AARE blog

drama syllabus

Dramatic setback: Why the newly drafted senior drama syllabus falls short of a quality creative arts education

Arts education, drama, , , , ,

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) just released new draft senior Creative Arts syllabuses for Year 11 and Year 12 students, including the drama syllabus. The announcement comes as part of raft of changes following the NSW Curriculum Review, ambitiously titled Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion. 

Among the new draft syllabuses, the subject of senior drama received its first major revamp since 2009. This means that the current opportunity for enhancing drama curriculum is momentous.

This curriculum review represented a potential step towards elevating the status of drama in schools and society. Drama is, after all, is one of the most important subjects in preparing students for the world of work.  The draft review fails drama and drama students.

Your chance to evaluate

Teachers, academics and other stakeholders now have the chance to evaluate the proposed drama syllabus in a formal consultation period that ends on 20 December 2024.

However, the interim reaction among stakeholders is mostly negative. Educators are dissatisfied and disappointed. The refined content reduces rather than strengthens the learning opportunities necessary for delivering a quality drama (and creative arts) education. This issue starts at a policy level and extends well beyond the decision-making practices of any school leaders and teachers. 

A dramatic cut 

The elimination of the HSC Group Performance examination is the most significant notable change. What’s in its place? An internally assessed rather than externally examined ensemble piece. This shift devalues the Group Performance as a major work that requires students to collaborate to devise an original piece of theatre. 

For many teachers and students, this component of HSC drama is the preeminent experience because of the intellectual demand and corroboration of knowledge and skills in making, performing and appreciating drama. It is also a vital means to valuing actor-audience relationships and honouring communication and storytelling through the relay of meaning in real time.

The devaluing of this core component of the existing drama syllabus is a threat to the craft of drama. It produces an overreliance on prescribed content and leaves fewer legitimate opportunities to showcase the dramatic arts as intended through style or form, role and character, and structure and action. 

It also signals cost-cutting measures. Facilitating external examinations across the state of NSW is not inexpensive. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. 

Elimination of choice

Additionally, the proposed drama syllabus eliminates choices for the Individual Project. This component of the drama course requires students to communicate a directorial vison for a key text through deep exploration and application of specialised knowledge and skills. Current project options are Director’s Folio, Portfolio of Theatre Criticism, Costume Design, Lighting Design, Promotion and Program Design, Set Design, Scriptwriting, Video Drama, and Performance. 

However, the draft syllabus cuts Director’s Folio, Lighting Design and Video Drama. These projects are three critically important parts for sustaining any theatrical tradition and the entertainment industry more broadly. 

A reduction of choice might seem small. But we cannot underestimate the value of enabling students to choose which content to pursue to nurture their creative abilities. Giving students choice in drama specifically provides a scope and flexibility that is rare among most subjects. It provides learning benefits such as skills in time-management, self-regulation, creative autonomy, and risk-taking. In a society that looks to encourage higher order thinking and creative skills, such a move is retrograde at best.

Missing the texture

The draft syllabus now states that “All Individual projects, excluding performance, will be submitted electronically to reflect industry practice and support best practice in marking processes” (see p. 9). Now, projects are packaged and posted, then sent through the mail for external examination. This process is necessary because the projects are tactile in nature; for example, costume design projects tend to use carefully chosen and delicate fabric swatches. 

Limiting the Individual Project to digital submissions impedes creative and aesthetic possibilities available to students and is a disservice to the art form. The justification that this change aligns with “industry practice” relies on using software programs that many schools simply cannot afford to purchase. And the point about “best practice in marking processes” is debatable. 

Eroding the arts by curriculum design

Unfortunately, arts subjects are usually first on the chopping block in schools (and universities). 

Recent research also reveals a worrying decline in the proportion of NSW public secondary students participating in creative arts courses in Years 10, 11 and 12. This includes dance, drama, music, visual arts, visual design, and photographic and digital media. 

But any view that arts subjects appear less popular or that students are abandoning arts subjects overlooks that they are ranked lowly in the status spectrum of school subjects. They are deliberately positioned as optional extras – ‘peripheral’ as opposed to so-called ‘core’ learning areas. This subject hierarchy means that students are rarely equipped to make informed choices about studying arts subjects (or not) due to a lack of quality learning experiences within arts subjects. 

Indeed, this curriculum context remains devastatingly unjust given a vast majority of Australian school students still have little or no access to quality arts education. It also neglects the inherent value and human need for the arts and goes against a growing body of research about the benefits of arts education. If we learnt one thing from the recent Pandemic, it was the need for all of us to engage and consume arts content in a time of isolation.

‘Revival’ of the arts in Australia?

Ironically, the federal Labor Government (2022) initiated changes on a policy front that position the arts as an important agenda. Specifically, the national policy, Revive, outlines five pillars designed to enhance the cultural ambitions of Australia over the next five years and beyond. They are:  

  • First Nations First;  
  • A Place for Every Story;  
  • Centrality of the Artist;  
  • Strong Cultural Infrastructure; and  
  • Engaging the Audience.  

These pillars provide a timely policy framework for rethinking the role of the arts in society and education, particularly for nurturing the lives, livelihoods, and wellbeing of people across the country. 

A degree of scepticism

However, this policy warrants a degree of scepticism. The focus on ‘revival’ conveys a need to restore resources and strategies that are deficient given deliberate attempts to erode them. 

The gap between national policy aspirations and the proposed curriculum changes to creative arts subjects such as drama has severe potential consequences for what students have the opportunity to learn in school, and the future possibilities available to them outside of school, in terms of employment or otherwise. 

The hearings of 2024 NSW Inquiry into Arts Education continually demonstrated the ongoing diminishment, paucity and degradation of the Creative Arts in schools; despite the wealth of talent in both staff, pupils, and the wider community. As educators we can choose to either focus on basic skills creating industrial automatons, or recognise the Arts as a key skill to empower articulate, inventive, and engaged future citizens. When students study the Creative Arts they succeed across all aspects of their education, and beyond.

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.

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.

Aboriginal cultures and histories

Aboriginal cultures and histories: ‘Deep truths’ about content in the new syllabuses

Aboriginal Cultures and Histories, , ,

 As many in the curriculum ‘engine room’ know, curriculum development is a complex collaborative process that is dependent on a range of factors. 

Some of those factors include:  legislative frameworks of governments, curriculum reviews, policy cycles, inquiry recommendations, political priorities, funding, sources of evidence, community partnerships, education sector capacity and the available and accessed expertise of the developers. All of these make a very real impact on what the children of families across this continent experience each business day when they enter a school and its various learning environments. 

Curriculum development from outside the ‘engine room’ can be a difficult space to engage with. Specialist mechanisms and user experiences can change with each batch of syllabus output.  There is usually a period of some apprehension for educators and system representatives as consultation phases on draft syllabuses take place and eventually give way to published syllabuses, ready for implementation. 

Deep time history does not appear

Scrutiny of the new NSW History 7-10 Syllabus (2024) reveals that, indeed, as Michael Westaway, Bruce Pascoe and Louise Zarmati wrote in the Conversation, the concept of deep time history does not appear. 

Efforts by NESA to future-proof syllabus content could likely be one reason (think ‘Big History’) for this decision. Another might be due to evidence from various fields that deep time history is less compatible with some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representations of time as cyclic rather than linear. 

Mize (2024) suggests deep time ‘is a colonialist construct that risks both reinforcing white-supremacist epistemologies and occluding non-white ways of relating to the environment’ (pp.143-4).

