Inquiry pedagogy and the Australian Curriculum

This paper explores inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum in relation to inquiry learning pedagogy. Inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum are represented as questioning skills (i.e. posing and evaluating questions and hypotheses), information literacy (i.e. seeking, evaluating, selecting and using information), ICT literacy (i.e. fluency with computer hardware and software) and discipline specific skills (i.e. data gathering, mathematical measurement, data analysis and presentation of data). This paper provides an explanation of inquiry learning pedagogy that complements the Australian Curriculum inquiry skills.

Next generation filmmaking and media arts in the Australian curriculum

Media education has been included as a mandatory component of the Arts within the new Australian national curriculum, which purports to set out a framework that encompasses core knowledge, understanding and skills critical to twenty-first century learning. This will position Australia as the only country to require media education as a compulsory aspect of Arts education and one of the first to implement a sequenced national media education curriculum from pre-school to year 12. A broad framework has been outlined for what the Media Arts curriculum will encompass and in this article we investigate the extent to which this framework is likely to provide media educators the opportunity to broaden the scope of established media education to effectively educate students about the ever-changing nature of media ecologies. The article outlines significant shifts occurring in the film and television industries to identify the types of knowledge students may need to understand these changes. This is followed by an analysis of existing state-based media curricula offered at years 11 and 12 in Australia to demonstrate that the concepts of institutions and audiences are not currently approached in ways that reflect contemporary media ecologies.

Exploring sustainability in literature for the Australian curriculum : an annotated guide

The Australian Curriculum: English (AC:E) is being implemented in Queensland and asks teachers and curriculum designers to incorporate the cross curriculum priority of Sustainability. This paper examines some texts suitable for inclusion in classroom study and suggests some companion texts that may be studied alongside them, including online resources by the ABC and those developed online for the Australian Curriculum. We also suggest some formative and summative assessment possibilities for responding to the selected works in this guide. We have endeavoured to investigate literature that enable students to explore and produce text types across the three AC:E categories: persuasive, imaginative and informative. The selected texts cover traditional novels, novellas, Sci-fi and speculative fiction, non-fiction, documentary, feature film and animation. Some of the texts reviewed here also cover the other cross curriculum priorities including texts by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander writers and some which also include Asian representations. We have also indicated which of the AC:E the general capabilities are addressed in each text.

The ‘Indigenous Australian’ theme in the Australian Curriculum English : necessary or not?

On Friday 10 January 2014 Education Minister Christopher Pyne formally announced a review of the inaugural Australian curriculum. In his three and half minute televised justification, Pyne (2014) identified a number of criticisms of the national curriculum document, including the ‘necessity to have themes’ of ‘Australia’s place in Asia, Indigenous Australia and sustainability’. It is the second of these themes that we consider as ALEA’s Hot Topic for March 2014. We respond to Pyne’s momentary musing of the necessity of the ‘Indigenous Australian’ theme in the Australian Curriculum with a particular focus on the discipline of English. In the nomenclature of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2013), we are of course referring to the ‘cross curriculum priority’ of ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures’.

Curricula integration : identifying and locating engineering education across the Australian curriculum

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has become an educational package emerging throughout the world (e.g. UK, China, US & Australia). Although science, technology and mathematics are taught in schools and engineering education occurs in universities, there appear to be few if any explicit engineering education programs in primary and junior secondary schools. A stronger inclusion of engineering education at these levels could assist students to make informed decisions about career opportunities in STEM-related fields. This paper suggests how engineering education can be integrated with other key learning areas such as English, mathematics, science, history and geography within the new Australian Curriculum.

