jump to navigation

(Un)necessary teachers’ work? Lessons from England. July 17, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Directions in Education, Education Policy and Politics, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

by Susanne Gannon

Disembarking at Heathrow a few weeks ago, my first purchase in pounds as always was a copy of The Times to read on the train into the city. The second page headline, “CR (Creative Original): Grades on schoolwork replaced by codes” (Bennett, 2017) caught my eye. Skimming the article in my dazed jetlagged state was not ideal for a critical reading but I snapped a photo with my phone of the final paragraph:

“In 2014 the government asked teachers to tell them what created unnecessary work. Three big areas were marking, planning and data management.”

I recognise the data deluge in schooling is now overwhelming, may be driven by externally imposed system imperatives and is not always put to use to improve student learning. However, I’ve spent my professional life as a secondary English teacher, tertiary teacher educator and researcher. I could not see how “marking” and “planning” are seen as “unnecessary work” for teachers.

Planning is surely at the heart of teachers’ work. Otherwise how do we claim our status as professionals? Ideally we don’t just wing it in the classroom, nor do we follow prescriptive scripts. Systematic, responsive, syllabus-informed planning of purposeful sequences of learning and meaningful resources are what make the difference for individuals and groups of students. Well-selected and fine-grained data about student progress (not necessarily only the numerical data that is favoured by educational systems) should of course inform such planning as skilled teachers identify gaps and opportunities for extension and tailor their planning to their students’ needs and their potential.

Having high expectations and creating the conditions – through careful and ideally collaborative planning – for students to succeed and to excel are hallmarks of quality teachers. These features are characteristic of exemplary teaching in disadvantaged contexts (Lampert & Burnett, 2015; Munns, Sawyer & Cole, 2013). Careful planning need not preclude flexibility, creativity and authenticity in learning and assessment practices, but conversely may enable these qualities (Hayes, Mills & Christie, 2005; Reid, 2013). As many of these authors stress, good planning is often underpinned by a disposition of teachers to become researchers of learning within their own classrooms. Where teachers are provided some agency and capacity to gather and use data then problems are less likely to be at the low level of time consuming and potentially meaningless “data management” that is perceived as “unnecessary work” by teachers in England.

Marking is of course close to my heart as a secondary English teacher and I have spent countless hours of my life providing written feedback on student work. Whilst I have become adept at designing and using outcomes based rubrics / criteria sheets since their introduction in the mid-90s with outcomes based assessment and curriculum, I have always endeavoured to provide tailored and specific feedback to students on their texts.

This for me is “marking” as a process, and I think of it – in ideal circumstances – as sometimes like a sort of dialogue on the page between student, text and teacher, and an opening towards further dialogue. It features in formative as well as summative assessment contexts (apart from exams). Now it features in the texts in progress that are thesis chapters for my current doctoral students. In a perfect world it is diagnostic, supportive, explicit and critical in combination and students will take heed. Portfolios, peer and self-assessment processes and tools can be incorporated. As Munns et al (2013) describe, sharing assessment responsibility is an important component of the insider school. The volume and pressure of marking has always been problematic however, when short timelines for results and sheer numbers of students across multiple classes work against ideal scenarios. My research into creative writing in secondary schools (e.g. Gannon, 2014) suggests how English faculties were able to work collegially to support senior students as they developed major works in English. Marking, at best, can be rewarding, encouraging and useful for students and for teachers.

Where, then, does the aversion to marking come from for teachers in England? The article in The Times does not provide any pointers towards the government survey of 2014, but is rather an announcement of a large randomised control trial to be funded by the UK-based Education Endowment Foundation, based on a Report reviewing written feedback on student work that they commissioned and recently published (Elliot et al., 2016). The opening of the executive summary of the Report provides further detail:

[T]he 2014 Workload Challenge [UK] survey identified the frequency and extent of marking requirements as a key driver of large teaching workloads. The reform of marking policies was the highest workload-related priority for 53% of respondents. More recently, the 2016 report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group [UK] noted that written marking had become unnecessarily burdensome for teachers and recommended that all marking should be driven by professional judgement and ‘be meaningful, manageable and motivating’. (2016, 4)

Well, of course! What has gone wrong in England that marking is not driven by these qualities. Are there lessons for us in Australia (yet again from England) of what not to do in educational reform? Although the report acknowledges that there is very little evidence or research into written marking, they nevertheless identify some inefficient and apparently widespread practices: triple-marking, awarding grades for every piece of student work (so that the grades distract students from the feedback), too many texts required from students, marking excessive numbers of student texts, provision of low level corrections rather than requiring students to take some responsibility for corrections/ improvements, and moving on without giving students time to process and respond to feedback.

Despite the caveat in the opening section, the report is worth reading in full (though it has been criticised by local critics e.g. Didau, 2016). Secondary teachers are much more inclined to put a grade on every piece of student work, they say (2016, 9). Unsurprisingly, offering clear advice on how a student may improve their work in a particular dimension seems to be more useful than broad comments (‘Good work!’) or excessively detailed and overwhelming commentary (2016, 13). Targets or personalised and specific “success criteria” may be effective, particularly where students are involved in establishing them (2016, 20; also see Munns et al., 2013).

It is in this part of the Report that the overall logic of the newspaper article becomes apparent. Buried well down into the subsection on “Targets” is the following comment:

Writing targets that are well-matched to each student’s needs could certainly make marking more time-consuming. One strategy that may reduce the time taken to use targets would be to use codes or printed targets on labels. Research suggests that there is no difference between the effectiveness of coded or uncoded feedback, providing that pupils understand what the codes mean. However the use of generic targets may make it harder to provide precise feedback. (2016, 20).

The Times headline is therefore not quite accurate. It seems that “Grades” will not be replaced by “codes” but rather that teachers’ written comments will be replaced by codes. In another article, “Schools wanted to take part in marking without grading trial” (Ward, 2017) this is called “FLASH Marking” and is an initiative developed in house by a secondary school in northwestern England that will be rolled out to 12,500 pupils in 100 schools (EEF, 2017). The school claims that teachers will now be able to mark a class of Yr 11 exam papers in an hour. Students will receive an arrow (at, above or below expected target), and codes such as CR = “creative original ideas”, and V= “ambitious vocabulary needed.”

It seems from these news stories (and presumably EEF will put up the design protocols on their website eventually) that two different factors are being measured – one is holding back grades and the other is using codes instead of written comments. I’m curious but ambivalent, after all at university it is now mandatory to use “Grademark” software for coursework students. This enables teachers to provide generic abbreviated feedback (“codes”) but also gives us the opportunity to personalize responses, and supplement these with an extended written comment, or even an audio-recorded comment. These are highly personalised and appreciated by students.

To turn back to the English example, I wonder whether the randomized control trial design (in this case an efficacy trial that will be evaluated by Durham University) means that participating schools will not be able to improvise around the conditions of the feedback? At least, if the reduction of feedback to codes proves not to improve student results, given the need for the control (or “business as usual”) group, the damage will be limited to only half the participating schools and students. The news articles are unclear about the purpose of the study – which is described as a way to reduce teacher workload more than to improve student learning. However the EEF project description also mentions, reassuringly, that the rationale is focused on student outcomes, as “specific, actionable, skills-based feedback is more useful to students than grades” (2017). The project will follow year 10 students in senior English classes through to the end of secondary school with a report to be published in 2021. Already, I can’t wait.

References

Bennett, R. (June 17, 2017). CR (Creative original idea): grades on schoolwork replaced with codes. The Times.

Didau, D. (May 18, 2016), The Learning Spy Blog.

http://www.learningspy.co.uk/assessment/marked-decline-eefs-review-evidence-written-marking/

Education Endowment Foundation (2017). Flash Marking. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/our-work/projects/flash-marking/

Elliot, V., Baird, J., Hopfenback, T., Ingram, J., Thompson, I., Usher, N., Zantout, M, Richardson, J., & Coleman, R. (2016). A Marked Improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/-on-marking/

Gannon, S. (2014). ‘Something mysterious that we don’t understand…the beat of the human heart, the rhythm of language’: Creative writing and imaginative response in English. In B. Doecke, G.Parr & W. Saywer (Eds), Language and creativity in contemporary English classrooms (pp. 131-140). Putney: Phoenix Education.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2005). Teachers & schooling making a difference: productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Allen and Unwin.

