of the Victorian Certification of Education Music Study Design, we now have ‘Music Inquiry’, a project-based music subject explicitly positioned as music-for-everyone, moving Victoria closer to the existing NSW HSC Music 1 course.

Every student a stakeholder

“We have been looking to NSW for almost 35 years to lead the way with a progressive curricula. It’s important that this continues so that senior secondary music curricula keeps pace with the ever increasing rate of change in the music industry and broader society. Every Australian student and music teacher is a stakeholder in the NSW HSC Music Syllabus.”

James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.


After a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools, and Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW, Jennifer Carter worked as a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She was a sessional lecturer for primary music and secondary music preservice teachers and has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.

manopshere

What schools should do now the manosphere thinks it’s back in charge

creative and critical thinking (CCT), Critical thinking, Gender, respectful relationships, teaching gender respect, Uncategorized, , , , , ,

The men who helped Trump sweep to victory through inspiring young men to vote, such as billionaire investor Elon Musk and podcaster Joe Rogan, hold a network of power and influence that might further exacerbate  the undermining of women and girls’ rights and safety during a second Donald Trump presidency and beyond. 

Given the existing reach of far-right, misogynist figures in Australian schools, it’s also important to consider potential implications for Australian education. 

Here in Australia, pre-election polling found Australian men were more likely to indicate support for Trump than women. More starkly, while a lower figure than those American young men who voted for Trump, a significant 43% of Australian men under 30 indicated their support for Trump over Harris. While some data indicate Trump’s appeal to young men is based on economic policy and job prospects, it’s impossible to ignore the appeal of strongman politics, misogyny and male supremacy. 

This type of misogyny is highly influential. Now no longer restricted to online spaces, it is likely that we will see boys and young men emulating and repeating Trump’s views and attitudes. Taking this alongside the polling data from Australia that  indicate broad support for Trumpian politics, policies and persona, there will likely be waves of influence in Australian schools that will require policy, curriculum and leadership-level response. 

Urgent need for training in critical thinking about the manosphere

Trump has a history of endorsing conspiracy theories. During his campaign, he affiliated himself with anti-abortion and anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist, RJK Jr, who said Trump had promised him control of public health agencies, ‘because we’ve got to get off of seed oils and we’ve got to get off of pesticide.’ 

For boys and young men consuming manosphere content and vulnerable to its misinformation, the emboldening effect of Trump’s election will have very real impacts on their understanding of key global issues, as well as girls’ and women’s safety.

This will make curriculum attention to critical thinking an essential and urgent priority. Critical and creative thinking has long been a general capability included in the Australian Curriculum. Now we need to pay specific attention to equipping young people with skills to identify misinformation and resist pervasive conspiracy theories; and increase all students’ critical digital literacy skills to understand how the manosphere exploits and manipulates their feelings and beliefs. 

Brazen disregard for truth

Trump’s brazen disregard for truth and fact mirrors other manosphere figures, such as Tate, Trump and Joe Rogan. Both Trump and Rogan have claimed that Invermectin cures COVID and that vaccines alter your genes, among other conspiracies.Trump’s presidency is also a threat to climate action, which significantly regressed under his previous term. Joe Rogan and fellow manosphere figure Jordan Petersen have also faced criticism by scientists for their public climate change denialism. A conversation that took place on X between Trump and Musk was also widely condemned for being seeped in climate misinformation. The outcome of the election has also clearly emboldened white supremacists in the US, and is likely to do the same for such groups in Australia. This is especially concerning given their visibility has been already growing here in recent years..

Trump and manosphere support in Australia 

Our research has indicated that figures of the manosphere—a term used to describe online groups, individuals and forums who represent anti-feminist and anti-women ideas—have influenced how boys behave towards women and girls in Australian schools. Andrew Tate is one of the most infamous members of the manosphere, a public misogynist charged with rape and human trafficking. 

Once the election results were becoming clear, Tate announced that he is ‘moving back to America’—a clear endorsement of the election result and the permission provided for men like him to thrive in Trump’s America. 

Tate later proudly boasted that ‘the men are back in charge’. He was making it clear women’s grievances were irrelevant now a male supremacist president was reinstalled. 

These statements align with the comments posted by prominent far-right leader and activist Nick Fuentes, who posted on X ‘Your body, my choice. Forever’. This vile sentiment very quickly became a viral meme, across all the major social media sites. It was even printed on T-shirts and readied for purchase. Australian women have also reported being on the receiving end of the ‘’your body, my choice’ statement as well as experiencing an increase in violent and misogynist messages from men online since Trump’s election win. 

In a climate of increasing hostility and endemic levels of violence against women, the affirmation of male supremacist ideas and attitudes by the election of a misogynist to public office presents a very real threat to women’s safety in Australia. 

Viral misogyny 

Tate’s influence on other manosphere creators and sympathisers and the viral spread of his misogynistic ideas is part of a phenomenon known as ‘networked misogyny’. The endorsement of Trump by high-profile figures such as Rogan and Musk provide an example of how figures of the manosphere work to support each other and provide access to power. For example, Musk used his significant profile on X to ‘amplify right-wing conspiracy theories, spread misinformation and promote the Republican candidate.’ 

Algorithms presenting manosphere content such as Andrew Tate’s to boys and young men regardless of whether they search for it. There is now a strong body of research documenting the ways that this content shapes how boys and young men treat women. This includes sexist and derogatory comments and behaviour. It also includes a refusal to accept the gender wage gap is real and opposition to gender equity. 

Inaccurate beliefs

These beliefs are key parts of grievance politics that were key to Trump’s success, and feed inaccurate beliefs about disadvantage and lack of opportunity. These ideas find homes in the minds of boys and young men, who in return begin to see women and girls as barriers to their success. 

It is crucial we increase all students’ critical digital literacy skills to understand the malign influence of the manosphere. With Australia heading into an election year in 2025, this need is more critical than ever. 

Stephanie Wescott is a lecturer in Humanities in Social Sciences in the School of Education, Culture and Society, Monash University Faculty of Education. Her research explores socio-political phenomena and their intersections with education policy and practice.

Steven Roberts is a professor of Education and Social Justice in the School of Education, Culture and Society at Monash University Faculty of Education. He is a sociologist and has published widely in the areas of Critical Studies of Men and Masculinities and Critical Youth Studies.