The claim by authors Westaway, Pascoe and Zarmati that, ‘the only Aboriginal history taught to NSW students would be that which reflects the destruction of traditional Aboriginal society’ quickly gains our attention and invites us to look more closely. In doing so we notice that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures content familiar to Stage 4 history teachers in NSW, has been relocated instead into the new HSIE Kindergarten to Year 6 Syllabus (2024). 

Some educators would argue that this relocation may compromise the depth of study for students, while others may welcome the early exposure as a means of normalising learning about Aboriginal cultures and histories. 

Compromising depth or early exposure

There are, though, explicit references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ histories and cultures in Stage 4, within Historical context 1(core): The ancient past. 

More significant than all of this, is the fact that NESA has in the new NSW History 7-10, Geography 7-10 and Human Society and its Environment (HSIE) K-6 syllabuses, achieved a first in mainstream curriculum history in NSW – and likely in Australia. It embeds Aboriginal Cultures and Histories in the outcomes of the new syllabuses, rather than solely, as in past syllabuses, in content. 

This has produced strategically located, high-quality continua of learning about Aboriginal cultures and histories in new NSW history and geography syllabuses from kindergarten to year 10; at once sequential, complementary and avoiding duplication. 

What the peak advisory body says

Additionally, NSW AECG Inc. as ‘the peak advisory body regarding Aboriginal Education and Training at both State and Commonwealth levels’ has expressed its support for the new History, Geography and HSIE syllabuses developed by NESA. 

Supporting this work, NESA has continued its practice of engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers to draft Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures in the new syllabuses. This was first introduced in 2016 when new Stage 6 English, Mathematics, Science and History syllabuses were developed. 

Targeted consultations

The practice, evidence of NESA’s decolonising of curriculum process, was coupled with targeted consultations with Aboriginal education stakeholders on draft representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures.  This was for the purpose of cultural quality assurance of content. 

Potentially alleviating some of the concerns expressed by Westaway, Pascoe and Zarmati, the new NSW History 7-10 content related to Aboriginal Histories and Cultures is well complemented by the new Geography 7-10 Syllabus, with examples below:

GE4-APC-01

Explain Aboriginal Peoples’ Custodianship, care and management of Country

GE5-APC-01

analyses how Aboriginal Peoples’ Custodianship of Country supports environmental management and enhances Community wellbeing

Curriculum reviews: national and state

Curriculum reviews are enormous investments and are extraordinarily influential. For NSW, there have been two reviews of consequence in recent years.

Firstly, ACARA made its most recent Australian Curriculum (Version 9.0) available in 2022 with flexibility for jurisdictions to implement and/or incorporate in state or territory curriculum. Despite the high quality of the many representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures in Version 9.0 and the potential for ACARA to be international leaders for Truth Telling and Reconciliation, the outcome of the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, appears very uneven across Learning Areas, with the majority optional. 

Secondly, in 2020 the NSW Curriculum Review Final Report resulted in procedures being introduced by NESA to progress further curriculum renewal (adopting the term ‘reform’) of the majority of syllabuses from Kindergarten to10.

Disappointingly restrictive

For Aboriginal education stakeholders, Recommendation 5.3 was significant but disappointingly restrictive, containing Aboriginal histories and cultures content to HSIE, ‘Develop a curriculum that specifies what every student should know and understand about Aboriginal cultures and histories, and incorporate this curriculum into Human Society and its Environment’. 

This limitation of Recommendation 5.3 was despite the successes of the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures content across a range of Key Learning Areas beyond HSIE such as in English, Mathematics, Science, Technology, PDHPE and Languages syllabuses developed between 2016 and 2019. If anything, it is the disciplinary limitation inherent in this recommendation that, if acted on, will become a regrettable ‘step backwards in education’ making non-HSIE syllabuses out of step with the increasingly inclusive research produced by higher education that curriculum authorities rely upon for curriculum content. 

Shared end-goals of the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges in school curriculum 

Among the many tensions for curriculum and assessment authorities, and communities that underpin the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, skills and understandings in school-based curriculum is the ambiguity surrounding a shared end-goal. While this will be always be a work in progress as Australian history continues to mature around its reconciliation, Truth Telling and reparations negotiations, the question remains, ‘how do curriculum and assessment authorities and communities start to frame an end-goal of representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges in school curriculum?’. 

For example, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students comprising 6.5% of Australia’s school student population in 2023 (ABS, 2024) is it a fair ask to anticipate curriculum planning in the future ensures each mainstream syllabus has approximately 6.5% of content reserved for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges? This may seem an outrageous suggestion for some, but it is starting to become a reality in the new NSW HSIE syllabuses.

The measure of success

Ultimately, the measure of success is when all school students across the nation successfully comprehend, value and respectfully utilize knowledges, skills and understandings gained by exposure to culturally and academically rigorous and assessable representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures across subjects in all Key Learning Areas.  

Christine Evans is a Wiradjuri woman and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education) at the University of New South Wales. In her role she contributes to enhancing opportunities for the representation of Indigenous knowledges in curriculum and in professional development using culturally responsive methods. Earlier in her career she was a secondary Visual Arts teacher/head teacher in NSW public and independent schools. Christine held the role of Chief Education Officer, Aboriginal Education, at NESA for several years and, in 2016, introduced a new model for the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures in NSW school curriculum.

The header image comes from the AIATSIS guide to evaluating and selecting education resources

arts education online

Is arts learning an emerging priority for your primary school?

Arts education, , , ,

We know that learning the arts improves both student engagement and well-being. Students develop self-esteem, capacity to collaborate and share their emotions, all part of learning to  communicate and developing socialisation skills. 

The COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia forced families and teachers to rethink how children might learn, in new online contexts where the usual teacher/student and student/student relationships were disrupted by emergency remote learning and teaching. Our research was particularly concerned with approaches to teaching the arts online which enabled and facilitated connection and communication between students, and between teachers and students.

The whole family got involved

Anecdotally we heard about some innovative approaches adopted by primary teachers to engage students in online learning in the arts. In some cases whole families participated in the arts learning activity. While in some situations families had limited technology available at home some students took the opportunity to be fully engaged in an arts learning activity for most of a day, enjoying the opportunity to focus on something they loved without having to change what they were doing upon the ring of a bell.

Our research showed that teachers and parents had expressed hope that online arts learning could facilitate positive online learning experiences, particularly for those students who had encountered challenges in a face-to-face environment. Here is what we have found.

During the online learning periods music and visual arts were the most commonly studied artforms, dance and drama were next. Media arts was the least reported artform. For many students and teachers  online arts learning was an overwhelmingly negative experience. But, for some, the arts online experience was remarkably positive and social.

Sharing their work with others

Parents and teachers equally endorsed reasons children enjoyed activities with highest scores being for these reasons: sharing their work with other students; learning was fun and showing something they had made. 

Parents reported that students did not create something with other students, talk or send messages to other students while engaged in online arts learning activities. But, some teachers found their students did so. Both parents and teachers indicated students watched other students present their work. Parents and teachers reported examples of students exploring visual arts making techniques using materials around the home to create collages, paintings and puppets. Some students responded to dance and drama online learning activities by recording their own movement sequences and creating short drama scenes using imagined television interview scenarios. One activity involved students bringing their siblings and parents into the activity to self-tape a recreation of a moment from a movie for which they overlaid the recorded film soundtrack.

Recreating ET

One parent and their child particularly enjoyed recreating a classic moment from ET using family bicycles. Mobile phones were a useful device for students to record sounds in their own garden. Students then recorded themselves talking about the sounds using elements of music such as pitch, dynamics and texture. While students completed these tasks individually teachers found ways to share students’ work through online classes and gallery platforms. Students engaged with each other’s artworks through conversations in online classes.

The post-pandemic return to school and face-to-face teaching and learning saw both parents and teachers reporting that students were highly motivated to resume face-to-face arts learning. Students were keen to connect in person with their peers and teachers. They were motivated to collaborate on arts projects like music and drama. Students were actively seeking creativity in the classroom. The arts online did not necessarily create positive experiences for many students and teachers. But it did increase students’ recognition and eagerness to explore the arts in their classrooms. Many students had renewed enthusiasm upon returning to school. But some did not, and still may not have returned to school.

Through the emerging priorities program research into primary arts learning online we worked with teachers and artform researchers from across the country to develop digital exemplars of arts online learning activities that teachers can use with students in Years 1 and 2. Each activity scaffolds elements of the personal and social capability, one of the general capabilities in the Australian curriculum.

The museum of me

These digital exemplars recognise the complexity of teaching since the pandemic. They include ways to involve students who may be learning online with students who are in the classroom. Visual arts includes the museum of me where students collect, draw and talk about items that are important to them. The dance and music learning activities can be used separately or interconnected through the use of a song and dance movement from Ghana. The drama learning activities involve short scenarios in which students learn to observe and make characters and develop character status. The media arts activity uses the drama learning activity to explore how to use camera angles to represent character status.

The exemplars in each of the five art subjects: dance, drama, media arts, music and visual arts include links to online videos and downloadable lesson plans to assist teachers engage students through arts learning. How to give feedback is modelled for students across learning activities in each artform using three stems: One thing I appreciated – ; One thing I discovered -; One thing I am wondering -. For each artform the elements of the personal social capability and signature pedagogies are identified. The EPP Arts Learning Online digital resources are available online as a free resource. They provide 10 hours of online self-paced learning for teachers, pre-service teachers and interested parents and caregivers. The researchers are keen to receive feedback from people testing out the activities. The opportunities to provide feedback are embedded in the digital resource.

This research project was funded through the Commonwealth Department of Education Emerging Priorities Program.

Linda Lorenza is a senior lecturer in the CQUniversity School of Education and the Arts. She is Head of Course for the Bachelor of Theatre,  teaching theatre, acting and drama. Lorenza is a qualitative researcher and arts practitioner whose interests are in the performing arts, arts education, and applied arts in health and rehabilitation contexts. She is a chief investigator, with Don Carter, on the Emerging Priorities Program research into arts online learning.

Don Carter is an associate professor in the UTS School of International Studies and Education, he specialises in working with teachers to investigate innovative writing pedagogies to improve student performance and outcomes across the curriculum. Carter is a chief investigator, with Linda Lorenza, on the Emerging Priorities Program research into arts online learning.

arts education

Arts education: we fail our students with so many tests

Arts education, , ,

The Impoverishment of Standardised Learning 

In today’s educational climate, with its intense focus on raising standardised test scores, it seems like we have lost sight of nurturing the extensive human potentials of both our students and teachers. There is an ongoing fixation with individualised student-centred approaches, along with drilling basic competencies in reading, writing and maths. Approaches are increasingly narrowed to “teach to the test” to accommodate these high-stakes metrics.  The need to develop foundational skills is necessary, although rigid, utilitarian approaches can be ideological and problematic in many ways .

This includes the risk of depleting our capacities for original creative thinking, empathetic cross-cultural understanding, ethical reasoning and collaborative problem-solving. We fail to cultivate the diverse cognitive, emotional and social capabilities if education becomes transactional.

Human beings can’t truly flourish and thrive if it’s just about prescribed knowledge, regurgitated on exams or for tests,

Different ways of knowing

Current education approaches may allow students to complete well on tests (although various indicators suggest otherwise such as recent NAPLAN results), but it is not clear how it serves students to envision innovative solutions to complex issues or what Eisner alludes to as being able to  reconcile competing perspectives. The unprecedented socio-ecological challenges we face as a global society – from climate crises to technological disruption, systemic injustices and societal fragmentation – demand different  ways of knowing, being and doing that many of our current precision education approaches neglect.  Moving from individualised notions of education we need collaborative leaders able to synthesize insights across domains, embrace diverse worldviews and to ethically co-create inclusive, transformative possibilities. 

The Generative Power of Learning In and Through the Arts 

This is where facets of arts education across all levels of schooling provides powerful pathways for societal progress and human flourishing. An ever growing body of research reveals that learning in and through the arts awakens the full spectrum of human ways of knowing, exploration mindsets and personal growth preparing young people for success, both in school and in life while also enriching individual and community wellbeing.  Learning in the arts involves direct engagement with arts practices, developing skills and techniques in specific art forms, whereas learning through the arts involves using artistic methods as tools to understand and explore other academic subjects or concepts. 

Authentic self-expression

There is Ample evidence  to  support both intrinsic and instrumental benefits of the arts. That has been documented – for example Ewing’s arguments in   The Arts and Australian education: Realising potential ,  as well as the repository provided by the National Advocates for Arts Education (NAAE). And more, recently in the UK by National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) and The benefits of Art, Craft and Design education in schools A Rapid Evidence Review by Pat Thomson and Liam Maloy.   Within this evidence we continue to see how the arts through participatory inquiry and hands-on creation processes promote imaginative visioning, authentic self-expression, interpretive depth, cross-cultural understanding, empathy, and the persevering practice of manifesting new ideas into realised form. We also saw the power of the arts during the peak of the COVID wave .

Crucial experience

Engaging in arts practices and processes also nurtures innovative confidence in students, empowering them to develop unique perspectives and collaborative abilities. Students gain crucial experience exploring real-world complexity through multiple creative lenses, as well as synthesizing original interpretations that honour and amplify their authentic voices, visions and cultural identities. 

Unlike standardised testing environments that encourage regurgitation of prescribed “right” answers, collaborative and individual artmaking allows diverse individuals and communities to experience firsthand how engaging differing viewpoints through dialogue, cooperative creation and respectful exchange can generate multiple and new understandings and possibilities that transcend any single worldview. 

Promoting Teacher Agency to Guide Expressive Flourishing 

Teaching we know is an increasingly complex task. There are many imposed requirements that can impact how we might imagine the role of educators in adopting teaching approaches that are linked to learning in and through the arts.  It is also not clear in current education systems if we are encouraging or intentionally nurturing teachers’ own capacities to be creative and design immersive experiences that awaken students’ expressive capacities, intrinsic motivations and unique potentials to unveil new possibilities.

We know it is it possible for teachers through their facilitation of exploratory creative practice, that they can model the vital human dispositions that involve what Maxine Greene refers to as wide-awakeness or  what Biesta refer to as engaging in a conversation with the world. Though the arts we can support teachers to adopt practices like open-mindedness, ethical reasoning, self-actualization and comfort with ambiguity that become classroom norms.

Similarly with the current trend for teachers to work with colleagues as a member of a professional learning community (PLC), are they able to work cooperatively to design innovative, arts-integrated lessons to awaken students’ imaginative visioning abilities, critical consciousness, changemaking impulses and self-actualizing identities as bold co-creators of more beautiful realities.

Overcoming Barriers to an Arts-Driven Future 

Of course, such a radical shift that I’ve alluded to here, as have others before me, faces considerable systemic barriers in the form of ingrained institutional inertia, standardised testing regimes, and entrenched industrial mindsets around education’s purposes. Adopting arts-driven, creative inquiry-based teaching approaches will no doubt provoke fears and resistance from those invested in existing power structures and conventional teaching philosophies.

Dan Harris in a previous post in this blog has  spoken about the tensions between arts policy and education policy. However, as intensifying social and ecological pressures converge into existential crises, the vital necessity for human flourishing will only grow more urgently apparent. We know that intentionally integrating the arts provides an inclusive, expressive pathway for focusing on key aspects of education as well as promoting basic competencies. 

Collaborative wisdom

When prioritised, arts education provides the vital spark illuminating a way to both cultivate students’ and teachers’ expressive talents, ethical vision and skills for imaginatively co-creating new sustainable systems and worlds.

There are options here to nurture the collaborative wisdom so urgently needed to navigate our era’s unprecedented planetary tests and initiate long overdue systemic transformations. Yet the evidence related to the power of arts education seems to be ignored or sidelined and instead the focus of education remains on testing.  

Mark Selkrig is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. His research and scholarly work focus on the changing nature of educators’ work, their identities and lived experiences of these events. He has been the recipient of awards for publications in this field and acknowledged for his leadership, outstanding work and advocacy for arts development and education. Mark is on Twitter @markselkrig and LinkedIn.

STEM

STEM: What universities could do right now to help first-in-family men succeed

First in family to attend university, STEM education, , , , , , ,

Men from working-class and minority backgrounds are rarely represented in STEM disciplines.   For those who  choose to attend university, we know very little about their experiences or what motivates them.  

Our new data reveals a desire to secure steady employment and break a generational cycle of poverty were contributing factors.

The First-in-Family Males Project

We draw on data from The First-in-Family Males Project where we examined the experiences of males from working-class backgrounds entering higher education. First-in-family students are defined this way: those whose immediate family members have never attended university.

As an equity group, first-in-family students are often from working-class backgrounds, associated with manual labour, vocational trades, or low-skilled jobs.  Reflecting international trends, we know males from first-in-family backgrounds are the least likely to attend higher education in Australia.  The young men in this study attended schools in communities where only a select few would end up pursuing higher education.

Working-class young men in STEM

Within our project, one third of the participants enrolled in science subjects. That suggests masculinity still has a strong association with STEM.  Participants pursued a variety of different STEM-related degrees (e.g., advancedaths, forensic science, civil engineering, IT, etc).  STEM is often characterised as rigorous and competitive. We wanted to see how the aspirations of these young men were formed and maintained as they navigated the systems. When we analysed our results, we identified three key themses influencing their  aspirations: 1) desire for financial stability and fulfilment; 2) internalising pressure; 3) struggles with social acclimatisation to university.

Desire for financial stability and fulfilment

Within studies of the production of  working-class masculine identities, research shows  how these young men have a strong desire to secure forms of reliable employment so they can be the breadwinner. This desire has often kept this population away from university which can sometimes be seen as a more financially risky pathway.   In an increasingly post-industrial economy, traditional forms of working-class male employment are becoming  scarcer.  This is changing how young men see their post-compulsory education options.  

We also saw a desire to uphold the role of breadwinner and  a strong focus on employability with the young men in our study.

“I want to help my family out in the future.”

David: [With STEM] I’ve heard that there will be a lot of jobs available… I come from a poor family, so I want to help my family out in the future. … I guess I’m the one in the family that has to succeed in life I guess, help them out in the future, get us out of where we are right now financially. It’s mostly about the finances, so if I can help out with that, that’s what I want to do.

Besides the desire for financial stability, the first-in-family working-class young men we spoke with focused on self-fulfilment in what they chose to study. As Ruir, who studied in sport science, said:

I don’t want to just look for work because they pay a lot of money. I want something that pays a decent amount of money…. I want to have a secure job. I just don’t want to, like, struggle. I just want to be comfortable…I want something that pays a decent amount of money – but I enjoy waking up to it everyday.

Furthermore, some of the participants’ motivations seemed influenced by the suffering they saw with the older men in their family.

Levi: Without disrespecting my dad, I see him doing a career he doesn’t like. I use that as my motivation…

Internalising pressure

Many students in STEM disciplines find university to be stressful because of to its competitive nature. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often very aware of the financial investment in their degrees and anxious about translating their degrees into secure employment. This adds a significant additional stress.  Data from The First-in-Family Males Project suggests there are various pressures shaping the experience of these young men.  Vuong, studying maths, said money contributed to a feeling of pressure: ‘The money that I – the debt that I have’ where he also said if he did withdraw from university, ‘I’d feel like a failure. I’d feel like my entire world would come toppling down.’   Another student, Ruir, noted:

I feel … pressure … to get my life, the highest I can get.

Isaac describes the pressures of university studies as always present:

Probably, just the 24 … Not 24/7, but constant thinking about uni all the time, and worry, not worrying, but thinking I got to do this, this, this, I still go to do that. I got this coming up. There’s just constant thinking about it all the time. It’s not bell to bell, start the day, do my school work, go home, that’s it.

According to Levi, he describes STEM higher education as:

I definitely think it has been emotional both stress – mix or at … times very stressful. Other times it’s just – it feels like everything’s falling into place and then something else is thrown at me. I definitely think it’s a lot of, it’s up and down, up and down and…

Struggles with social acclimatisation to university

Echoing research on the first-in-family student experience, many felt a struggle to feel a sense of belonging in higher education.  Isolation was a significant theme in the data.  For the boys studying STEM – a field which is still largely dominated by males from middle-class and elite backgrounds – the social context can feel very foreign and unsettling.  In considering how they negotiated a sense of loneliness, we note two main contributing factors: 1) how very few students from their disadvantaged secondary schools attended university and 2) the competitive academic nature of STEM which created social hierarchies anddivisions.

  Highlighting his class disadvantage, Vuong did struggle with the academic demands in STEM. He recognised how he was one of the only students from his secondary school to attend university and thought, ‘if I did this well, and I can match up with these types of students who did a much more higher end type learning in their schools or whatever. [But]and I came from a disadvantaged school’.

Another participant, David, suffered both socially and academically, leading him to eventually drop out:

I was way too behind, so if I maybe prepared better if I prepared better for uni…people … friends. That would make it a lot easier – sporting friends.  

David felt having friends with similar interests would have helped him feel a stronger sense of belonging.

What this tells us about young men in STEM

As policies continue to foreground how educators need to be engaged in raising aspirations for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is important to ask what happens when aspirations are raised and how working-class young people who are first-in-family navigate their studies with limited resources.  

Educational success requires ample resourcing and a lack of resourcing leads to considerable additional pressures.   

The road is not an easy one

The data suggests that for the select few working-class males who choose higher education, the road is not an easy one.  This raises questions about the role of universities in helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds and what support mechanisms would have made the difference. Scholarships would help greatly. Institutions should also acknowledge these young men are in a dramatically different atmosphere compared to their secondary schools.  More targeted and personalised support for non-traditional students has proven effective in many higher educational contexts though, at the same time, many of the participants were reluctant to reach our for assistance.    

To conclude, as these young men navigate the challenges of their STEM degrees, they carry the weight of both personal and generational aspirations, making their success not just a matter of academic achievement but a testament to their resilience in the face of systemic barriers.  

From left to right: Garth Stahl is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. His research interests lie on the nexus of neoliberalism and socio-cultural studies of education, identity, equity/ inequality, and social change. Shaneeza Fugurally is a Masters candidate in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. Yating Hu is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. Tin Nguyen is a Masters candidate in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. Sarah McDonald is a lecturer based at the Centre for Research in Education & Social Inclusion in UniSA Education Futures, University of South Australia. Her research interests are in gendered subjectivities, girlhood, social mobility, social barriers, and inequalities in education. 

Science and writing: Why AERO’s narrow views are a big mistake

Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), Direct Instruction, Science, STEM education, , , ,

Will narrow instructional models promoted by AERO crowd out quality teaching and learning?

A recent ‘practice guide’ from the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), on ‘Writing in Science’ raises significant questions about the peak body’s narrow views on teaching and learning. Is AERO leading us in the wrong direction for supporting teachers to provide a rich and meaningful experience for Australian students?

The guide  explains the nature of simple, compound and complex sentences in science. It  provides student writing with feedback  teachers could provide to improve the writing. There are suggestions for teachers to generate and unpack exemplar sentences and lists of nouns and adjectives, provided by practice exercises. 

Yet a close reading shows these analyses fall well short of best practice in analysing science writing. Further, this advice is missing any comprehensive linguistic account of grammar as resource for meaning in text construction;any critical perspective on the function different kinds of texts to make sense of science, and; any attention to the commitment of teachers of science to developing science ideas. 

We are world leaders

Yet, Australian researchers in literacy are world leaders in thinking about the functions of text in generating meaning across different genres and writing to learn in science. 

AERO has ignored such research. It  sacrifices what we know about engaging and meaningful teaching and learning practice on the altar of its ideological commitment to impoverished interpretations of explicit teaching. 

While the practice guide is  useful for alerting teachers to the importance of explicit attention to writing in science, it could do better by drawing on our rich research base around meaningful pedagogies –  (which include explicit teaching elements) that engage students and enrich science teachers’ practice.  

This story of ignoring a wealth of sophisticated Australian and international research to enforce a simplistic instructional model is repeated across multiple curriculum areas, including science and  mathematics. AERO’s ‘evidence based’ model of a ‘science of learning’ is based exclusively on studies involving one research methodology. It uses experimental and control conditions that inevitably restrict the range of teaching and learning strategies compared to those found in real classrooms. 

The research findings of the community of Australian and International mathematics and science education researchers who have worked with students and teachers over many decades to establish fresh theoretical perspectives and rich teaching and learning approaches have been effectively silenced. 

What underpins this narrowing?

What underpins this narrowing of conceptions of teaching and learning that seems to have taken the Australian education system by storm? AERO bases its instructional model almost entirely on the theoretical framing of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), particularly the research of John Sweller who over four decades has established an impressive body of work outlining the repercussions of limitations in working memory capacity. 

Sweller argues that when students struggle to solve complex problems with minimal guidance, they can fail to develop the schema that characterise expert practice. His conclusion is that teachers need to provide ‘worked examples’ that students can follow and practice to achieve mastery, an approach aligned with the ‘I do’, ‘we do’, ‘you do’ advocacy of AERO and the basis of the mandated pedagogy models of both New South Wales and Victoria. 

The argument that students can lose themselves in complexity if not appropriately guided is well taken. But this leap from a working memory problem to the explicit ’worked example’ teaching model fails to acknowledge the numerous ways, described in the research literatures of multiple disciplines, that teachers can support students to navigate complexity. In mathematics and science this includes the strategic setting up of problems, guided questioning and prompting, preparatory guidance, communal sharing of ideas, joint teacher-student text construction, or explicit summing up of schema emerging from students’ solutions. 

What really works

The US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics identifies seven, not one, effective mathematics teaching practices some but not all of which involve direct instruction.  An OECD analysis of PISA-related data identified three dominant mathematics teaching strategies of which direct instruction was the most prevalent and least related to mathematics performance, with active learning and in particular cognitive engagement strategies being more effective. 

Sweller himself (1998) warned against overuse of the worked example as a pedagogy, citing student engagement as an important factor. Given these complexities, AERO’s silencing of the international community of mathematics and science educators seems stunningly misplaced. 

This global mathematics and science education research represents a rich range of learning theories, pedagogies, conceptual and affective outcomes, and purposes. The evidence in this literature overwhelmingly rejects the inquiry/direct instruction binary that underpins the AERO model. Further, the real challenge with learning concepts like force, image formation, probability or fractional operations has less to do with managing memory than with arranging the world to be seen in new ways. 

To be fair, the CLT literature has useful things to say about judging the complexity of problems, and the strong focus on teacher guidance is well taken, especially when the procedures and concepts to be learned are counter-intuitive. However, CLT research has mainly concerned problems that are algorithmic in nature, for which an explicit approach can more efficiently lead to the simple procedural knowledge outcomes involved. 

The short term advantage disappears

Even here, studies have shown that over the long term, the short-term advantage of direct instruction disappears. The real issues involved in supporting learning of complex ideas and practices are deciding when to provide explicit support, and of what type. This is where the teacher’s judgment is required, and it will depend on the nature of the knowledge, and the preparedness of students. To reduce these complex strategies to a single approach is the real offence of the AERO agenda, and of the policy prescriptions in Victoria and NSW. 

It amounts to the de-professionalisation of teachers when such decisions are short-circuited. 

Another aspect of this debate is the claim that a reform of Australian teaching and learning is needed because of the poor performance of students on NAPLAN and on international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS. While it is certainly true that we could do much better in education across all subjects, particularly with respect to the inequities in performance based on socio-economic factors and Indigeneity, our relative performance on international rankings is more complex than claimed. 

Flies in the face of evidence

To claim this slippage results from overuse of inquiry and problem-solving approaches in science and mathematics flies in the face of evidence. In both subjects, teacher-centred approaches currently dominate. An OECD report providing advice for mathematics teachers based on the 2012 PISA mathematics assessment revealed Australian students ranked ninth globally on self-reporting memorisation strategies, and third-last on elaboration strategies (that is, making links between tasks and finding different ways to solve a problem). The latter strategies indicate the capability to solve the more difficult problems. 

While it may be true some versions of inquiry in school science and mathematics may lack necessary support structures, this corrective of a blanket imposition of explicit teaching is shown by the wider evidence to represent a misguided overreaction. 

How has it happened, that one branch of education research misleadingly characterised as ‘the’ science of learning, together with a narrow and hotly contested view of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in education, has become the one guiding star for our national education research organisation to the exclusion of Australian and international disciplinary education research communities? 

Schools are being framed as businesses

It has been argued AERO ‘encapsulates politics at its heart’ through its embedded links to corporate philanthropy and business relations and a brief to attract funding into education. Indeed, schools are increasingly being bombarded with commercial products. Schools are being framed as businesses. 

The teaching profession over the last decade has suffered concerted attacks from the media and from senior government figures. Are we seeing moves here to systematically de-professionalise teachers and restrict their practice through ‘evidence based’ resources focused on ‘efficient’ learning? Is this what we really want as our key purpose in education? In reality, experienced teachers will not feel restricted by these narrow versions of explicit teaching pedagogies and will engage their students in varied ways. How can they not? 

If the resources now being developed and promoted under the AERO rubric, as with ‘Writing in Science’, follow this barren prescription, we run the danger of a growing erosion of teacher agency and impoverishment of student learning.

We need a richer view of pedagogy

What we need, going forward, is a richer view of pedagogy based on the wider research literature, rather than the narrow base that privileges procedural practices. We need to engage with a more complex and informed discussion of the core purposes of education that is not proscribed by a narrow insistence on NAPLAN and international assessments. We need to value our teaching profession and recognise the complex, relational nature of teaching and learning. Our focus should be on strengthening teachers’ contextual decision making, and not on constraining them in ways that will reduce their professionalism, and ultimately their standing.  

