jump to navigation

Preparing for the future by repairing now November 5, 2013

Posted by christinefjohnston in Directions in Education, Secondary Education.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

By Jessy Abraham

In his blog Science education: Is Australia sabotaging its future? published in January 2013,  Wanasinghe Chandrasena raised the major concern of the declining student participation in sciences in Australia. He observed that, although this trend is a global phenomenon, Australia needs to be proactive in protecting its scientific future.  Chandrasena concluded by saying “Preparing now can save us from repairing in the future,” implying that we need to encourage students to study science.

There has been much research on the increasing reluctance of students to pursue the study of sciences nationally and internationally. Some of these studies identify strategies to attract more students, particularly more females, to the sciences. In Australia, some suggested actions include curricular reforms, gender inclusive practices, and contextualisation of science curriculum. However, student participation has not improved in recent decades, particularly in the ‘hard’ sciences such as physics. In Australia, senior secondary physics reports the lowest student participation and classes are still male dominated, with 75% of students being male.

While Chandrasena’s blog acknowledged issues with attracting more students to study the sciences, I think there is another crucial issue science educators should be concerned with: are we doing enough to retain those who have chosen to do sciences at senior secondary level?  For example, of the traditional sciences (physics, chemistry and biology), physics has been generally perceived as the most difficult and demanding subject by students (e.g. Barmby & Defty, 2006). The data from the New South Wales (NSW) Board of Studies suggest that while physics reports the lowest student participation among the traditional science subjects at senior secondary level, every year since 2000 over 21% of males and 25% females discontinue physics during their transition from the first year of senior secondary schooling (Year 11) to the final year (Year 12). The rate of attrition is slowly but steadily increasing, reaching 24% and 31% respectively for males and females in 2009-2010. Student attrition is reported for all subjects during the transition from Year 11 to Year 12; however, attrition from Physics deserves special attention. In NSW as in other states of Australia, senior secondary physics is generally chosen by high academic achievers with high career aspirations. They report high self-efficacy in the subject and typically come from families with high socio educational status and high parental education (Fullarton & Ainley, 2000). This means that a quarter of this ‘elite’ group of students is leaving physics after one year of study of the subject.  We need to shift our attention to this salient issue. Why do some students who expressed an initial motivation to study physics discontinue the subject after one year? What makes female students drop physics at a higher rate than males?  What can we do to retain them in physics? I am certain that these questions are pertinent to other sciences as well.

It is a common belief that sciences at the senior secondary level are selected by students for their strategic value in getting entry to competitive courses that lead to prestigious jobs or have more employment opportunities. Research findings support this (e.g. Barnes, 1999; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). In fact, the strongest influential factor on students’ physics enrolment intentions has been identified as its subjective ‘utility value’ that is, the usefulness of the subject in securing admission to highly regarded university courses and high status jobs (Barnes, 1999). A recent decline in the immediate utility value of traditional science subjects in relation to university entry has been linked to the declining enrolment in senior secondary physics in Australia (Lyons & Quinn, 2010). Therefore, are the students who continue studying physics merely motivated by its perceived utility value? Are those who discontinue physics doing so because the utility value has decreased for them? If that is not the case, what are the factors that influence student retention in physics?

My study among Year 11 physics students in NSW schools identified that, though students still attach high utility value to physics, it is not the most influential factor in sustaining their enrolment intentions to Year 12 as might be expected. The evidence suggested that it was the students’ expectancies of success that largely predicted their plans to continue with physics. That is, though the instrumental value of physics can be high for the students, they do not like to stay on in physics if they think that they are not good in the subject.  This displays the competitive learning style promoted in Australian schools and the considerable importance students place on Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) which is calculated at the end of the final year of senior secondary school examinations. There is a trend among students to discontinue the subjects in which they are not achieving well enough to get high ATAR, even though they enjoy learning the subject.

What are some effective steps teachers could adopt in physics classrooms? Teachers need to be aware of the motivational significance of performance perceptions students develop in physics while learning the subject. The school and classroom environments are vital contexts that can enhance the performance perceptions of students. Teachers should employ strategies to ensure that students feel competent and achieve success. For example, teachers could conceptualise success in alternative ways rather than simply high achievement in summative assessment tasks. If students are in a classroom where success is defined in terms of self-improvement rather than getting high grades in tests then all students have the chance to feel successful. Cooperative and collaborative learning activities may encourage students to work together to solve tasks rather than to compete against each other. Social interactions can make everybody share the feeling of success and therefore increase enthusiasm for the subject.

Another interesting finding from my study was on the gender stereotyped attitudes towards physics.  Physics just as any Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, is subjected to gender stereotypes such as; a female may perceive that she is not capable of  success and the careers related to the subject are not suitable for her (e.g. Barmby & Defty, 2006). Females in my study indicated that their motivation and engagement with the subject were equal to or higher than those of male students. This suggests that once students have started studying physics, their motivation and engagement may not necessarily vary as expected through gender biases. This information may prevent physics teachers from making false evaluations that lead to gender differentiated expectations and classroom practices (Elwood & Comber, 1996). Teachers should be aware that sex stereotypes could significantly reduce student engagement and participation. Therefore, learning experiences and teaching practices that discourage the development of such attitudes should be incorporated into physics instruction.

