Posted by christinefjohnston in Early Childhood Education, Education and the Environment, Social Ecology.
Tags: arts education, ecopedagogy, environmental education
from Dr Kumara Ward
There has been much commentary in this blog (Gray 2012; Malone 2012) and in other publications (Seed, Macy, Fleming & Naess 1988; White 2004; Louv 2006; Ward 2011) about the importance of children developing a connection with the natural environment, and in particular their local natural environment, in order to develop a sense of belonging in place and a disposition toward stewardship for the environment. This is seen as essential if we are to develop new ways of interacting with and managing our planet as a finite resource and as our only home. The urgency for sustainability education is evident in educational curricula for all ages across Australia. It is a cross-curriculum priority in the Draft Australian Curriculum documents (ACARA 2010) and recommended as embedded practice in daily routines and curriculum in Outcome 2 of the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR 2009). The quality assurance process in the early childhood sector also highlights embedded sustainability education for young children in Quality Standard 3 (DEEWR 2010). The question considered here is, how do we best do this when working with young children?
This discussion draws on the findings of my PhD research (Ward 2011) and suggests that arts-based pedagogies can play a key role in expressing daily content about the natural world through music, drama, dance and the visual arts. We know that the arts engage multiple intelligences (Gardner 1995), encourage lateral thinking, problem solving, integration of concepts, aesthetic and creative development and comprehension on many levels of being and understanding (Russell-Bowie 2009; Wright 2012). What needs to be added to support children’s learning about nature is a deliberate injection of content (Cutter-Mackenzie & Edwards 2006) and intentional teaching through arts-based pedagogies in which the focus is on the local natural environment (Ward 2011). Content introduced through the arts cannot replace actual experiences in the natural world but does help to interpret and extend children’s experiences of nature and weave the understandings they gain from their in situ experiences in the natural world into their everyday knowing about their place and their community. It is time that the arts were dusted off to become key elements of pedagogy for young children, particularly for education for sustainability.
In the early childhood field, what started out as environmental education in the 1980s, has evolved and become known as early childhood education for sustainability or ECEfS (Davis 2010). ECEfS is a term that encapsulates notions of connection to the natural world through first-hand experience, awareness of sustainability practices, management and design, advocacy and agency. In a practical sense, this often means gardening, worm farms, composting and cooking and perhaps even building design, landscaping and management practices but overall the uptake of ECEfS in Australia is limited (Elliott 2009). There is, in Australia and internationally, an emerging interpretation of ECEfS that emphasises the first hand experiences children have in the natural world and it is often called ‘nature education’. In this interpretation of practice, the extent of time in the natural world can vary greatly and at its most basic may mean a couple hours per term in wild or unstructured environments. At its extreme it involves children spending all or at least a substantial period of time in wild or unstructured places. Whatever the case, it is the first hand experience that is paramount and the environment that is the teacher. The content of the experiences in the environment become the foundations for learning in many domains, in addition to the embodied, affective and physical experience (Warden 2005).
Early childhood settings and primary schools in Australia are by their nature not inclined to adventurous, unstructured or wild outdoor spaces (Walsh 2008; Little 2010). There are some exemplary settings, despite the majority tendency to build outdoor spaces according to minimum global requirements for space and the perceived need for amelioration of risk (Malone 2007; Little 2010). While many educators who are committed to providing opportunities for children to experience nature do their best to transform their environments so there are green and/or unstructured elements, there are invariably constraints related to budgets and resources. Arts based pedagogies can play a substantial role in assisting educators to interpret and deepen children’s understandings of the natural world and their understanding of place in their local community.
Connection with nature is often cited as an aim of nature education and of ECEfS (White & Stoecklin 2008; Davis 2010; Wilson 2010; Ward 2011; Warden 2012), as an end in itself and as a precursor to developing dispositions toward sustainable living and stewardship. Pedagogies of place (Orr 2005; Sobel 2005; Somerville 2012) discuss the role that place has in the forming of identity and the sense of belonging to place. Ecopsychological (Roszak 2001) practice or practice aimed at ecoliteracy (Capra 1999) also promote connection to place in order to understand and feel connected to the natural world in a manner that supports psychological well-being and sustainable living. The common element is the connection with nature.