Diversity or perversity?: Award-winning children's literature and the Australian curriculum

Two of the three cross-curriculum priorities for the national Australian Curriculum prescribed by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) are focussed on what might be called diversity education: “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and culture”, and "Asia and Australia's Engagement with Asia” (ACARA, “Cross”). One need not be versed in complex rhetorical theory to understand that, laudable and legitimate as such priorities are, their existence implies that mainstream education in Australia has been or is characterised by the marginalisation or erasure of Australia's history—the original Indigenous cultures are not only living and vibrant today, but also have tens of thousands of years’ “head start” on Australia’s settler cultures—and of its geography—Australia is, after all, located in some physical proximity to Asia. Some might even suggest that Australia is in Asia. These temporal and spatial “forgettings” constitute a kind of cultural perversity which the cross-curricular priorities both seek to address and serve to reinscribe. Even as ACARA requires Australian school students to engage with Aboriginal and Asian histories, cultures, societies, they imply that such histories, cultures, and societies are “diverse”, that they are not those of the students in Australian classrooms; producing them as objects of study rather than as lived experience. This should not necessarily be surprising. Michael W. Apple has provocatively argued that: “one of the perverse effects of a national curriculum actually will be to ‘legitimise inequality.’ It may in fact help create the illusion that whatever the massive differences in schools, they all have something in common” (18). In the Australian context, attempts to mitigate such perversity are articulated via the selection of literary texts. As educators move to resource ACARA’s cross-curricular priorities, ACARA notes that “Teachers and schools are best placed to make decisions about the selection of texts in their teaching and learning programs that address the content in the Australian Curriculum while also meeting the needs of the students in their classes” (ACARA, “Advice”). This assertion appears on a webpage called “Advice on selection of literary texts” which is notable first and foremost for its total lack of any literary texts being named, and its list of weblinks pointing to lists of texts compiled elsewhere, by other organisations, and in the main, compiled to serve agendas other than the Australian curriculum. One of the major resources referred to by ACARA for literary text selection is the Children’s Book Council of Australia (CBCA). Of course, the CBCA’s annual book awards do not share ACARA’s educational priorities, but do have a history of being drawn upon by schools as a curriculum resource. In this paper, I consider the literary texts which have been prized by the CBCA in recent years attending to their engagements with Aboriginal cultures.

Tensions between policy and practice : reconciliation agendas in the Australian curriculum English

In various parts of the world, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are actively working towards Reconciliation. In Australia, the context in which we each undertake our work as educationalists and researchers, the Reconciliation agenda has been pushed into schools and English teachers have been called on to share responsibility for facilitating the move towards a new national order. The recently introduced Australian Curriculum mandates that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures be embedded with “a strong” but “varying presence” into each learning area (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2013). In this paper we consider the tensions between policy and practice, when discourses external to education are recontextualised into the discipline of English. We do so by applying an analytical framework based on Bernstein’s (1990, 1996,2000) sociological theories about the structure of instructional and regulative discourses. Our findings suggest that the space to exert Reconciliatory agendas in the Australian Curriculum English is ambiguous and thus holds the potential to not only marginalise Indigenous knowledges but also to create tensions between policy and practice for non-Indigenous teachers of English.

Unpacking the Australian Curriculum HPE - proposition 5 : include a critical inquiry approach

Overview • AC HPE and critical thinking • Interrelated propositions: Examples • Inquiry approach and questions • Summary and our challenge

Media Arts should be at the core of the Australian Curriculum

The Final Report of the Review of the Australian Curriculum is seriously flawed. Many aspects of the report have attracted comment – but the recommendation that schools do away with a major, world-leading innovation has not. For the first time, Media Arts, one of the five strands of the Arts curriculum, was to become a compulsory subject for primary school students. This will no longer be the case if the Review’s recommendations are adopted by the government.

Inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum v6 : a bird’s-eye view

This paper presents an analysis of inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum version 6. It juxtaposes the inquiry skills strands in the scope and sequence of Science, History, Geography,Economics and Business,and Civics and Citizenship with the Critical and Creative Thinking and Information and Communication Technology general capabilities. In doing so, it reveals the extent of inquiry skills embedded in the Australian Curriculum and identifies some misalignments and omissions.