My study focused on physics, a subject which is likely to report a shortage of qualified persons more obviously than the other STEM related careers in the near future in Australia. The retention of students in other STEM courses also needs attention. I would like to suggest that preparing and repairing now, can safeguard Australia’s scientific future.

References

Barmby, P., & Defty, N. (2006). Secondary School Pupils’ Perceptions of Physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 199–215.

Barnes, G. R. (1999). A Motivational Model of Enrolment Intentions in Senior Secondary Science Courses in New South Wales Schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the Mind of the Actor: The Structure of Adolescents’ Achievement Task Values and Expectancy-Related Beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. doi: 10.1177/0146167295213003.

Elwood, J., & Comber, C. (1996). Gender Differences in Examinations at 18+: final report. London: Institute of Education.

Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Subject Choice by Students in Year 12 in Australian Secondary Schools. LSAY Research Reports. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth Research Report. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing Science: Understanding the Declines in Senior High School Science Enrolments. Research Report to the Australian Science Teachers Association: UNE.

 Jessy Abraham is a Lecturer in the School of Education, University of Western Sydney

Are we hard wired for self reflection? October 21, 2012

Posted by Editor21C in Directions in Education, Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education.
Tags: , , , ,
3 comments

from Dr Carol Birrell, Social Ecologist.

The practice of self reflection has had considerable attention and application in educational pedagogies (Bengtsson, 1995)[1]. The teacher as a ‘reflective practitioner’ is a model that has informed many subject areas across interdisciplinary divides, as has related research on the role of empathy in education (Arnold, 2005)[2]. The area in which I teach and research, Social Ecology, sees a central role for self reflection, wherein a self referential perspective is crucial to an ecological and experiential understanding of life.

Likewise, developing empathic education is an important part of pre-service teachers’ education from a Social Ecological lens. To bring these aspects to bear on what goes on in the classroom, immediately provokes an engaged pedagogy- not only awareness of self within the classroom, but also awareness of others and the dynamics of the whole group.

Most people have some sort of an inner conscious process of which they are aware and a much greater unconscious level of mental activity which is below awareness. In the university classroom, it is my experience that it is generally females who are most at ease with learning and practising reflection as a pedagogical tool. It is more of a challenge to get male students involved.

Why would this be so? Brain research has highlighted the differences between males and females and the way they learn and experience the world differently (Hines, 2003)[3], but sometimes simple causal factors are implicated. Many girls from a young age keep personal diaries. Of course, this is a gendered stereotype, similar to the one that ‘girls love horses’ but there is a widespread recognition of the accuracy here of a leaning towards ‘dear Diary…’ as an important part of normal everyday life for females.

I have observed that females take to more easily, ‘like a duck to water’, the practice of introspection as a pedagogical tool, whereas many males have to be coaxed and encouraged to first of all recognize, then articulate what goes on in their inner process.

Recent brain research provides another take on this interesting area and highlights our still forming knowledge on what exactly is consciousness and how human consciousness may be alike or distinctive from other species. A recent edition of New Scientist (New Scientist 21 July, 2012) pinpoints an area of the brain that may be linked with our inner life, regardless of gender. There are distinctive neurons called VENs (Von Economo neurons) found in the frontal areas of the brain, far larger than typical neurons and with a different shape. There is evidence to suggest that VENs are part of our inner lives, with an important role in detecting emotions in self and others: ‘Both areas kick into action when we see socially relevant cues, be it a frowning face, a grimace of pain, or simply the voice of someone we love.

When a mother hears a baby crying, both regions respond strongly. They also light up when we experience such emotions as love, lust, anger and grief’. As such, they may be interpreted as functioning like a ‘social monitoring network’ (p33).

In Social Ecology, this is referred to as a feedback loop, common to all ecological systems, which then allows us to adjust our behaviour to the circumstances. The body and its sensations, responding unconsciously to those events that are deemed to be the most ‘pressing’, and working through these VENs, may be all enlisted to respond to changes. This suggests that VENs are a key to a ‘sense of self’, a sense of our own identity, as well as a means of assessing ‘a continually updated sense of “how I feel now” (p34)’.

As a classroom teacher, we need to be constantly alert to the changing dynamics of our class/classes and the learning ecology that emerges. Our inner experience, once recognized and reinforced through an ongoing practice of reflection, alerts us to the interchange, the shifting flux within self, within a student, between students, and between teachers and students in that environment. This is highly sophisticated and complex work. I, for one, am glad to know that some very sophisticated and complex neurons are there to help the process!


References:     [1] Bengtsson, J. 1995, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, vo1,no1.     [2] Arnold, R. 2005, Empathic Intelligence, UNSW Press, Sydney, NSW.    [3] Hines, M. 2003, Brain Sex, Oxford UniversityPress, USA.

