A comparison of Chinese and Australian early childhood mathematics

In the 21st century mathematics proficiency is synonymous with a numerate citizenry. In the past few decades young children’s ability to reason mathematically and develop mathematical proficiencies has been recognised. This paper explores the history of early childhood mathematics (ECME) that may explicate differences in Chinese and Australian contexts. Results of this review established that China and Australia are diametrically positioned in ECME. Influencing each countries philosophies and practices are their cultural beliefs. ECME in China and Australia must be culturally sustainable to achieve excellent outcomes for young children. Ongoing critique and review is necessary to ensure that ECME is meeting the needs of all teachers and children in their particular context. China and Australia with their rich contrasting philosophies can assist each other in their journeys to create exemplary ECME for the 21st century.

Research needed on cultural capital, STEM endeavours and instructional innovations : a call for "collaborations between nations"

New Australian curriculum documents and government initiatives advocate the inclusion of Asian perspectives, which is highly relevant to the STEM fields. For Australia and other countries, STEM education is an opportunity to develop competencies towards employment in high-demand areas, yet the world’s knowledge of STEM is changing rapidly, requiring continuous analysis to meet market demands. This paper presents the need for “collaborations between nations” through research to advance each country’s STEM agenda towards further globalisation of education with the sharing of knowledge. Research is needed on views of what constitutes cultural capital for STEM, which also involves understanding past and current STEM endeavours occurring within various countries. Most importantly for STEM education is uncovering instructional innovations aligned with countries’ cultures and STEM endeavours. Research questions are provided in this paper to stimulate ideas for investigating in these fields. Economically, and as demonstrated recently by Greece and Spain, countries throughout the world can no longer operate independently for advancing standards of living. The world needs to recognise interdependence not only in trade and resources but also through the knowledge base that exists within countries. Learning together globally means transitioning from independence to interdependence in STEM education that will help each country meet global demands.

A model for enhancing assessment and teaching practice at the coalface : Insights from a Fellow-In-Residence engagement program

Australian universities are currently engaging with new governmental policies and regulations that require them to demonstrate enhanced quality and accountability in teaching and research. The development of national academic standards for learning outcomes in higher education is one such instance of this drive for excellence. These discipline-specific standards articulate the minimum, or Threshold Learning Outcomes, to be addressed by higher education institutions so that graduating students can demonstrate their achievement to their institutions, accreditation agencies, and industry recruiters. This impacts not only on the design of Engineering courses (with particular emphasis on pedagogy and assessment), but also on the preparation of academics to engage with these standards and implement them in their day-to-day teaching practice on a micro level. This imperative for enhanced quality and accountability in teaching is also significant at a meso level, for according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 25 per cent of teachers in Australian universities are aged 55 and above and more than 54 per cent are aged 45 and above (ABS, 2006). A number of institutions have undertaken recruitment drives to regenerate and enrich their academic workforce by appointing capacity-building research professors and increasing the numbers of early- and mid-career academics. This nationally driven agenda for quality and accountability in teaching permeates also the micro level of engineering education, since the demand for enhanced academic standards and learning outcomes requires both a strong advocacy for a shift to an authentic, collaborative, outcomes-focused education and the mechanisms to support academics in transforming their professional thinking and practice. Outcomes-focused education means giving greater attention to the ways in which the curriculum design, pedagogy, assessment approaches and teaching activities can most effectively make a positive, verifiable difference to students’ learning. Such education is authentic when it is couched firmly in the realities of learning environments, student and academic staff characteristics, and trustworthy educational research. That education will be richer and more efficient when staff works collaboratively, contributing their knowledge, experience and skills to achieve learning outcomes based on agreed objectives. We know that the school or departmental levels of universities are the most effective loci of changes in approaches to teaching and learning practices in higher education (Knight & Trowler, 2000). Heads of Schools are being increasingly entrusted with more responsibilities - in addition to setting strategic directions and managing the operational and sometimes financial aspects of their school, they are also expected to lead the development and delivery of the teaching, research and other academic activities. Guiding and mentoring individuals and groups of academics is one critical aspect of the Head of School’s role. Yet they do not always have the resources or support to help them mentor staff, especially the more junior academics. In summary, the international trend in undergraduate engineering course accreditation towards the demonstration of attainment of graduate attributes poses new challenges in addressing academic staff development needs and the assessment of learning. This paper will give some insights into the conceptual design, implementation and empirical effectiveness to date, of a Fellow-In-Residence Engagement (FIRE) program. The program is proposed as a model for achieving better engagement of academics with contemporary issues and effectively enhancing their teaching and assessment practices. It will also report on the program’s collaborative approach to working with Heads of Schools to better support academics, especially early-career ones, by utilizing formal and informal mentoring. Further, the paper will discuss possible factors that may assist the achievement of the intended outcomes of such a model, and will examine its contributions to engendering an outcomes-focussed thinking in engineering education.

Graphene nanocomposites

Graphene, one of the allotropes (diamond, carbon nanotube, and fullerene) of carbon, is a monolayer of honeycomb lattice of carbon atoms discovered in 2004. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2010 was awarded to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov for their ground breaking experiments on the twodimensional graphene [1]. Since its discovery, the research communities have shown a lot of interest in this novel material owing to its unique properties. As shown in Figure 1, the number of publications on graphene has dramatically increased in recent years. It has been confirmed that graphene possesses very peculiar electrical properties such as anomalous quantum hall effect, and high electron mobility at room temperature (250000 cm2/Vs). Graphene is also one of the stiffest (modulus ~1 TPa) and strongest (strength ~100 GPa) materials. In addition, it has exceptional thermal conductivity (5000 Wm-1K-1). Based on these exceptional properties, graphene has found its applications in various fields such as field effect devices, sensors, electrodes, solar cells, energy storage devices and nanocomposites. Only adding 1 volume per cent graphene into polymer (e.g. polystyrene), the nanocomposite has a conductivity of ~0.1 Sm-1 [2], sufficient for many electrical applications. Significant improvement in strength, fracture toughness and fatigue strength has also been achieved in these nanocomposites [3-5]. Therefore, graphene-polymer nanocomposites have demonstrated a great potential to serve as next generation functional or structural materials.