Lampert, J. & Burnett, B. (Eds) (2015) Teacher Education for High Poverty Schools. Springer.

Munns, G., Sawyer, W. & Cole, B. (Eds). (2013). Exemplary Teachers of students in poverty. Routledge

Reid, J. (2013). Why Programming matters: Aporia and teacher learning in classroom practice. English in Australia. 48(3), 40-45.

Ward, H. (June 16, 2017). Schools wanted to take part in marking without grading trial. Times Education Supplement. https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/schools-wanted-take-part-marking-without-grading-trial

 

Dr Susanne Gannon is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and a senior researcher in the Centre for Educational Research at Western Sydney University, Australia.

10,000 days of love: celebrating Phil Nanlohy, a dialogical educator June 21, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Primary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education, Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,
4 comments

By Jorge Knijnik

Educate is to immerse of meaning everything we do (Paulo Freire)

On the evening of the 19th June, teacher educators and primary teachers gathered in Parramatta, in the heart of Western Sydney, to celebrate the career achievements of a teacher educator legend: Phil Nanlohy, one of the most generous academics to have ever worked in the School of Education at Western Sydney University.phil

Phil had chosen that day for his retirement festivities because it marked his 10,000th working day at the University. He was happy and thankful that he could stay for more than 27 years in the same work place: happy as he made so many great friends; and thankful because over all these years he was able to make an intensive and in-depth commitment to his passion for education.

Both retirees and current teacher educators, along with other teachers who were present at that celebration, were unanimous in recognising that Phil’s positive impact in primary education in New South Wales goes far beyond the university’s lecture theatres. His legacy can be seen in the lives of thousands of university students, whom he has supported to achieve their goals and to become current teachers across Western Sydney. Phil has been the role model of so many teachers who learned with him to be better educators in their everyday teaching practices.

This is one of Phil’s important lessons: that teachers are never ‘ready to teach’; that we all learn while teaching, but this learning only comes if teachers have the chance to permanently self-reflect on their practices and their pedagogies. Paulo Freire, the greatest educator, philosopher and social activist, would say that “nobody starts to be an educator on Tuesday at 4 pm; nobody is born as an educator, or even defined as an educator. We become educators, permanently, in practice and reflecting on our practice”. Accordingly, Phil has fought so many good pedagogical fights to support students to create practical and insightful tools that would help them to increase their self-reflective skills, augmenting their capacity to implement their teaching philosophies with their own students, and becoming better teachers.

All testimonies on that festive night were about how Phil had always put his students’ needs in front of his own necessities: his mission was to help his students to find their ways through the sometimes daunting academic context. So many of his students were the first in their families to ever go to a university; many times they did not have either the cultural support or the knowledge about what the academic life requirements were. So, Phil was always there to help them to solve their problems.

Phil’s “proud sons of a teacher” gave evidence of the many evenings and numerous weekends that he spent on preparing materials for his students. This careful planning had the aim of delivering authentic learning experiences to his students, as Phil firmly believes that every lesson should be immersed with social and cultural meaning, so his passion for education would flow to students as they make their way to their emancipation as educators and citizens. For Phil, this passion was clearly a two-way route: as student-teachers embedded themselves with the hunger for teaching, they simultaneously nurtured Phil’s own desire to keep looking for ways to be a better teacher-educator himself.

Phil’s enthusiasm for his shared practices with his students was visible. More than visible, one could feel this enthusiasm rolling along the campus’ corridors and teaching spaces. Phil was relentlessly looking for better ways to improve his communication with his students.