Carol Birrell is a Social Ecologist and Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. She teaches in the areas of learning and creativity and education for sustainability in our Education Studies Major, and also in our Master of Education (Social Ecology) program.

‘You go, girls’ and female role models in a post gender world? August 15, 2010

Posted by Editor21C in Education Policy and Politics, Social Justice and Equity through Education.
Tags: ,
add a comment

From Dr Susanne Gannon

Here, Susanne Gannon reflects upon the significance of Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for young women, and whether it has made any difference to the roles that our youth-oriented media play in constructing female gender identity.

The sudden ascendance of Julia Gillard as Australian PM in late June took most of us by surprise. Many women like me, who have worked for gender equity in education for some years, have been further surprised by the ambivalence of our feelings and of the complex community reactions to what should be a remarkable historical moment. While Australia was the second country in the world to give (most) women the vote in 1902, it took another 41 years until the middle of the second world war until women were elected at the Federal level in 1943, and 106 years from suffrage until we had our first female Prime Minister. Next weekend’s election will decide whether or not we will have our first elected female PM.

Many would say, particularly since the election was announced and media attention has mostly turned to polls (and even, on occasion, to policies), that gender is now irrelevant. In a post-feminist world, a world where ‘girls can do anything’ as our IWD slogans put it, or of ‘girl power’ as the magazines put it, personal success is shaped by each individual girl making the most of her opportunities. Some academics argue that this ‘individualising’ discourse, characteristic of neoliberalism, makes it more difficult to recognise the impact of social and institutional factors that impede girls’ success (see for example, new work by Jessica Ringrose in the UK). On the other hand, gendered role models – whether they are firemen who read books or women who become politicians, or electricians – are popularly seen as beneficial in their capacity to expand young people’s horizons.

In order to examine this complex context and how it is playing out, I’ve collected popular media texts directed at women and girls particularly in the three weeks between the Gillard ascendancy and the gazetting of the election. My archive includes all the major women’s and girls’ magazines, and some news articles. I’d love to hear directly from girls about their initial responses to the female PM but university research protocols mean that ethics procedures are too time consuming so for the moment I have kept my gaze to materials in the public domain. The article “You go, girls: Gillard’s rise to top hailed as an inspiration” in Sydney Morning Herald (June 28th) is one of few that focused on girls’ responses to Gillard. Whilst the headline, supplied by a subeditor, reinforces the new PM’s gender, the three girls interviewed simultaneously celebrate and dismiss this factor. Though Matilda sees this is a very significant event, she notes that she does not expect Gillard to do anything differently as PM and so “Gender is not an issue in that sense” and she stresses that “As an 18-year old female today, I have always believed that I can do anything my male counterparts can, and now I know that that really is true”. Lauren also notes that this merely reinforces what she already knew: “Julia Gillard being appointed Prime Minister hasn’t inspired me or allowed me to see the world in a new perspective. I suppose I felt like women were already equal to men here in the Western world… I already knew that a woman could be the prime minister of Australia. Aren’t you being sexist if you’re shocked or surprised that a woman has made it to that position?”  Finally, Rayan finds her immigrant origins at least as significant as her gender: “She is inspiring for young females from migrant backgrounds… whether you are a student, graduate or a mother then you can be a leader. It shows you can have lots of disadvantage but still get to the top. No matter where you come from, where your parents grew up, no matter the obstacles, we can get somewhere in life.”

Keen to see what they had to say, I had my newsagent put aside the new editions of Dolly and Girlfriend. The July edition of Girlfriend hit the stands after the ‘coup’ with an editorial focusing on ‘firsts’ and stories focusing on first kisses and first jobs. Nothing about firsts in the PM department, though plenty of ‘good news’ about the Australian tour of the teen stars of the newest Twilight movie. The August issue keeps its focus on who and what matters most in the teen celebrity world. The August Dolly, which landed next after the ascendance of Gillard, firmly ignored the JG factor as well, though in Dollyworld (wearing my truly fabulous free new headphone beanie) I learned a lot more about the hottest new boy stars on TV and readers’ secrets than I ever intended to. Meanwhile some of the women’s magazines were in a frenzy: promising us the “real Julia” (Who and New Idea) several weeks before she did, sending in the stylists (Grazia), and producing souvenir editions (New Idea, Women’s weekly). More on those later, and the contradictions embedded within those stories, as I wade my way through them. For the moment I feel like I’m oscillating between worlds.

The context for my interest in the Julia Gillard factor and in looking at gender and young people is a planned visit to Canada next month to develop a project on neoliberalism and girls with Marnina Gonick in Nova Scotia, an expert in the emerging field of ‘girl studies’, and Jo Lampert of QUT, Brisbane.  Both of these scholars will be visiting UWS in mid 2011 for a one-day seminar on this topic. Please email me directly if you’d like me to let you know the details.

Susanne Gannon is a prolific publisher on issues of gender and social equity, and also coordinates the Master of Education (Leadership) program at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.

%d bloggers like this: