Reducing high levels of communication apprehension among primary school students

This study focused on a group of primary school teachers as they implemented a variety of intervention actions within their class programs aimed towards supporting the reduction of high levels of communication apprehension (CA) among students.Six teachers and nine students, located across three primary schools, four year levels,and six classes, participated in this study. For reasons of confidentiality the schools,principals, parents, teachers, teacher assistants, and students who were involved in this study were given fictitious names. The following research question was explored in this study: What intervention actions can primary school teachers implement within their class programs that support the reduction of high CA levels among students? Throughout this study the term CA referred to "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated (oral) communication with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1984, p. 13). The sources of CA were explained with reference to McCroskey's state-trait continuum. The distinctions between high and appropriate levels of CA were determined conceptually and empirically. The education system within which this study was conducted promoted the philosophy of inclusion and the practices of inclusive schooling. Teachers employed in this system were encouraged to create class programs inclusive of and successful for all students. Consequently the conceptual framework within which this study was conducted was based around the notion of inclusion. Action research and case study research were the methodologies used in the study. Case studies described teachers' action research as they responded to the challenge of executing intervention actions within their class programs directed towards supporting the reduction of high CA levels among students. Consequently the teachers and not the researcher were the central characters in each of the case studies. Three principal data collection instruments were used in this study: Personal Report of Communication Fear (PRCF) scale, semistructured interviews, and dialogue journals. The PRCF scale was the screening tool used to identify a pool of students eligible for the study. Data relevant to the students involved in the study were gathered during semistructured interviews and throughout the dialogue journaling process. Dialogue journaling provided the opportunity for regular contact between teachers and the researcher, a sequence to teacher and student intervention behaviours, and a permanent record of teacher and student growth and development. The majority of teachers involved in this study endeavoured to develop class programs inclusive of all students.These teachers acknowledged the importance of modifying aspects of their class programs in response to the diverse and often multiple needs of individual students with high levels of CA. Numerous conclusions were drawn regarding practical ways that the teachers in this study supported the reduction of high CA levels among students. What this study has shown is that teachers can incorporate intervention actions within their class programs aimed towards supporting students lower their high levels of CA. Whilst no teacher developed an identical approach to intervention, similarities and differences were evident among teachers regarding their selection, interpretation, and implementation of intervention actions. Actions that teachers enacted within their class programs emerged from numerous fields of research including CA, inclusion, social skills, behaviour teaching, co-operative learning, and quality schools. Each teacher's knowledge of and familiarity with these research fields influenced their preference for and commitment to particular intervention actions. Additional factors including each teacher's paradigm of inclusion and exclusion contributed towards their choice of intervention actions. Possible implications of these conclusions were noted with reference to teachers,school administrators, support personnel, system personnel, teacher educators, parents, and researchers.

A state-wide systems approach to embedding the learning and teaching of sustainability in teacher education

Education systems have a key role to play in preparing future citizens to engage in sustainable living practices and help create a more sustainable world. Many schools throughout Australia have begun to develop whole-school approaches to sustainability education that are supported by national and state policies and curriculum frameworks. Preservice teacher education, however, lags behind in building the capacity of new teachers to initiate and implement such approaches (ARIES, 2010). This proposed project seeks to develop a state-wide systems approach to embedding Education for Sustainability (EfS) in teacher education that is aligned with the Australian National Curriculum and the aspirations for EfS in the Melbourne Declaration and other national documents. Representatives from all teacher education institutions and other agents of change in the Queensland education system will be engaged in a multilevel systems approach, involving collaboration at the state, institutional and course levels, to develop curriculum practices that reflect a shared vision of EfS.

Improving criteria and feedback in student assessment in law

Spurred on by both the 1987 Pearce Report1 and the general changes to higher education spawned by the “Dawkins revolution” from 1988, there has been much critical self-evaluation leading to profound improvements to the quality of teaching in Australian law schools.2 Despite the changes there are still areas of general law teaching practice which have lagged behind recent developments in our understanding of what constitutes high quality teaching. One such area is assessment criteria and feedback. The project Improving Feedback in Student Assessment in Law is an attempt to remedy this. It aims to produce a manual containing key principles for the design of assessment and the provision of feedback, with practical yet flexible ideas and illustrations which law teachers may adopt or modify. Most of the examples have been developed by teachers at the University of Melbourne Law School. The project was supported in 1996 by a Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching grant and the manual will be published late in 1997.3 This note summarises the core principles which are elaborated further in the manual.