This is another valuable lesson of Phil’s pedagogies. He was always in a dialogical relationship with the students; in a Freirean sense, that means to be in the students’ world AND with the students’ world. According to Freire, it is in the dialogical process that teachers develop their critical consciousness about the world they and their students inhabit. Dialogue is an essential tool for teachers to become educators.

In a historical period when neoliberalism and individualism pervade our daily lives, seemingly aiming to destroy the bonds that ties us as communal beings; in these precarious times when intolerant political ideas have strongly emerged within our societies, Phil’s unselfishness teaches us that dialogue is one of the most important tools that educators can use to increase their students’ social conscience towards a fairer society.

Phil’s lessons, though, go beyond that. His generosity towards his students and colleagues were a true lesson of love. Love that, according to Paulo Freire, it is both the foundation of the dialogical process as “the dialogical process itself”. Love for the world and for human beings. Love and dialogue, not manipulation or paternalism. Love as an act of freedom that generates new acts of freedom.

Phil’s lessons of love towards his work, his students and the world will remain with all of us, his colleagues and former students. The 10,000 days owe which he disseminated his love for the teaching profession will certainly generate many other thousands of days of dialogue and love for education.

However, we will miss him and his generosity on a daily basis. Phil’s words during his celebrations showed that he is a truly Freirean educator. Very humbly, he said that all “these years have been gift. The friendships and the support given to me have let me work as the teacher I wanted to be. Thank you all for what you have allowed me to do”.

Phil’s Educator shoes will be very hard to fill.

Readings

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Dr. Jorge Knijnik is a senior lecturer in  the School of Education at Western Sydney University. Jorge’s books on Gender, Sports and Education can be accessed here.

Objective or Subjective? Can the arts be assessed? June 13, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

By Rachael Jacobs

 As with any subject area arts education must conform to curriculum policies and procedures, including those related to assessment. In subjects such as Dance, Drama, Music and Visual Arts, students’ creative work is assessed formatively and summatively through a range of assessable instruments. However, the assessment of artistic work presents unique challenges, as the processes used are highly dependent on a wide range of interrelated contributions. This leads to wide speculation that the arts cannot be assessed, as all judgements are merely subjective.

 Arts learning is multifaceted in that it connects to the human experience, engages learners in imaginative and aesthetic growth, accesses technical skills and allows for vocationally orientated experiences. It is also creative and dynamic, using assessment tasks to gauge artistic responses upon the learning trajectory. It is arguable that ongoing and regular assessments are critical components of the arts classroom. Students’ creative work is assessed formatively and summatively through a range of assessable instruments, including individual and group performances, journals and logbooks, design portfolios, director folios, script development, improvisation tasks, video production, self-reflection, theatre reviews and interviews. Performance assessments in particular can be complex because of the variations between performance sites, the requirement for ensemble or group work, the nature of the ensemble or group, the access to technical equipment and the composition and reactions of any audience that might be in attendance (Oreck et al. 2003).

But these problems can be addressed through effective assessment task design. The larger issue is the perception that the formal and widespread assessment of artistic creations can result in a stifling of individual expression, imagination, creativity and originality, while not allowing for the fresh pursuit of ideas (Hanley 2003). A wide range of responses are also plausible to a particular task. Despite these challenges, system-wide assessment in the arts is achievable and necessary to establish the credibility of the field and to provide systems for identifying student achievement within the formal school curricula.

One of the biggest challenges identified by Harris (2008) is that ‘creativity’ is not easily defined and is therefore difficult to assess. Assessment in aesthetic domains also utilises personal responses to stimuli, which can be unfamiliar to those more accustomed to assessment tasks with previously defined answers. This is where the duality of objective and subjective constructs comes into play. Haynes (2008) and Ross (1993) describe traditional assessment methods, as identified by Hyde (2013), as being focussed on objectivity, whereby assessors are expected to discard their own feelings in favour of strictly set criteria in which interpretations are not required.

A focus on objective judgments is contrary to arts education, and indeed, the broader aims of education. O’Toole et al. (2009) remind us, “Knowledge and learning are of course never objective nor value-neutral, much though ultraconservative groups and politicians might wish them to be seen as such” (p. 108). Jackson (2006) justifies the validity of creative assessment tasks, arguing that “it should be possible to separate subjective judgments of creativity from judgments of technical goodness and from judgments of aesthetic appeal” (p. 169). Tomlinson (2001) argues for a healthy balance between subjective and objective judgments in order to create informed judgments on performance assessment that provide the most ‘individually sensitive, accurate and comprehensive evidence’ (p. 15) of student learning. Misson (1996) goes so far as to identify arts education as a site for the construction of subjectivity, which he argues operates at the nexus of intelligence and emotion: “thought is charged with feeling, while feeling is refined and strengthened by thought” (p. 11). In this respect, it has long been argued that subjects such as Drama teach empathy (Holland 2009; Trinder 1977). Similarly, Bolton (1984) describes Drama as a process of ‘unselfing’, which makes subjective and alternative responses a valid part of the dramatic response.

The assessor is concurrently an arts consumer, but is more active than other audience members. The ability of the assessor to capture their thoughts on the quality of work as it occurs is vital to the integrity of the assessment process. For example, during a performance, the assessor is required to make judgments about the quality of the work and physically notate their thoughts in relation to given criteria. The assessor makes cognitive links between student choices based on the assessment criteria, balancing their judgements with their own implicit criteria, which are necessarily based on their personal experiences (Baptiste 2008). While an audience member is permitted to make purely subjective judgments, the assessor aims to make informed judgments, which may result in marks or grades being recorded. Teachers in the arts develop expertise in assessing the outcome of the aesthetic process or the manifestation of the individual aesthetic experience. The product is therefore viewed from a number of perspectives and informed judgments are made by the assessor based on set criteria and personal discretionary judgements in relation to, and the quality of, what is produced (Ross 1993).

Leach et al. (2000) argue that assessors are consciously and unconsciously biased by their own values, preferences and dispositions. In this respect, personal responses from both the assessor and the student can widen the possibilities for interpretation (Ross 1993). Rather than command that assessors discard these personal responses, it is preferable for students to be taught to use individuals’ insights to reflect upon, and if necessary, make adjustments to their performances (Soep 2005). Students do not create art solely for the purpose of being assessed; rather they engage in arts education to pursue their own artistic expression. Therefore, students should be encouraged to assess feedback and apply their own artistic decisions to their work. Both students and teacher-assessors should be aware that subjective responses are natural, as they are rooted in “culturally authorised criteria” for judgment of the level of achievement (Ross 1993, p. 164). However, the assessor’s judgement is recorded in quantifiable terms such as grades or marks; therefore, the student has a heightened awareness of the assessor’s responses in the high-stakes assessment environment.

The literature suggests that subjective judgements are endemic in the arts assessment environment and can never be divorced from the process. At the same time, the ‘healthy balance’ (Tomlinson 2001, p. 15) between subjective and objective judgments are ideally what the teacher-assessor should deliver. Subjective and objective perspectives combine to create informed judgements that broaden interpretations on the students’ art. This can be somewhat challenging to those not accustomed to assessment in affective domains, using aesthetically charged mediums. Academic work is traditionally associated with rational and quantifiable modes of thinking, therefore arts educators should take care to make their language accessible and their assessment processes transparent. Arts educators’ challenge to traditional learning and assessment paradigms is also important because it broadens the educational community’s understanding of the nature of learning. Discussing the merits of creative assessment tasks is also important as it allows for the rigour and complexities of the tasks to become visible to those outside of artistic fields.

The challenges associated with arts assessment, like the arts themselves, are heavily nuanced. Teachers and students do not engage in arts assessment to have a complete and full understanding of all its nuances. They engage in the arts to experience the joy of creative expression and artistic creation, to play ‘pretend’ in a range of roles and to build a more comprehensive understanding of the human experience through an array of lenses. There is also joy within challenge; Arts performance assessment contains areas of ambiguity and subtleties that lack definitive answers. The subtleties add to the richness of the field, challenging educators to engage in meaningful discussions in order to find ways to enhance fairness and equity amid the ambiguity.

References:

Baptiste, L. (2007). Managing subjectivity in arts assessments. In: L. Quamina-Aiyejina, ed., Reconceptualising the Agenda for Education in the Caribbean, 1st ed. [online] St. Augustine: School of Education, UWI., pp.503-509. Available at: http://uwispace.sta.uwi.edu/dspace/bitstream/ handle/2139/6714/Cross-Campus%20Conference%20Proceedings%202007. pdf?sequence=1. [Accessed 17 Jul. 2012].

Bolton, G. (1984). Drama as education. Harlow, England: Longman.

Hanley, B. (2003). Policy issues in arts assessment in Canada: “Let’s get real”. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(1), pp.33-38.

Harris, J. (2008). Developing a language for assessing creativity: A taxonomy to support student learning and assessment. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 5(1), pp.http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/ fms/MRSite/psd/hr/capd/investigations/vol5/INV%205_013%20-%20Harris.pdf.

Haynes, F. (2008). What counts as a competency in the arts?. In: Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. [online] Brisbane. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/1993/haynf93103.pdf [Accessed 29 Mar. 2016].

Holland, C. (2009). Reading and acting in the world: conversations about empathy. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(4), pp.529-544.

Hyde, D. (2013). What makes a good secondary assessment? On achieving the aims of assessment. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(13), pp.188-197.

Jackson, N. (2006). Developing creativity in higher education. London: Routledge.

Leach, L., Neutze, G. and Zepke, N. (2015). Learners’ perceptions of assessment: Tensions between philosophy and practice. Studies in the Education of Adults, 32(1), pp.107-119.

Misson, R. (1996). Dangerous lessons: sexuality issues in the drama classroom. NADIE Journal, 20, pp.11-21.

Oreck, B., Baum, S. and Owen, S. (2004). Assessment of potential theater arts talent in young people: The Development of a New Research-Based Assessment Process. Youth Theatre Journal, 18(1), pp.146-163.

O’Toole, J., Stinson, M. and Moore, T. (2009). Drama and curriculum. Dordrecht: Springer.

Ross, M. (1993). Assessing achievement in the arts. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Soep, E. (2005). Critique: Where art meets assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), pp.38-63.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). Grading for success. Educational Leadership, 58(6), pp.12-15.

Trinder, J. (1977). Drama and social development. NADIE Journal, June, pp.33-43.

 

Dr Rachael Jacobs is a lecturer in arts education in the School of Education at Western Sydney University.  She is a former secondary teacher (Dance, Drama and Music) and primary Arts specialist.

 

 

 

Building STE(Mathematics) through overseas exchange with Australian Initial Teacher education students May 2, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Community Engagement, Directions in Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Shirley Pic
by Shirley Gilbert

More and more cross-cultural understanding is just one of the many standards that initial teacher education providers are required to demonstrate as part of their preparation of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs. The professional demands placed on ITE programs suggest that in building their accreditation requirements, different approaches should be made available to their ITE preservice teachers to meets this particular requirement, and each university differs in the way it prepares its Graduate students for this career stage of the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011 a, b, c; 2014; 2016).

The School of Education at Western Sydney University has been providing beginning teachers with the experience to develop lessons which address the Australian curriculum’s Cross Curriculum priority area – Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)) since 2001.

Many ITE providers (universities and others) use overseas experiences as opportunities to explore the culture and traditions of a different country (AITSL; 2104). At Western Sydney University, the School of Education’s programs offer, in addition to the cultural aspect of an in country experience, the opportunity to its preservice teachers to teach in their chosen destination country. Providing an overseas opportunity not only builds teacher capacity and intercultural connections, but allows for ITE providers to be flexible and innovative (AITSL 2014) in the ways they prepare their graduate teachers. Our School of Education Overseas Professional Experience Programs (OPEP) has been running for many years, and develops our graduates in unique ways in countries such as Thailand, China, Taiwan, Malaysia. It is also hoping to develop a specialisation with Indonesia, with mathematics teaching being the primary focus.