The nature of this connection can perhaps best be evoked by reflecting on our own embodied experience in natural environments and the multi-textured and layered sensorial encounters that can be part of a simple walk through the forest, a swim in a local stream or a daydream lying in a grass meadow. These sensorial experiences, while physically embodied, are filtered through the child’s metacognitive schema and become additional ways of knowing and understanding the world. They can be further explored, relived and reinterpreted through scaffolded creative arts experiences. For example, educators can assist children to recreate the movement of the water, clouds or grass in the meadow through dance and drama, to draw elements of the experiences and to create simple songs that reflect them.
An appreciation for the beauty of the natural world is also often cited as a worthy attribute to encourage in children (Seed et al. 1988; Capra 1999; Sherwood 2006; Wilson 2010). The emotional connection that arises through fascination, awe and wonder, whether it be at the markings on a beetle or a breathtaking grand landscape scene, are also types of knowing and knowledge according to Wilson (2010 p. 8) who describes wonder as ‘an emotion wedded to understanding based on intuition and natural instinct’. Aesthetic appreciation is also a key feature of experience in the natural world (Capra 1999) with unlimited combinations of form, colour, shape, movement, pattern, sound and texture, all of which lend themselves to specific creative experiences that will resonate with children because they reflect their experience on a deep experiential level.
The various modes of the creative arts are innately reflective of the sounds, sights, smells, textures and colours of the natural world. They can evoke emotional, intellectual, creative and physical understandings and deepen knowledge. It is time we embraced them in our pedagogies.
References
ACARA (2010). Draft K*- 12 Australian Curriculum in Engish, History, Mathematics and Science, 2010, Australian Curriculum Assssment and Reporting Authority, On line, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home.
Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The Challenge for Education in the Next Century, Centre for Ecoliteracy, Liverpool CA, Schumacher Lecture Series.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A. & Edwards, S. (2006). “Everyday Environmental Education Experiences: The Role of Content in Early Childhood Education”, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 13-19.
Davis, J., M (2010). ‘What is Early Childhood Education for Sustainability’. In J. M. Davis, (Ed.), Young Children and Environment: Early Education for Sustainability, , Sydney, Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-42.
DEEWR (2009). The Early Years Learning Framework: Belonging, Being & Becoming, Council of Australian Governments, Canbera.
DEEWR (2010). National Quality Standard for Early Childhood Education and Care and School Age Care., 2010, Australian Government, ACT.
Elliott, S., & Davis, J. (2009). “Exploring the Resistance: An Australian Perspective on Educating for Sustainability in Early Childhood.”, International Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 65-77. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194778948?accountid=36155
Gardner, H. (1995). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Learn and How Schools Should Teach, Basic Books, New York.
Gray, T. (2012). Vitamin N: The Missing Ingredienty in the 21st Century: Learning in the 21st Century, S. Wilson, 15/07/2012. University of Western Sydney, Milperra, Accessed 17/01/2013, http://http://learning21c.wordpress.com/?s=Vitamin+N&searchbutton=go!
Little, H. (2010). Finding the Balance: Early Childhood Practitioners’ Views on Risk, Challenge and Safety in Outdoor Play Settings: Australian Association for Research in Education Conference (28 November – 2 December 2010), Australia : Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Melbourne, accessed 12/12/12 http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/153913.
Louv, R. (2006). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
Malone, K. (2007). “The Bubble-Wrap Generation: Children Growing Up in Walled Gardens”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, September 2007, pp. 513-527.
Malone, K. (2012). Place-based Pedagogies in Early Childhood and Primary School Settings: Can They Make a Contribution to Community Sustainability?: Learning in the 21st Century, S. Wilson, 02/12/12, University of Western Sydney, Milperra, Accessed 17 January 2012, http://http://learning21c.wordpress.com/?s=Vitamin+N&searchbutton=go!
Orr, D. W. (2005). ‘Place and Pedagogy’. In M. Stone and Z. Barlow, (Eds.), Ecological Literacy: Educating our Children for a Sustainable World, San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, pp. 85-95.
Roszak, T. (2001). The Voice of the Earth: An Exploration of Ecopyschology, 2nd Ed, Phanes Press Inc, Grand Rapids MI.
Russell-Bowie, D. (2009). MMADD About the Arts: An introduction to Creative Arts Education, 2nd, Pearson Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Seed, J., Macy, J., Fleming, P. & Naess, A. (1988). Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings, New Society Publishers. Philadelphia, USA.
Sherwood, P. (2006). Soul Education: Inspiring a New Passion for Sustainable Learning: Sharing Wisdom for Our Future: Environmental Education in Action, 3-6 October 2006, Australian Association for Environmental Education, Sydney, Bunbury, Western Australia.
Sobel, D. (2005). Place-Based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Communities, Nature Literacy Series, The Orion Society, Great Barring MA.
Somerville, M. (2012). ‘The Critical Power of Place’. In G. S. Cannella and S. Steinberg, (Eds.), Critical Qualitative Research Reader, New York, Peter Lang, pp. 67-81.
Walsh, P. (2008). “Stemming the Decline in Playground Activity”, Educating Young Children – Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 31-37.
Ward, K. (2011). The Living Curriculum: A Natural Wonder: Enhancing the Ways in Which Early Childhood Educators Scaffold Young Children’s Learning About the Environment by Using Self-Generated Creative Arts Experiences as a Core Component of the Early Childhood Program, College of Arts: Social Justice Social Change Research Group, Sydney, University of Western Sydney, Doctor of Philosophy.
Warden, C. (2005). The Potential of a Puddle, Mindstretchers, Auchterarder, Perthshire.
Warden, C. (2012). Nurture Through Nature: Working with Children Under 3 in Outdoor Environments 2nd, Mindstretchers, Auctherader, Scotland.
White, R., (2004). Young Children’s Relationship with Nature: Its Importance to Children’s Development and the Earth’s Future, [online] at http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/childrennature.shtml. Updated 23/1/2010: accessed 11/3/2010
White, R. & Stoecklin, V., L., (2008). Nurturing Children’s Biophillia: Developmentally Appropriate Environmental Education for Young Children, [online] at http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/nurturing.shtml. Updated 9/11/2008: accessed 27/5/2010
Wilson, R. (2010). “Aesthetics and a Sense of Wonder”, ChildCare Exchange, Vol. May/June, No. pp. 27-27.
Wilson, R. (2010). Wonder: The Wisdom of Nature: Out My Back Door, Nature Action Collaborative for Children and Community Playthings, Washington, USA, August: pp. 8-9.
Wright, S. (2012). Children, Meaning-Making and the Arts, Pearson, Frenchs Forest.
Dr Kumara Ward is a lecturer in Early Childhood Education in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted by Editor21C in Directions in Education, Educational Leadership, Engaging Learning Environments, Teacher and Adult Education.
Tags: education and training, educational leadership, teacher education
from Dr Tina Lim
As we think, contemplate and discuss course redesign for 21st century teaching and learning, it is important that we look inward, look around as well as look back, even as we look ahead.
Firstly, at the very start of the journey, we should ask ourselves what our core beliefs about teaching and learning are. Crucial questions to be answered are:
- What do we value?
- What do we believe about how people learn?
- What do we need to do to improve our practice so that it more truly reflects our values and beliefs? (Atkin, 1996).
According to Atkin, our core values and beliefs will drive our practices (or at least they should). Following from the question of “what are the core values and beliefs?” comes the question of “how in principle do you respond?” and then the question of “what practice is congruent with the principle and its underlying belief?”
For example, if we say we believe that meaningful learning occurs when students are allowed to confront real problems, make choices, and find solutions, then what we ought to do is to design learning environments which allow students to engage in authentic problem-solving experiences, nothing less (even if it means doing what we haven’t done before or don’t usually do, a.k.a. going outside our comfort zone – and yes, spell that as ploughing in more time and effort in redesigning our units, and possibly also when implementing it for the first time).
Meanwhile, looking back and looking around means that we utilise research findings and/or best practices to inform our next practice. It could be derived from our own past successful experience as an educator or learner, or from what we read or learn from others’ experiences or research through attending conferences and seminars. Going through available online research findings and reports of best practices is a good way to obtain invaluable input on specific needs and interests.
Revisiting time-tested and research-informed principles of good teaching and learning would put us in good stead. One such example is the set of seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education laid out by Chickering and Gamson (1987) namely:
(1) Encourage contacts between students and faculty;
(2) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students;
(3) Use active learning techniques;
(4) Give prompt feedback;
(5) Emphasize time on task;
(6) Communicate high expectations; and
(7) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.
While the principles were written specifically for undergraduate education 25 years ago, it should still hold for current undergraduate education, and to a great extent, for postgraduate contexts as well.
Then, there are the five fundamental principles of instruction developed Merrill (2002), which have been shown to promote learning:
(1) Task-oriented – Centre instruction on real-world problem solving;
(2) Activation – Activate learners’ existing knowledge as a foundation for new knowledge;
(3) Demonstration – Demonstrate new knowledge to learner in the context of real-world tasks or problems;
(4) Application – Engage learners in real-world tasks/problems and give feedback on and appropriate guidance throughout the process; and
(5) Integration – Encourage students to integrate new knowledge into their life through reflection, discussion, debate and/or presentation of new knowledge.
And of course, there are many others in the literature. The main point is that as we embark on any course redesign, taking note of well-founded fundamental principles and embedding them in our next practices would surely be deemed a good step toward engaging students better.
Last but not least, even as it is now a common expectation that student teachers to do self-reflections through inquiry, it is timely that we too do the same. What is the phrase commonly used? Ah yes, “walk the talk”. This is particularly important considering that we need to be able to show our student teachers that we do what we say and say what we do. We too, need to look back on our own practices as we consider the next step forward. Exemplary teaching-learning design, delivery, and assessment which are continually improved upon would speak volumes to our future teachers about the importance of self-reflection for self-improvement.
References: Atkin, J. (1996). From values and beliefs about learning to principles and practice. Retrieved from http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/files/links/ValuesBeliefs.pdf Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Retrieved from https://scholar.vt.edu/access/content/user/adevans/Public/DVDPortfolio/Samples/samples/training/track_d/Introduction/Best%20Practices/Article%20-%207%20Principles%20of%20Good%20Practice%20in%20Undergrad%20Ed.pdf Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50 (3), pp. 43-59. Retrieved from: https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/aect2002/firstprinciplesbymerrill.pdf
Tina Lim is the Course Design Academic Program Manager in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted by christinefjohnston in Education and the Environment, Social Ecology.
Tags: ecopedagogy, environmental education, social ecology
From Stephen R. Kellert, Professor Emeritus, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who will be speaking at the 2013 UWS Social Ecology Symposium 18-19 April, 2013
The current trend toward an increasing disconnect of children from the natural world constitutes a profound threat to our future as a society and even as a species. Recent data suggest children are engaged with electronic media (computers, television, games) on average 52 hours a week, while spending less than forty minutes outside. What is at stake here is not simply a dispensable recreational amenity, the chance for children to go outside and enjoy and learn about nature, or even fostering a conservation ethic and an attitude of good stewardship. Far more, children’s healthy maturation and development is in jeopardy and, with it, the future of humanity.
The psychiatrist, Harold Searles, remarked long ago (1960:27): “The non-human environment, far from being of little or no account to human personality development, constitutes one of the most basically important ingredients of human psychological existence.” Theory and evidence increasingly suggest that people possess an inherent need to affiliate with nature (something we have called, biophilia) instrumental to human health, fitness and wellbeing, and this relationship is especially important during the formative years of childhood (Wilson, 1986; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Kahn & Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2008; Kellert 2012; Children and Nature Network, 2012).
Yet, the importance of children’s contact with nature remains of marginal interest to most of the general public, policymakers, and educators. The assumption still prevails that progress and civilization is a consequence of our society’s ability to transform, separate from, and transcend the natural world. We have become increasingly blind to the reality that our species, like all species, evolved in a biological not an artificial or human created context, and that our physical, emotional and intellectual fitness continues to be reliant on a vast matrix of experiential ties to the natural world, especially during childhood.
Humanity is the product of its evolved relationship to nature, countless yesterdays of ongoing interaction and experience of the nonhuman environment. Our senses, our emotions, our intellect, even our spirit developed in close association with and in adaptive response to the natural world. Our physical and mental health, productivity, and wellbeing rely on myriad direct and indirect connections to nature, even as our world becomes increasingly fabricated and constructed. This dependence on nature has shaped and continues to shape our capacities to feel, reason, think, master complexity, discover, create, and be healthy. Whether we choose to be farmers or financiers, foresters or professors, labor with our bodies or toil with our minds, our safety, security, and survival remains contingent on the quality of our experience of the world beyond ourselves.