Effective public speaking for the Australian curriculum

Public speaking has been with us since the great orators of the cultural heritage tradition and is by no means a dying art. There is no substitute for the human voice in real time, and technology-delivered speeches cannot really move an audience in precisely ways that effective, live speaking can. Many teachers go to history to access models such as the great Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, or Winston Churchill’s call to battle. Most of us can recall Kevin Rudd’s historical apology to Indigenous Australia’s stolen generation, and more recently Noel Pearson’s moving eulogy delivered to a mourners at Gough Whitlam’s funeral. We are fortunate now to be able to access speeches from more recent history, closer to home and in our own accents through online repositories. This paper is, in part, written as a guide for pre-service teachers who did not learn this at school, and experienced teachers may also find it useful.

What does the review of the Australian Curriculum mean for Senior Modern History?

In this paper we briefly explore some of recommendations of the Review of the Australian Curriculum Final Report (Australian Government, 2014a), henceforth referred to as the Review, with reference to Modern History in the senior secondary Australian Curriculum. We also refer to the invited papers provided by history subject matter specialists, Professor Gregory Melleuish and Mr Clive Logan, published as the Review’s Supplementary Material (Australian Government, 2014b). In doing so, we note that both documents devote most of their attention to critiquing the Australian Curriculum: History in the compulsory years from Foundation (F) to Year 10.

Introduction to Point and Counterpoint: What does the Review of the Australian Curriculum mean for History?

The April 2015 edition of Curriculum Perspectives has a special focus and casts light on the continuing development of the Australian Curriculum. This paper provides an introduction to a series of papers in the Point and Counterpoint section of this edition on the Review of the Australian Curriculum with reference to History. It makes clear that History is one of the most contested areas of the curriculum and that whilst politicians and policy makers are concerned with the importance of history in relation to national identity and nation building, history serves other purposes. The paper reiterates the need to pay attention to the particularities of discipline–based knowledge for the study of history in schools and the central role of inquiry for student learning in history. In doing so, it establishes the context for the five papers which follow.

Robots, the internet and teaching history in the age of the NBN and the Australian curriculum

Have you ever wished you were Doctor Who and could pop yourself and your students into a Tardis and teleport them to an historical event or to meet a historical figure? We all know that unfortunately time travel is not (yet) possible, but maybe student and teacher teleportation just might be – sort of. Over the past few centuries and in lieu of time travel our communities have developed museums as a means of experiencing some of our history...

Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years: Learning about Language in the Australian Curriculum: English

This new volume, Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years (Exley, Kevin & Mantei, 2014), follows on from Playing with Grammar in the Early Years (Exley & Kervin, 2013). We extend our thanks to the ALEA membership for their take up of the first volume and the vibrant conversations around our first attempt at developing a pedagogy for the teaching of grammar in the early years. Your engagement at locally held ALEA events has motivated us to complete this second volume and reassert our interest in the pursuit of socially-just outcomes in the primary years. As noted in Exley and Kervin (2013), we believe that mastering a range of literacy competences includes not only the technical skills for learning, but also the resources for viewing and constructing the world (Freire and Macdeo, 1987). Rather than seeing knowledge about language as the accumulation of technical skills alone, the viewpoint to which we subscribe treats knowledge about language as a dialectic that evolves from, is situated in, and contributes to active participation within a social arena (Halliday, 1978). We acknowledge that to explore is to engage in processes of discovery as we look closely and examine the opportunities before us. As such, we draw on Janks’ (2000; 2014) critical literacy theory to underpin many of the learning experiences in this text. Janks (2000) argues that effective participation in society requires knowledge about how the power of language promotes views, beliefs and values of certain groups to the exclusion of others. Powerful language users can identify not only how readers are positioned by these views, but also the ways these views are conveyed through the design of the text, that is, the combination of vocabulary, syntax, image, movement and sound. Similarly, powerful designers of texts can make careful modal choices in written and visual design to promote certain perspectives that position readers and viewers in new ways to consider more diverse points of view. As the title of our text suggests, our activities are designed to support learners in exploring the design of texts to achieve certain purposes and to consider the potential for the sharing of their own views through text production. In Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years, we focus on the Year 3 to Year 6 grouping in line with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (hereafter ACARA) advice on the ‘nature of learners’ (ACARA, 2014). Our goal in this publication is to provide a range of highly practical strategies for scaffolding students’ learning through some of the Content Descriptions from the Australian Curriculum: English Version 7.2, hereafter AC:E (ACARA, 2014). We continue to express our belief in the power of using whole texts from a range of authentic sources including high quality children’s literature, the internet, and examples of community-based texts to expose students to the richness of language. Taking time to look at language patterns within actual texts is a pathway to ‘…capture interest, stir the imagination and absorb the [child]’ into the world of language and literacy (Saxby, 1993, p. 55). It is our intention to be more overt this time and send a stronger message that our learning experiences are simply ‘sample’ activities rather than a teachers’ workbook or a program of study to be followed. We’re hoping that teachers and students will continue to explore their bookshelves, the internet and their community for texts that provide powerful opportunities to engage with language-based learning experiences. In the following three sections, we have tried to remain faithful to our interpretation of the AC:E Content Descriptions without giving an exhaustive explanation of the grammatical terms. This recently released curriculum offers a new theoretical approach to building students’ knowledge about language. The AC:E uses selected traditional terms through an approach developed in systemic functional linguistics (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004) to highlight the dynamic forms and functions of multimodal language in texts. For example, the following statement, taken from the ‘Language: Knowing about the English language’ strand states: English uses standard grammatical terminology within a contextual framework, in which language choices are seen to vary according to the topics at hand, the nature and proximity of the relationships between the language users, and the modalities or channels of communication available (ACARA, 2014). Put simply, traditional grammar terms are used within a functional framework made up of field, tenor, and mode. An understanding of genre is noted with the reference to a ‘contextual framework’. The ‘topics at hand’ concern the field or subject matter of the text. The ‘relationships between the language users’ is a description of tenor. There is reference to ‘modalities’, such as spoken, written or visual text. We posit that this innovative approach is necessary for working with contemporary multimodal and cross-cultural texts (see Exley & Mills, 2012). Other excellent tomes, such as Derewianka (2011), Humphrey, Droga and Feez (2012), and Rossbridge and Rushton (2011) provide more comprehensive explanations of this unique metalanguage, as does the AC:E Glossary. We’ve reproduced some of the AC:E Glossary at the end of this publication. We’ve also kept the same layout for our learning experiences, ensuring that our teacher notes are not only succinct but also prudent in their placement. Each learning experience is connected to a Content Description from the AC:E and contains an experience with an identified purpose, suggested resource text and a possible sequence for the experience that always commences with an orientation to text followed by an examination of a particular grammatical resource. Our plans allow for focused discussion, shared exploration and opportunities to revisit the same text for the purpose of enhancing meaning making. Some learning experiences finish with deconstruction of a stimulus text while others invite students to engage in the design of new texts. We encourage you to look for opportunities in your own classrooms to move from text deconstruction to text design. In this way, students can express not only their emerging grammatical understandings, but also the ways they might position readers or viewers through the creation of their own texts. We expect that each of these learning experiences will vary in the time taken. Some may indeed take a couple if not a few teaching episodes to work through, especially if students are meeting a concept or a pedagogical strategy for the first time. We hope you use as much, or as little, of each experience as is needed for your students. We do not want the teaching of grammar to slip into a crisis of irrelevance or to be seen as a series of worksheet drills with finite answers. We firmly believe that strategies for effective deconstruction and design practice, however, have much portability. We three are very keen to hear from teachers who are adopting and adapting these learning experiences in their classrooms. Please email us on b.exley@qut.edu.au, lkervin@uow.edu.au or jessicam@ouw.edu.au. We’d love to continue the conversation with you over time. Beryl Exley, Lisa Kervin & Jessica Mantei