  

Russell Tytler is Deakin Distinguished Professor and Chair of Science Education at Deakin University. He researches student reasoning and learning through the multimodal languages of science, socio scientific issues and reasoning, school-community partnerships, and STEM curriculum policy and practice. Professor Tytler is widely published and has led a range of research projects, including current STEM projects investigating a guided inquiry pedagogy for interdisciplinary mathematics and science. He is a member of the Science Expert Group for PISA 2015 and 2025.

Early childhood staff

The truth about the pay rise for the oppressed

Early Childhood, Early childhood education and care, , ,

The Federal Government’s “good social and educational policy, and even better political move” of a fully funded pay rise (worker retention payment) for the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector becomes the latest example of the continued oppressive workload and undervaluing of the ECEC sector in Australia. 

The worker retention payment 

In August this year the Albanese government announced it would be providing a fully funded 15% increase for the ECEC workforce implemented over two years – and that will function as a grant.  Early conditions shared by the government included a fee growth cap of 4.4% to ensure that families did not incur further fee increases to support wage increases.

Other details would come much later.

Guidelines and applications opened last week for a grant payment through the Department of Education (DoE) and Grant Connect.  

Here’s what we understand about the grant so far:

  • The first pay increase of 10% must be passed on to eligible employees. The 10% cannot be manipulated for any employee who is already paid above award. 
  • Eligible employees are those paid under two approved awards – the Children’s Services Award 2010 and the Teachers Award 2020.  Trainees paid under other awards are not eligible for this pay increase. 
  • The amount of grant monies each service receives is based on gross labour costs detailed in grant applications. These are then applied to each service’s weekly child care subsidy submission hours. The government are yet to release a fully explained formula for payments.
  • Each employer must provide a Fair Work approved workplace instrument with their grant application; for example, an Individual Flexibility Arrangement.

Full details of the Worker Retention Payment can be found on the Department of Education website. 

Complications of gendered undervaluation

The Fair Work Commission is currently undertaking a gender undervaluation review case with results due mid-2025. Following on from the decision from the review of the Aged Care Award 2010 etc, the Children’s Services Award is currently being considered in this case. The decision from the previous review noted:

The basis upon which the ERO (equal remuneration order) rates were determined closely parallel the work value reasons upon which we are proceeding in this matter: the high female composition of the industry in question, the significance of the work being ‘caring’ work, the disguising of the level of skill and experience required to perform the work, the gender-based undervaluation of the work, and the need to remedy the extent to which assumptions on the basis of gender had inhibited wages growth. 

A substantial increase is well overdue

This decision justifies the benchmark rate fixing process for the Aged Care Award and is highly reflective of the gendered composition and undervaluing experienced in the ECEC sector. A substantial increase in wages is well overdue and the latent expertise of the skills and value of the sector need to be heard. However, there are serious financial implications for services that opt in to this grant before the gender undervaluation decision has been made. 

If a service has opted in to the grant and the outcome of the gender undervaluation case results in a well-deserved increase in the Children’s Services award – services will not be able to increase fees to cover the wage increase beyond the 4.4% cap.This will place many services, particularly small ones, under great financial strain. 

The disconnect

The disconnect between what is being decided should happen for the ECEC sector and the means to which it is being implemented is alarming. Complex industrial relations and financial decisions need to be made by providers. Furthermore, Approved Providers and/or Directors will be responsible for administering grant monies, reporting usage and researching, paying for or writing workplace instruments to meet the conditions of the grant. 

State and Federal governments are fully aware of the complex and diverse nature of the ECEC sector. The vast differences in ECEC service budgets, licensed numbers, business structures and contexts within more than 17,000 services in Australia is widely understood. Yet little consideration appears to be given to the continued impact of how partial remedies to gender pay inequity are being implemented. 

It is clear that small centres of either private or not for profit nature, will experience heavy burdens associated with the administration, financial, mental, ethical and emotional load of the grant’s implementation. 

Posing questions about problems

Can we afford this grant? What other costs will require fees to rise more than the capped fee growth of 4.4% allowed under the grant terms? Will the grant continue beyond the projected two-year timeframe? What will happen if we become ineligible for further payments but have binding workplace instruments to continue paying above award rates? Will we lose our team if we don’t opt in to this grant to offer them higher wages? Will we lose families if we increase fees to cover a self-funded 10% pay rise? How much wage related on costs such as superannuation, workers compensation, leave entitlements, payroll tax will be covered by the grant?  How will our budget afford 10-15% above award costs when we are closed for public holidays, two weeks at Christmas and New Year when we cannot submit CCS hours? 

Pay rise of the oppressed

These practical and rational questions about a political action ostensibly designed to lift the value and living conditions of the ECEC workforce, asserts further notions of oppression by systems of power over our sector. 

As the decision in the Aged Care Award suggests, the skills and experience of care work is disguised based on gender. So too is the overly complicated nature of the grant. It disguises continued mistrust and undervaluing of the ECEC sector by the government. This mistrust and undervaluation reinforces that ours is a sector bereft of true professional autonomy and agency.

Freire’s notion of a critical pedagogy encouraged the oppressed to problem pose about their experiences to transform themselves from oppression.  The fact is our sector is truly oppressed by neoliberal ideologies that value education as financial, human capital-based outcomes rather than democratic and ethical ones. As Freire maintains, it is necessary to admit that oppression exists and locate what that oppression is, for liberation to be possible.  

Crumbs of progress

The reality of the ECEC sector is that we are so oppressed by these systems that even when the oppressive discourses transform into promises of better conditions with great uncertainty, the oppressive powers condition us to accept, navigate and move on. We lower our expectations and continue to accept higher workloads and bad deals for ourselves. The cycle of oppression goes around and around as we accept crumbs of progress from disingenuous and politically motivated offers. How do we heal from internalised and externalised oppression? How do we do this whilst holding on to our ethical and democratic beliefs that our workforce deserves more than the uncertainty of a temporary fiscal stop gap to hold the crucial ECEC system in place?

Melissa Duffy-Fagan is the owner and approved provider of a ECEC centre in Lambton, Newcastle. She is a sessional academic at the University of Newcastle. Her doctoral studies, completed in 2023, explored the themes of leadership, professional identity and quality policy. Find her on LinkedIn.

A call to action on Indigenous education rights: uphold fundamental human rights now

Indigenous Curriculum, Indigenous education, Indigenous education policy, Indigenous futures, Indigenous learning, Indigenous research, , , ,

It’s exactly one year since the referendum on the Voice to Parliament. This is a call to action in a post-referendum Australia to advance Indigenous education rights.

In the wake of the unsuccessful Voice referendum, Australia finds itself at a critical juncture in its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As an Indigenous academic who has long advocated for a rights-based approach to education, this moment calls for a renewed commitment. It also calls for action from all sectors of our education system, particularly non-Indigenous educators and leaders.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Foundation for Rights-Based Education

Before delving into specific actions, it’s crucial to understand the international framework that underpins our rights-based approach. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 and endorsed by Australia in 2009, provides a comprehensive framework for recognising, protecting, and promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples globally.

UNDRIP explicitly addresses education in several articles:

Article 14: asserts indigenous peoples’ right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions, providing education in their own languages and in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

Article 15: emphasises the right of indigenous peoples to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories, and aspirations, which should be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Article 21: states that indigenous peoples have the right to improvement in their economic and social conditions, including in the area of education.

These articles, among others, form the basis of our rights-based approach to education. They shift the paradigm from viewing education for Indigenous peoples as a matter of welfare or closing gaps to recognising it as a fundamental human right. This approach demands our education systems not only provide access to education for Indigenous peoples but also do so in a way that respects and promotes Indigenous cultures, languages, and ways of knowing.

The Imperative of Rights-Based Education

The referendum’s outcome doesn’t change the fundamental rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to quality education that respects our cultures, languages, and traditions. These rights, as outlined in UNDRIP, to which Australia is a signatory, remain intact and urgent. Our education systems, from early childhood through to higher education, have both an opportunity and a responsibility to embed these rights into their practices, policies, and curricula.

This isn’t just about “closing gaps” or hitting targets. It’s about recognising and upholding fundamental human rights and contributing to a more just and inclusive education system for all Australians.

Key Areas for Action

1. Curriculum Reform

We must move beyond tokenistic inclusion of Indigenous content. A rights-based approach calls for deep integration of Indigenous knowledges, histories, and perspectives across all subject areas. This isn’t just for the benefit of Indigenous students; it enriches the education of all Australians and promotes intercultural understanding.

2. Indigenous Leadership in Education

Increased Indigenous representation in educational leadership is crucial. This involves more than just hiring Indigenous teachers, educators, and academics (though that’s important). It means creating pathways for Indigenous education experts to shape policy, develop curricula, and lead institutions.

3. Community Partnerships

Education systems must forge meaningful, reciprocal partnerships with Indigenous communities. This goes beyond consultation to the co-design of educational programs and policies. Respecting Indigenous self-determination means recognising communities as experts and agents of their own educational needs and destinies.

 4. Safe Learning Environments

Creating safe learning environments is a key aspect of upholding Indigenous educational rights. This involves comprehensive cultural competency and anti-racism training for all staff, along with policies and practices that respect Indigenous cultural protocols and ways of learning.

 5. Language Revitalisation

Indigenous languages are not just communication tools; they are repositories of culture and knowledge. Education systems have a vital role to play in supporting language revitalisation efforts, offering bilingual education where appropriate and recognising the cognitive and cultural benefits of Indigenous language learning.

6. The Critical Role of Non-Indigenous Educators

Improving Indigenous educational outcomes is not solely the responsibility of Indigenous peoples. Non-Indigenous educators and leaders have a social and moral obligation to be at the forefront of this work alongside their Indigenous colleagues.

Here are key actions for non-Indigenous educators and leaders:

1. Educate Yourself: Commit to ongoing learning about Indigenous histories, cultures, and contemporary issues. Engage with Indigenous scholarship and participate in cultural competency training.

2. Amplify Indigenous Voices: Create platforms for Indigenous colleagues to share their expertise and advocate for increased Indigenous representation in decision-making bodies.

3. Critically examine curriculum and pedagogy: Review teaching materials for bias and incorporate Indigenous knowledges across all subject areas. Adopt culturally responsive teaching practices.

4. Build Genuine Partnerships: Reach out to local Indigenous communities to understand their educational priorities and involve them in curriculum development and decision-making processes.

5. Advocate for Systemic Change: Push for policy changes that support Indigenous rights and student success. Challenge practices that undermine Indigenous rights.

6. Support Indigenous Languages: Advocate for Indigenous language programs and support initiatives that integrate Indigenous languages into the broader curriculum..

7. Create Culturally Safe Spaces: Make your classroom or office welcoming for Indigenous students and colleagues. Be proactive in addressing racism and discrimination.

Overcoming Challenges

I recognise that this work comes with challenges. Non-Indigenous educators may feel discomfort or fear of making mistakes. Remember that discomfort is often a sign of growth. You may encounter resistance to change; use your position of privilege to advocate persistently for Indigenous rights. Strive for a balance of proactive engagement and respectful consultation with Indigenous colleagues and communities.

The path forward

The referendum may not have delivered constitutional change. But it has sparked crucial conversations. Now is the time to translate those conversations into meaningful action in our education systems. By embracing a rights-based approach, we can work towards an education system that truly serves all Australians and honours the unique rights, cultures, and contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

I call on all educators, policymakers, and community members to commit to concrete actions:

– Advocate for curriculum reform in your local schools and universities

– Support initiatives that amplify Indigenous voices in educational leadership

– Engage with local Indigenous communities to understand their educational priorities

– Push for robust cultural safety training in all educational institutions

– Support and participate in Indigenous language learning programs

The path to fully realising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational rights will be long. Yet every step matters. As we move forward, let’s remember that this work isn’t about charity—it’s about recognising and upholding fundamental human rights. Together, we can create an education system that not only respects Indigenous rights but also benefits from the rich knowledge and perspectives that Indigenous peoples bring to the table.

Peter Anderson is from the Walpiri and Murinpatha peoples of the Northern Territory and is Professor and Director Indigenous Research Unit at Griffith University. Professor Anderson’s research spans the area of Australian Indigenous education, educational systems, curriculum and pedagogical interventions and the intersecting relationships with indigenous peoples both globally and domestically.



Gundlach on the ABC

Research impact: What I Learned From Being An ABC Media Expert For Two Weeks

Research impact, , , , ,

The ABC’s TOP 5 is a unique program where the national broadcaster works with a group of early career researchers across science, humanities and the arts. This year, the University of Melbourne’s Hugh Gundlach was one of the Humanities TOP5. He specialises in education, particularly in teacher retention and teachers’ work.

Amplifying your Research Impact through the Media

As academic researchers, we have a responsibility to share our findings beyond just peer-reviewed journals. The public and industry funds much of our work, so we should return that knowledge to its context by providing expert opinion supported by facts and evidence. Apart from helping attract funding and building profiles inside and outside institutions, media exposure allows us to start conversations in society and elevate stories beyond headlines.

I had the opportunity to spend two weeks at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) as part of their Top 5 Media Residency program. During this time, I learned how to retain the integrity of complex research while presenting it to a broader, non-academic media audience. I believe we can all benefit from the insights offered by this program.

Why Engage with the Media?

Media helps set and follow the public interest, but it can also fall prey to sensationalism and PR agendas. Academics can play a key role in elevating stories, providing context, and reducing sensationalism. Most people will never read a peer-reviewed journal, making the media an essential platform for reaching diverse and influential audiences, including policymakers, highly educated audiences, and the general public.

Media also allows academics to incorporate personal stories and case studies, elements typically absent from formal research outputs.

Storytelling is Key

The purpose of news media is to serve the public interest by exposing injustice, informing the population, but also entertaining. The ABC prides itself on sharing good stories, well told, without dumbing them down. They carefully consider who the audience is for each program, repeatedly asking why that audience should care about the content.

Good media coverage is fundamentally about storytelling. The ABC focuses on big issues told through engaging, human-centred stories. Ask yourself:

  • Does your research connect with any current societal issues?
  • Can you offer a fresh perspective on something in the news?
  • What part of your work will make people say, “Wow”?
  • What’s the one takeaway for the audience?

Use vivid language and imagery to bring your research to life.

Which Media Formats Should I Consider?

Being behind the scenes at the ABC helped me understand the range of media formats. Each requires a different approach:

Online Articles

Online articles offer features, opinion pieces, explainers and analysis. They need to be timely, impactful, locally relevant, surprising, containing conflict/tension, human interest and universal themes.

Articles are around 1,000 words with succinct  one sentence paragraphs, lots of subheadings, and engaging images every scroll. Most are read on phones, with an average two minute read time. High performers attract about 20,000 views with an average 4 minute read time.

Focus on making one key point very well. Use impactful quotes from other work, hyperlinking sources after the first three paragraphs to avoid sending readers away initially. 

Radio

People listen to radio news and talk programs to gain knowledge, hear stories of shared interest, and get help with their lives. As a guest, be passionate but remember it’s not for you – keep the conversation flowing without drifting off-topic. Find the human interest angle and use sensory details to create a narrative flow for the imagined listener of that program.

You may be brought in as an expert to provide context and perspective behind the headlines on live breakfast, afternoon or drivetime shows. Or you might pre-record an interview for a more specialised subject-based program, where you can tell richer stories and case studies in a friendly, informal environment.

Podcasts

Podcasts are even more niche, with segmented audiences actively seeking out that specific content. Listen to past episodes to understand the particular style – it could be a casual host chat, long-form interview, high production narrative or a daily news-style briefing. Whatever the format, your interviewing ability is key.

Types of Interviews

Interviews are guided conversations aimed at informing, discovering new insights, or holding someone accountable. For researchers, interviews are usually of the first two types.

Before agreeing to an interview, ask the journalist/producer who the audience is, what angle they’re taking, what areas they want to cover and who else they’re speaking to. It’s acceptable to decline interviews if you don’t feel qualified or confident in the treatment of the topic.

The producer will likely pre-interview you to prepare questions for the talent to ask. But the talent may still ask stereotypical questions the public is expecting – remember, the audience should be getting the most out of it. 

In an interview, answer the question you’re asked, not the one you’ve prepared for. Keep your language accessible, contextualise any statistics, and maintain a conversational tone. Try to answer questions as a fellow human, not just an academic!

How to Pitch Your Research

Producers are the gatekeepers for most media appearances. When pitching, be specific and personal—show them how your content aligns with their audience. Timing is critical. Reach out before 9 am and avoid Fridays.

Tailoring your pitch to relevant holidays or major events (e.g., ‘Back to school’, Exams, the Olympics, NAPLAN) can improve your chances. Be mindful of when Parliament is not sitting, as those weeks can create more opportunities for academic voices to be heard.

Don’t be discouraged if you don’t hear back immediately—media work often involves getting “bumped” or edited out. The key is to remain persistent, relevant and to make yourself known. Write articles for platforms like EduResearchMatters, The Guardian, or The Conversation, update your profile on your institution’s website, and connect with journalists covering your area of expertise, as well as any media teams within your institution.

Engaging with the media offers a valuable opportunity to share your research with a wider audience. By telling your story clearly and compellingly, you can contribute to important conversations, elevate public discourse, and make a lasting impact beyond academia.

Hugh Gundlach is a lecturer and researcher in the Faculty of Education at The University of Melbourne. He is one of the ABC Top 5 Media Residents (Humanities) for 2024. There are intakes for the ABC Top 5 in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences. Early career researchers are encouraged to apply in 2025.

How research-based news articles (like this one) accelerate research impact

Light sensitive

What should we do now for light sensitive learners?

children with disability, students with disability, , ,

A paradigm shift from medical model to social model of disability seems to have occurred – and nowhere is that more apparent than in the many responses to the Royal Commission on Disability. This shift adds impetus to the provision of adjustments for those I describe in my book, Light Sensitive Learners: Unveiling Policy Inaction, Marginalisation and Discrimination.  These are “light sensitive learners.” 

Under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), students experiencing visual stress and a sensitivity to lighting may be given a coloured overlay (which reduces white paper glare and filters the spectrum); access to natural lighting and/ or a personal lamp. 

Teachers have an obligation to provide such adjustments, wrote former NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli in a letter to the MP for Ballina in 2014. However, many teachers don’t know about these obligations, and little, if anything, about light sensitivity and appropriate adjustments. 

If lighting causes visual strain, then the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Workplace Guidelines suggests:

Anti-glare filters for computer screens to relieve eye strain, fatigue, headaches and stress. Place blinds on windows. Flicker free lighting. Full spectrum lighting. Light filters for covering fluorescent lighting. Lower wattage overhead lights, task lighting or other alternative lighting. Large print. Coloured Paper.

Adjustments for light sensitivity are not new. Teachers in the USA ‘led the charge’ in 1908 because they wanted something done about the dazzle of white paper which made it difficult to read. Thanks to them, a ‘glarimeter’ was developed. School principal A. W. Ray argued in 1938 that artificial lighting was an “educational” problem because it made reading difficult. He worked out that “adequate spectral quality …is essential … for … seeing”. 

That was the era when fluorescent lighting was promoted by General Electric and people started complaining about visual stress. By 1929, palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses had become common in NSW. Then they were forgotten.

Governments did nothing about the spectral qualities of lighting. But, half a century later, entrepreneurs (a school psychologist and a professor of psychology) promoted light spectrum filtering lenses again. Ophthalmologists reacted and claimed light spectrum filters are just  a placebo!  But visual perception lies within the discipline of psychology and not ophthalmology and the NHMRC is recommending light filters for overhead artificial illumination!  

 The spectral quality of artificial lighting in schools is still a problem. White paper is whiter because manufacturers have added fluorescent dye as a marketing strategy. Those who prescribe palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses compete for business. Many people can’t afford light spectrum filtering lenses, even if they know about them.

But teachers can, and ought to, provide adjustments for light sensitive learners. Why? Think about visual perception, a dynamic interactive process between light/eye/brain. Changing lighting changes visual perception. Visual perception impacts on most daily activities, including driving, playing sport and – reading. How could it not? This light sensitivity/visual perceptual problem is not just about reading, but reading is what most teachers, parents and researchers are interested in.

Teachers, along with parents, picked up the baton for light sensitive learners in the late 1980s at Alstonville High School in NSW and  developed a policy for them (the only one in the world, to my knowledge and I write about this in my book). Academic results improved. Students told us that light spectrum filters or coloured paper take “the glare away and [take] away the movement [of words] quite a bit”. Some professionals don’t believe them. They say that schools should use evidence, but a student’s experience is not the type of evidence they want so they don’t ask for it.

No one picked up the baton and ran with it throughout Australia. No one ran with it throughout the world. Why not? There are several reasons including –  vested interests! What are those vested interests? The lighting industry, the remedial reading industry, and the coloured lens industry.

The lighting industry is not accountable to any government. The Australian Standards authority in conjunction with the New Zealand Standards Authority (AS/NZ) has total control. More lights, more money and– who cares about spectral quality?

Some people in the remedial reading industry disparage coloured lenses. They are not ‘Magic Glasses’– they don’t cure dyslexia or learning disabilities. But, the problem is not dyslexia, and it’s not a problem with learning, it’s a problem with light sensitivity and visual perception. However, if light sensitivity and visual perceptual anomalies were acknowledged, the need for remedial reading might drop and that would reduce profit. So they would say that wouldn’t they?   

“The global coloured lens market in 2022 is valued at USD 5403.28 million” and growing. Allegedly, there’s a “surge of eye disorders”. That’s good for ophthalmic professionals but, as Ray discovered back in 1938, artificial lighting was the problem, not his eyes. A significant number of six-year-old children in Sydney, experienced symptoms of “eye strain”, but researchers demonstrated in 2006 that “the vast majority had normal eye examinations”. Is light sensitivity their problem? 

If teachers do nothing, the consequences for light sensitive learners include reduced academic results; visual fatigue, headaches, and lowered self esteem. A cumulative effect may be inattention and poor behaviour. Moreover, compliance with the DDA is mandatory. 

Begin to shift attitudinal and environmental barriers by asking, “Would you like me to turn the lights off?”

Wendy Johnson PhD  negotiated inclusion of the term “learning differently” in the Australian Disability Discrimination Act when working as a secondary school teacher. She has also worked as a tutor and lecturer in the tertiary sector but is now an independent public policy scholar and advocate for light sensitive people.