The sparse data available suggest our most cherished capacities – physical health, emotional attachment, self-concept, personal identity, critical thinking, problem solving – depend on myriad and irreplaceable experiences of nature, particularly during childhood. Despite our remarkable capacity for learning and creativity, we remain bound like all creatures by the constraints of our evolved biology in a natural not human created world. The extraordinary formative influence of nature deeply effects children’s health, fitness, and even moral and spiritual capacity. A child’s optimal development, the emergence of a secure and positive identity, the ability to think critically and resolve problems, and the creation of self-confidence and self-esteem are all an outgrowth of a vast web of interactions with the natural world.
Children experience nature in direct, indirect, and symbolic ways at home, at school, and at play. Nature is not just a place to visit outdoors in a park or forest, apart from everyday existence. It is also more than organized programs at school or at a nature center. Children also need unstructured and free play opportunities to experience nature in spontaneous and unsupervised contact in the realm of their everyday lives. Restoring children’s connection with nature is not just about enhanced intellectual understanding and outdoor exercise, but also about the experience of wonder, joy, exuberance, challenge, coping, awe, even dealing with fear and anxiety, all and more the basic stuff of normal development. Contact with nature is not just about direct physical contact with the outdoors, but also the representational experience of the natural world in pictures, stories, myth, legend, and design.
Even in the modern age, children’s contact with nature continues to be a vital and irreplaceable source of healthy maturation. The profound impoverishment in contemporary times of children’s contact with nature constitutes a threat to their physical and mental health and development. Intimating this possibility, the precipitous decline in children’s experience of the natural world in recent decades is correlated with alarming increases in rates of obesity, adult diabetes, myopia, attention deficit disorder, and autism among children. The crisis of deeply diminishing connections between children and nature may, in effect, be a threat to the future of humanity. The scale of the problem calls for bold steps and a deeper understanding of what is at stake. Some of this understanding can be found in a new book of mine, “Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World” (Kellert 2012).
References:
Children and Nature Network. 2008. Research and Studies, Volumes I-VI. www.childrenandnature.org.
Kahn, P. and S. Kellert, eds. 2002. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural,
and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kellert, S. and E.O. Wilson, eds. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S. 2012. Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. New Haven: Yale Press.
Louv, R. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Press.
Searles, H. 1960. The Nonhuman Environment: In Normal Development and Schizophrenia. New York: International Universities Press.
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Professor Kellert will be speaking at the 2013 Social Ecology Symposium The Expanding Universe of Social Ecology to be held 18 – 19 April, 2013 at the University of Western Sydney Hawkesbury Campus
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted by christinefjohnston in Directions in Education, Education Policy and Politics, Teacher and Adult Education.
From Herbert W. Marsh, Distinguished Professor of Educational Psychology
The NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister of Education Adrian Piccoli apparently want higher cut-offs for entry into university, and may be restricting the number of newly accredited teachers through the NSW Institute of Teachers (Sun-Herald, 3 March 2013, p1, p.5).
At least some universities feel that the proposals are too restrictive, and most universities would be concerned with potential loss of enrolments.
I would like to propose a compromise that would satisfy both sides of this debate. Universities can introduce a 3-year Bachelor of Arts in Education (BA-Ed) as well as a 4- or 5-year degree (Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Teaching, Master of Teaching, etc.) The BA-Ed could have a lower cut-off than Bed-type courses and include more generic coursework, but importantly would not include the practicum component (where students do practice teaching in schools) and would not qualify students to teach in NSW. Separate cut-offs could be established for the two degrees. This proposal has many advantages:
- A generic course in education, the 3-year BAEd, is very good training for many jobs other than classroom teaching and already many students who qualify to be teachers do not pursue this option. Indeed, this might make the BAEd MORE attractive to some students who do not want to be classroom teachers and result in increased enrolments overall.
- Higher cut-offs for the BEd-type courses could be increased, in line with government recommendations. However, performance in the alternative BAEd course could be used as an additional criterion into the BEd. Indeed, performance in a BAEd course at the end of two or three years of study would undoubtedly be a better criterion into a BEd course than high school performance. Because the main difference between the BAEd and BEd is the practicum, this alternative entry would not substantially increase the time to complete a BEd. This alternative entry would mean that potentially good teachers who did not perform well on the HSC would not be locked out of classroom teaching.
- Finland is consistently one of the highest scoring countries on international comparisons such as those conducted by the OECD. Indeed, they do have very high cut-offs for entry into teacher education programs. However, this is the result of supply and demand because the teaching profession is so highly valued in Finland – as much or more so than other professions that have much higher cut-offs in Australia due to high demand. Interestingly this is due, at least in part, to the esteem accorded to the teaching profession in Finland even though teacher salaries are not particularly high. This is in marked contrast to perceptions of ‘teacher bashing’ in Australia that undermines teacher morale and discourages the best students from pursuing a career in teaching.
- The full economic cost of the practicum is the most expensive component of the teacher training programs, but arguably the most important for students who want to be classroom teachers. With tighter budgets there is the temptation for universities and schools to under-fund this critical component of the BEd. My proposal would allow universities and schools to actually fund the practicum more appropriately and still reduce the cost of the practicum; BAEd students would not take the practicum. Indeed, there is need to ensure that classroom teachers who take on the demanding role of supervising pre-service teachers have adequate training, recognition, and reward for undertaking this task.
- A more radical alternative being instituted in some countries (and some other professions in Australia) would be to move the entire teaching profession to graduate entry only. This would mean that entry into Graduate Schools of Education would be based on success in an undergraduate degree rather than ATAR scores, and would have the added benefit of raising the status of the teaching profession in the eyes of the public, politicians, and students who want to become teachers. I note that my proposals presented here are not unique, and some universities already offer alternatives that have some (or even all) of the flexibility and advantages of my proposal.
A serious limitation in proposals offered by the government, the NSW Institute of Teaching, the NSW Teachers Federation, and myself is that there is almost no solid, ‘gold standard’ research to back up any of the proposals.
- There is little evidence to support the supposition that high school students scoring 80 on the Australian Tertiary University Rank (ATR) will make better teachers than those scoring 70 or even 60.
- There is not even good evidence the teachers with better/higher qualifications or more teaching experience, are better teachers (Hanushek &Rivkin, 2010; McBer, 2000).
- ‘Gold standard’ research shows that smaller class sizes are more effective. However, the differences are small, particularly for class sizes greater than 18 and for high school classes; might not generalise across student/school demographic variables (see Blatchford, et al., 2002); and might not be cost-effective relative to other policy reforms (Yeh, 2009).
- Differences between countries on OECD rankings based on standardized test scores might be useful, but there is no easy way to say what causes these differences; picking out isolated characteristics (e.g., large class sizes in high-scoring Asian countries where there are fewer classroom management issues) is naïve and counter-productive.
- Even evidence that ‘good’ schools make a difference is weak. For example, the UK has perhaps the longest history and best data for measuring school effectiveness in relation to test scores based on a national curriculum, and translating these into league tables. Although there are huge differences between schools in unadjusted test scores, these are primarily due to pre-existing differences. With increasingly sophisticated value-added models, the percentage of variance in student test scores attributable to the schools is a paltry 5%, and is likely to fall further with more appropriate control for socioeconomic status and measurement error (see Marsh, et al., 2011; also see Baker et al for related problems on the use of test scores to evaluate teachers).
- Most research into effective schools and teachers has focused on test scores, but some of the most important criteria are self-beliefs, motivation, engagement, self-regulation, and aspirations (Marsh, 2007) – areas in which good schools and teachers are likely to have a larger effect than on standardised test scores.
If any of the proponents of sweeping policy changes – or even the status quo — for teaching standards and schools are serious about improving education, then policy needs to be informed by good research. New policies should be tested in carefully designed pilot studies to test their effectiveness, before being introduced across the system. Can you imagine the public outcry that would result if sweeping new medical procedures were introduced without first being shown to be effective by solid research evidence? Why do not educational policy makers feel the same imperative to provide research evidence for new initiatives?
References
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J. and Shepard, L. A. (2010), Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, EPI Briefing Paper no. 278, Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute (http://epi.3cdn.net/b9667271ee6c154195_ t9m6iij8k.pdf).
Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, C. & Browne, W (2002): A Study of Class Size Effects in English School Reception Year Classes, British Educational Research Journal, 28:2, 169-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920120122130
Buddin, R. & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66, 103-115. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119009000291)
Hanushek, E. A. &Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about Using Value- Added Measures of Teacher Quality. American Economic Revew, 100, 267-7l.
Harris, D. N. (2009), ‘Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives’, Education Finance and Policy, vol. 4, pp. 319–50.
Marsh, H. W. (2007).Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W, Nagengast, B., Fletcher, J. & Televantou, I. (2011). Assessing educational effectiveness: policy implications from diverse areas of research. Fiscal Studies, 32, 279–295
McBer, H. (2000). Research into Teacher Effectiveness. UK Department for Education and Employment.
Rockoff, Jonah E. 2004. “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.” American Economic Review, 94(2): 247-252.
Yeh, S. S. (2009) Class size reduction or rapid formative assessment?: A comparison of cost-effectiveness, Educational Research Review, 4, 7-15. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X08000389)
Distinguished Professor Herb Marsh is in the Centre for Positive Psychology and Education and the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted by Editor21C in Directions in Education, Engaging Learning Environments.
Tags: education and transformation, learning communities, social ecology
from Dr Carol Birrel
Often the classroom itself provides unique learning opportunities if, as teachers, we remain alert to the possibilities.
Early in this semester, I walked into one of my classes (most of these students are pre-service teachers and I teach Social Ecology subjects)) to find a Muslim scarfed woman crunching away on a small green cucumber. I laughed at the sight of this delightful new way of eating this delicious morsel, as a healthy snack food, in contrast to my narrow pre-occupation of throwing it into every salad I can lay my hands on. I then had a rant to the class about what a wondrous food these Lebanese cucumbers are and asked who else eats them and how, which led into a bit of a discussion on the shaping of the Australian diet (and hence culture) through these ‘legal’ and vital imports. Next? On to the ‘real’content for the class that day.
The following week, the same student, right at the beginning of the tutorial, unearthed from her bag, a wad of bread, pickles and of course, Lebanese cucumbers- one for each student and two for the teacher. Her mother had asked her, on hearing the story of the previous week in class, how many students were in the class. On the appointed day, she had arisen very early, picked the cucumbers fresh from the garden, made the bread, added the home preserved pickles, and packed them into neat individualized bundles. I was very touched by this gesture, not only by the generosity of my student’s mother, the care and time and effort she had made in this offering, but also, it felt like a real gift from her culture. It was a very humbling moment.
As all of us crunched and munched on our superb simple repast, I asked why I had been given two (you can imagine what sort of explanations I had come up with!!). The reply? ‘Because in Lebanon, the person held in highest regard after the mother, is the teacher.’ Another humbling moment. And then, discussion took off with absolutely no prodding or poking. A lively, thoughtful and sometimes emotional sharing of the role of the teacher and student in whatever cultural background that student was from. Personal stories of suppressive relationships in China, harsh physical punishments in Iraq, imposed rote learning of huge tomes of texts in Afghanistan, no space for class discussion in Pakistan. On and on it went, the rolling out of these stories that everyone wanted to tell, even the Australian born students- and the rest of the class sat riveted. As the teacher, I was background, yet an integral part as learner also, to the crucial learning that was taking place spontaneously.
It reminded me of what the ‘real’ learning is.
In Social Ecology, we speak about the creation of a ‘learning ecology’, a place where the emphasis is on relationships, on ‘connectivities’ that bind us into a learning community that has breadth as well as depth. The teacher in this model is as much a part of the actual learning as are the students. Gone is the role of teacher as sole holder and purveyor of knowledge to be transmitted onto the blank slate of the passive student. A learning ecology is an interactive and vibrant site. You know when it is happening. You can feel it as an opening up of a space that is authentic and heart-felt. It attempts to give voice in the midst of the overwhelming noise of competing curriculum directives.
It is as delicious as any freshly picked Lebanese cucumber eaten whenever and in whatever circumstances!
Dr Carol Birrell is a lecturer in the School of Education, University of Western Sydney
Like this:
Like Loading...