In Western Sydney schools, pre-service teachers benefit from achieving a greater understanding of diversity: that diversity is required not only to engage learners, but to build upon the funds of knowledge they already bring to classrooms so that learning can be meaningful. These opportunities allow our preservice teachers to reflect on their own cultural assumptions, in their own teaching, in an applied way.

It is important to recognise that countries who are signatories to Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) are part of a regional intergovernmental organisation established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries who promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region. The organisation was established on the 30th November 1965 and has 11 Member Countries; 7 Associate Members; and 3 Affiliate Members countries. Over the past fifty two years, SEAMEO has developed 21 centres throughout Southeast Asia, one of them is SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel in Mathematics (SEAQiM), which is located in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

I am working with the Director, Dr Wayhudi and his partner schools to scope out the possibilities for short term placements- specifically with a mathematics focus. Links are also being pursued in cooperation with SEAQiM with Western Sydney University  OPEP staff to secure grants to assist our students to participate in these overseas STEM experiences. Specialised teaching and professional development intensives in both science and mathematics have long been a focus in south east Asia.

This future cooperation with SEAQiM has possibilities for improving both primary and secondary teachers in our schools where teachers entering the profession in Western Sydney classrooms often have limited opportunities to develop themselves on a larger scale with mathematics throughout their regular practicums.

I am one of the two Overseas Professional Experience Coordinator’s in the School of Education along with Dr Son Truong, and am currently in Yogyakarta visiting the SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education personnel in Mathematics (SEAQiM), and am using funds from my the Vice Chancellors Award 2016 to explore and develop additional opportunities in Asia for preservice teachers to undertake additional teaching opportunities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). As part of my role with the School of Education working with the SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel in Mathematics, I am striving to develop specific opportunities for our preservice teachers who wish to explore and improve their teaching in Mathematics, Science and English.

The School of Education has a long history of successful Overseas Professional Development in south-east Asia through both the New Colombo Plan Scholarship Program and the Endeavour grants scheme – however this current opportunity hopes to secure funding specifically for preservice teachers wishing to expand their portfolios in maths education. Australian preservice teachers enrolled (or intending to enrol next semester) in units 102075 Professional Practice 3 (PP3) (Secondary) or 101577 Classrooms Without Borders (CWB)(Primary/Early Childhood) will be eligible to participate in this STEM opportunity.

From this relationship it is expected that Western Sydney University students will form relationships with SEAQiM staff, partner school administrators, partner teachers and students, and with officers of the Yogyakarta State Educational Department. The accompanying Western Sydney University staff members will also form professional relationships with these groups as is evident in past joint publications and scholarly activities, and they will also form relationships with visiting academics from other SEAMEO countries (White; 2012).

Community service learning provides opportunities for preservice teachers to work in culturally and linguistically diverse sites and challenge themselves for the variety of sites they may enter into post their professional studies. The units PP3 and CWB are service learning units enabling Western Sydney University students to work in flexible and purposeful contexts that meet the needs of wider educational communities. These opportunities expand preservice teacher’s knowledge and understanding for Australian contexts when teaching their Cross Curricular Priority Area ‘Asia and Australia’ (ACARA, 2012).

The site at Yogyakarta provides a full range of teaching opportunities as well as ample opportunities to collect resources for the preservice teachers to build their own teaching toolkits back in Australia. The cultural sites include but are not limited to: Museum Negri Sonobudoyo, Pagelaran Karaton (Sultan’s Palace), Merapi Volcano Museum, Barabudur Mahayana Buddhist temple, Beringharjo Markets and Malioboro Road and surrounds.

Western Sydney University pathways to teaching and master’s program students are encouraged to visit the School of Education vUWS site for any additional information about tours on offer currently.

 

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012). Cross-curriculum priorities. Retrieved Monday, 10 April 2017 from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/cross-curriculum-priorities

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2011a). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures. Carlton South: Education Services Australia.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2011b). National professional standards for teachers. Retrieved Monday, 10 April 2017 from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/aitsl_national_professional_standards_for_teachers.

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2011c)Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Frequently Asked Questions, Standards and Procedures. Retrieved Monday, 10 April 2017 http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/accreditation_of_initial_teacher_education_faq

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2014). Early teacher development: Trends and reform directions. Report prepared for the Asia Society’s Global Cities Education Network. Retrieved Monday, 10 April 2017 from http://asiasociety.org/files/gcen-earlyteacherdevelopment.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2016). Initial teacher education: Data report. Retrieved Monday, 10 April 2017 from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initial-teacher-education/data-report-2016

White, A. L. (2012). Australian pre-service teachers overseas tour : implications for mathematics teaching and learning. (J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng, Eds.) Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons : Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2-6 July 2012, Singapore , 769-776. Retrieved from http://math.nie.edu.sg/merga2012/index.aspx

 

Shirley Gilbert is a lecturer in the School of Education at Western Sydney University, Australia, and is one of the School’s coordinators of overseas professional experiences for the university’s pre-service teachers.

Don’t feel guilty about screen time for children April 12, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Role of the family.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

by Joanne Orlando

Parents have been struggling to contain their child’s technology use to the recommended screen limit of two hours a day. With schoolwork, homework, communication , social media and fun, that limit doesn’t acknowledge our new reality. But at last authorities have listened and the guidelines for children’s screen use have caught up to the digital age.

The guidelines used by the federal Department of Health are based on those developed by the American Academy of Paediatricians. The academy’s new guidelines acknowledge the dramatic change in our device use and the need for children to use technology throughout their day. Even the long-held recommendation that children under two should get no screen time at all has been dropped.

The important message from the new guidelines is to shift our thinking from ‘‘ screen time’ ’ to ‘‘ screen quality’’ . Some new time measures are provided for younger children: one hour for children 18-months to five years. For children aged six to 18, the academy has passed the baton to parents to decide. Parents are asked to take a more nuanced approach and keep check of what their child does on a tablet, computer, TV or other digital device rather than counting minutes.

This is a sound approach as 30 minutes of playing a game that centres on stealing cars and dealing with drug lords (one of the most successful online games in the world) is quite different to spending 30 minutes creating music on a device. The previous guidelines were developed in the 1990s in response to research on children’s viewing of violent and sexual content . But the new guidelines are based on recent research that shows that use of today’s interactive devices can have valuable learning benefits . Technology can enhance the development of children’s language and literacy, stimulate creativity and allow children to work with ideas in deep and meaningful ways.

While loosening the guidelines is a great move for families, it may bring a new kind of stress. Parents often feel uneasy about guiding their child’s technology use. This is fed by the constant messages that tell us technology is bad for children . It’s a strong message that has led to parental uncertainty about what is best for children and how to guide their tech use.

The guidelines ask parents to take the lead and encourage educational content. However the term “educational” can be quite hard to pin down if you’re not an educator. There are more than 80,000 apps labelled as educational in the iTunes store but not each of them is a quality learning experience.

Unfortunately many “educational” apps are not designed by an educator, nor even someone who knows anything about education. To assess if a site or app is educational , consider what is beneficial for your child to learn and check if the app works towards that.

Educational does not necessarily mean a school lesson. Activities that are creative, stimulate imagination and allow meaningful connection with others are great – think, as examples, of developing a music playlist, video-chatting with mum while she is away, using an online recipe to cook, taking photos of the family and creating an online album, and using a video to learn how to draw.

Encourage children to apply what they have learnt on their device to an off-screen scenario. Follow up what your child has learnt online by looking at realworld examples. The more ways a child can apply their knowledge, the better the educational experience.

Many parents separate their child’s technology use from family activities and this exacerbates their unease in parenting around technology. Not only will playing or creating together online help with decisions about screen quality, but it is also a great way to bond with your kids.

 

Dr Joanne Orlando is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at Western Sydney University, Australia. This article was originally published in the November 22, 2016 issue of The Sydney Morning Herald Digital Edition.

%d bloggers like this: