Fusing curricula : science, technology and ICT

Curriculum demands continue to increase on school education systems with teachers at the forefront of implementing syllabus requirements. Education is reported frequently as a solution to most societal problems and, as a result of the world’s information explosion, teachers are expected to cover more and more within teaching programs. How can teachers combine subjects in order to capitalise on the competing educational agendas within school timeframes? Fusing curricula requires the bonding of standards from two or more syllabuses. Both technology and ICT complement the learning of science. This study analyses selected examples of preservice teachers’ overviews for fusing science, technology and ICT. These program overviews focused on primary students and the achievement of two standards (one from science and one from either technology or ICT). These primary preservice teachers’ fused-curricula overviews included scientific concepts and related technology and/or ICT skills and knowledge. Findings indicated a range of innovative curriculum plans for teaching primary science through technology and ICT, demonstrating that these subjects can form cohesive links towards achieving the respective learning standards. Teachers can work more astutely by fusing curricula; however further professional development may be required to advance thinking about these processes. Bonding subjects through their learning standards can extend beyond previous integration or thematic work where standards may not have been assessed. Education systems need to articulate through syllabus documents how effective fusing of curricula can be achieved. It appears that education is a key avenue for addressing societal needs, problems and issues. Education is promoted as a universal solution, which has resulted in curriculum overload (Dare, Durand, Moeller, & Washington, 1997; Vinson, 2001). Societal and curriculum demands have placed added pressure on teachers with many extenuating education issues increasing teachers’ workloads (Mobilise for Public Education, 2002). For example, as Australia has weather conducive for outdoor activities, social problems and issues arise that are reported through the media calling for action; consequently schools have been involved in swimming programs, road and bicycle safety programs, and a wide range of activities that had been considered a parental responsibility in the past. Teachers are expected to plan, implement and assess these extra-curricula activities within their already overcrowded timetables. At the same stage, key learning areas (KLAs) such as science and technology are mandatory requirements within all Australian education systems. These systems have syllabuses outlining levels of content and the anticipated learning outcomes (also known as standards, essential learnings, and frameworks). Time allocated for teaching science in obviously an issue. In 2001, it was estimated that on average the time spent in teaching science in Australian Primary Schools was almost an hour per week (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). More recently, a study undertaken in the U.S. reported a similar finding. More than 80% of the teachers in K-5 classrooms spent less than an hour teaching science (Dorph, Goldstein, Lee, et al., 2007). More importantly, 16% did not spend teaching science in their classrooms. Teachers need to learn to work smarter by optimising the use of their in-class time. Integration is proposed as one of the ways to address the issue of curriculum overload (Venville & Dawson, 2005; Vogler, 2003). Even though there may be a lack of definition for integration (Hurley, 2001), curriculum integration aims at covering key concepts in two or more subject areas within the same lesson (Buxton & Whatley, 2002). This implies covering the curriculum in less time than if the subjects were taught separately; therefore teachers should have more time to cover other educational issues. Expectedly, the reality can be decidedly different (e.g., Brophy & Alleman, 1991; Venville & Dawson, 2005). Nevertheless, teachers report that students expand their knowledge and skills as a result of subject integration (James, Lamb, Householder, & Bailey, 2000). There seems to be considerable value for integrating science with other KLAs besides aiming to address teaching workloads. Over two decades ago, Cohen and Staley (1982) claimed that integration can bring a subject into the primary curriculum that may be otherwise left out. Integrating science education aims to develop a more holistic perspective. Indeed, life is not neat components of stand-alone subjects; life integrates subject content in numerous ways, and curriculum integration can assist students to make these real-life connections (Burnett & Wichman, 1997). Science integration can provide the scope for real-life learning and the possibility of targeting students’ learning styles more effectively by providing more than one perspective (Hudson & Hudson, 2001). To illustrate, technology is essential to science education (Blueford & Rosenbloom, 2003; Board of Studies, 1999; Penick, 2002), and constructing technology immediately evokes a social purpose for such construction (Marker, 1992). For example, building a model windmill requires science and technology (Zubrowski, 2002) but has a key focus on sustainability and the social sciences. Science has the potential to be integrated with all KLAs (e.g., Cohen & Staley, 1982; Dobbs, 1995; James et al., 2000). Yet, “integration” appears to be a confusing term. Integration has an educational meaning focused on special education students being assimilated into mainstream classrooms. The word integration was used in the late seventies and generally focused around thematic approaches for teaching. For instance, a science theme about flight only has to have a student drawing a picture of plane to show integration; it did not connect the anticipated outcomes from science and art. The term “fusing curricula” presents a seamless bonding between two subjects; hence standards (or outcomes) need to be linked from both subjects. This also goes beyond just embedding one subject within another. Embedding implies that one subject is dominant, while fusing curricula proposes an equal mix of learning within both subject areas. Primary education in Queensland has eight KLAs, each with its established content and each with a proposed structure for levels of learning. Primary teachers attempt to cover these syllabus requirements across the eight KLAs in less than five hours a day, and between many of the extra-curricula activities occurring throughout a school year (e.g., Easter activities, Education Week, concerts, excursions, performances). In Australia, education systems have developed standards for all KLAs (e.g., Education Queensland, NSW Department of Education and Training, Victorian Education) usually designated by a code. In the late 1990’s (in Queensland), “core learning outcomes” for strands across all KLA’s. For example, LL2.1 for the Queensland Education science syllabus means Life and Living at Level 2 standard number 1. Thus, a teacher’s planning requires the inclusion of standards as indicated by the presiding syllabus. More recently, the core learning outcomes were replaced by “essential learnings”. They specify “what students should be taught and what is important for students to have opportunities to know, understand and be able to do” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2009, para. 1). Fusing science education with other KLAs may facilitate more efficient use of time and resources; however this type of planning needs to combine standards from two syllabuses. To further assist in facilitating sound pedagogical practices, there are models proposed for learning science, technology and other KLAs such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2004), de Bono’s Six Hats (de Bono, 1985), and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1999) that imply, warrant, or necessitate fused curricula. Bybee’s 5 Es, for example, has five levels of learning (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate; Bybee, 1997) can have the potential for fusing science and ICT standards.

Years 2 to 6 students' ability to generalise : models, representations and theory for teaching and learning

Over the last three years, in our Early Algebra Thinking Project, we have been studying Years 3 to 5 students’ ability to generalise in a variety of situations, namely, compensation principles in computation, the balance principle in equivalence and equations, change and inverse change rules with function machines, and pattern rules with growing patterns. In these studies, we have attempted to involve a variety of models and representations and to build students’ abilities to switch between them (in line with the theories of Dreyfus, 1991, and Duval, 1999). The results have shown the negative effect of closure on generalisation in symbolic representations, the predominance of single variance generalisation over covariant generalisation in tabular representations, and the reduced ability to readily identify commonalities and relationships in enactive and iconic representations. This chapter uses the results to explore the interrelation between generalisation and verbal and visual comprehension of context. The studies evidence the importance of understanding and communicating aspects of representational forms which allowed commonalities to be seen across or between representations. Finally the chapter explores the implications of the studies for a theory that describes a growth in integration of models and representations that leads to generalisation.

Building bridges to participation : sociocultural case studies of AfL

Assessment for Learning(AfL) case studies in a North Queensland school highlight the significance of the teacher-student relationship in creating a supportive culture within which students can negotiate new learner identities. AfL practices are school based evaluative practices that occur within the regular flow of teaching and learning with the purpose of informing and improving student learning to enhance learner autonomy. The identity of an autonomous learner is socially negotiated through participation in the community of practice of the class. Underpinned by a sociocultural perspective this research shows how AfL is manifested in action in its complexity and how positive teacher-student interactions can build bridges for students to move towards full participation.

Teaching and learning mathematics with robotics in middle-years of schooling

Engaging and motivating students in mathematics lessons can be challenging. The traditional approach of chalk and talk can sometimes be problematic. The new generation of educational robotics has the potential to not only motivate students but also enable teachers to demonstrate concepts in mathematics by connecting concepts with the real world. Robotics hardware and the software are becoming increasing more user-friendly and as a consequence they can be blended in with classroom activities with greater ease. Using robotics in suitably designed activities promotes a constructivist learning environment and enables students to engage in higher order thinking through hands-on problem solving. Teamwork and collaborative learning are also enhanced through the use of this technology. This paper discusses a model for teaching concepts in mathematics in middle year classrooms. It will also highlight some of the benefits and challenges of using robotics in the learning environment.

Experiences of the FIRST LEGO League in China and Australia

FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) was initiated in the U.S. by accomplished inventor Dean Kamen in 1989. FIRST LEGO League (FLL) is one of the five competitions conducted by this organization. Dean’s vision was “to create a world where science and technology are celebrated……where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes”. Each year FLL creates opportunities for young people aged 9-16 to engage in problem solving, teamwork and collaborative learning around a real-world theme. In the 2009/2010 season, more than 145,000 young people in over 50 countries participated in this competition. As they tackle the challenges; they construct and de-construct their own knowledge through hands-on engagement in a constructivist learning environment. The challenges are presented at least eight weeks before the competition. In most events the participants are judged in four categories - robot game, robot design, team project and team challenge. “Gracious professionalism” is an essential element of the competition. This paper compares and contrasts the FLL in China and Australia and presents some of the achievements of the event. It also highlights some of the models which have been adopted in the two countries to facilitate participation. The educational benefits of embedding the FLL will also be discussed.

Benchmarking mentoring practices : a case study in Turkey

Throughout the world standards have been developed for teaching in particular key learning areas. These standards also present benchmarks that can assist to measure and compare results from one year to the next. There appears to be no benchmarks for mentoring. An instrument devised to measure mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science was administered to 304 preservice teachers in Turkey. Results indicated that the majority of mentees perceived they received mentoring practices, however, 20% or more claimed they had not received 24 of the 34 practices outlined on the researchbased survey. Establishing benchmarks for mentoring practices may assist educators to identify needs and developing programs that address these needs. This survey instrument can aid the identification of mentoring practices through the recipient’s perspective for advancing mentoring, which may ultimately have an effect on improving teaching practices.

Comparing mentors’ reports on their own mentoring of primary preservice teachers

Implementing the Australian Curriculum will require targeting both teachers and preservice teachers as enactors of reform. Classroom teachers in their roles as mentors have a significant role to play for developing preservice teachers. What mentors do in their mentoring practices and what mentors think about mentoring will impact on the mentoring processes and ultimately reform outcomes. What are mentors’ reports on their mentoring of preservice teachers for teaching science and mathematics? This quantitative study presents mentors’ reports on their mentoring of primary preservice teachers (mentees) in mathematics (n=43) and science (n=29). Drawing upon a previously validated instrument (Hudson, 2007), this instrument was amended to allow mentors to report on their perceptions of their mentoring. Mentors claimed they mentored teaching mathematics more than science. However, 20% or more indicated they did not provide mentoring practices for 25 out of 34 survey items in the science and 9 out of 34 items in the mathematics. Educational reform will necessity mentors to be educated on effective mentoring practices for mathematics and science so the mentoring process can be more purposeful. Indeed, mentors who have knowledge of such practices may address the potential issues of more than 20% of mentees not receiving these practices. To ensure the greatest success for an Australian Curriculum mentors may need professional development in order to assist mentees’ development into the profession.

Everyone wants Web 2.0

The interactive nature of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is the impetus for the adoption of digital technologies by students for socialising and communicating in new ways. In particular these new ways of communication have embraced web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook© ©, however, teaching practices within educational institutions have remained relatively unchanged. This paper explores the use of the web 2.0 technology Facebook© in a Higher Educational setting to support undergraduate students. It further highlights how students in a developing country currently use this technology and their expectations for the future use of this web 2.0 technology.

Evaluation of the year 1 literacy and numeracy checkpoints assessments trial - 2010

The draft Year 1 Literacy and Numeracy Checkpoints Assessments were in open and supported trial during Semester 2, 2010. The purpose of these trials was to evaluate the Year 1 Literacy and Numeracy Checkpoints Assessments (hereafter the Year 1 Checkpoints) that were designed in 2009 as a way to incorporate the use of the Year 1 Literacy and Numeracy Indicators as formative assessment in Year 1 in Queensland Schools. In these trials there were no mandated reporting requirements. The processes of assessment were related to future teaching decisions. As such the trials were trials of materials and the processes of using those materials to assess students, plan and teach in year 1 classrooms. In their current form the Year 1 Checkpoints provide assessment resources for teachers to use in February, June and October. They aim to support teachers in monitoring children's progress and making judgments about their achievement of the targeted P‐3 Literacy and Numeracy Indicators by the end of Year 1 (Queensland Studies Authority, 2010 p. 1). The Year 1 Checkpoints include support materials for teachers and administrators, an introductory statement on assessment, work samples, and a Data Analysis Assessment Record (DAAR) to record student performance. The Supported Trial participants were also supported with face‐to‐face and on‐line training sessions, involvement in a moderation process after the October Assessments, opportunities to participate in discussion forums as well as additional readings and materials. The assessment resources aim to use effective early years assessment practices in that the evidence is gathered from hands‐on teaching and learning experiences, rather than more formal assessment methods. They are based in a model of assessment for learning, and aim to support teachers in the “on‐going process of determining future learning directions” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2010 p. 1) for all students. Their aim is to focus teachers on interpreting and analysing evidence to make informed judgments about the achievement of all students, as a way to support subsequent planning for learning and teaching. The Evaluation of the Year 1 Literacy and Numeracy Checkpoints Assessments Supported Trial (hereafter the Evaluation) aimed to gather information about the appropriateness, effectiveness and utility of the Year 1 Checkpoints Assessments from early years’ teachers and leaders in up to one hundred Education Queensland schools who had volunteered to be part of the Supported Trial. These sample schools represent schools across a variety of Education Queensland regions and include schools with:  - A high Indigenous student population; - Urban, rural and remote school locations; - Single and multi‐age early phase classes; - A high proportion of students from low SES backgrounds. The purpose of the Evaluation was to: Evaluate the materials and report on the views of school‐based staff involved in the trial on the process, materials, and assessment practices utilised. The Evaluation has reviewed the materials, and used surveys, interviews, and observations of processes and procedures to collect relevant data to help present an informed opinion on the Year 1 Checkpoints as assessment for the early years of schooling. Student work samples and teacher planning and assessment documents were also collected. The evaluation has not evaluated the Year 1 Checkpoints in any other capacity than as a resource for Year 1 teachers and relevant support staff.

An evaluation framework for sustaining the impact of educational development

Notwithstanding significant efforts by international aid agencies, aid ineffectiveness became apparent in 1990s as the impact of continued development intervention did not endure the expected outcomes. Conventional monitoring and evaluation by those agencies is critiqued for focusing on measuring project outcomes and giving little attention to aspects of sustainability. As a result, devising a rigorous evaluation framework for educational development has been sought in light of recent paradigm shifts in international development. This paper reports on a case study of an Egyptian educational development project highlighting the importance of transforming the evaluation procedures to process evaluation so as to enhance project impact and longevity. This requires building evaluation capacity of the aid recipient country.

Teaching sustainability : vehicle or endpoint?

In 2006, the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering introduced the first faculty wide unit dedicated to sustainability at any Australian University. BEB200 Introducing Sustainability has semester enrolments of up to 1500 students. Instruments such as lectures, readings, field visits, group projects and structured tutorial activities are used and have evolved over the last five years in response to student and staff feedback and attempts to better engage students. More than seventy staff have taught in the unit, which is in its final offering in this form in 2010. This paper reflects on the experiences of five academics who have played key roles in the development and teaching of this unit over the last five years. They argue that sustainability is a paradigm that allows students to explore other ways of knowing as they engage with issues in a complex world, not an end in itself. From the students’ perspective, grappling with such issues enables them to move towards a context in which they can understand their own discipline and its role in the contradictory and rapidly changing professional world. Insights are offered into how sustainability units may be developed in the future.

A tale of six fish: achieving social presence through discussion forums in an offline learning environment

It is widely held, through the Socratic tradition, that discussion is at the heart of learning. Moderated discussion forums have been shown to replicate the debate, argument and verbal defence of viewpoints that we have come to expect in face-to-face learning environments and that we generally accept to underpin learning. While much has been written about discussion forums in educational settings, particularly in how to moderate and promote effective interaction with students at a distance, this paper takes a different approach. It looks at how forums may be used to support face-to-face learning in the contemporary context of the massification of on-campus classes. Further to this, it will argue for discussion forums as an indicator of social presence in the learning environment. It will cautiously conclude that, through purposeful design, this form of asynchronous communication has a valuable role to play in creating a positive and supportive environment for students entering university. Discussion forums are tools with a versatility yet to be fully exploited.

Early childhood teachers' mathematical content knowledge

The process of becoming numerate begins in the early years. According to Vygotskian theory (1978), teachers are More Knowledgeable Others who provide and support learning experiences that influence children’s mathematical learning. This paper reports on research that investigates three early childhood teachers mathematics content knowledge. An exploratory, single case study utilised data collected from interviews, and email correspondence to investigate the teachers’ mathematics content knowledge. The data was reviewed according to three analytical strategies: content analysis, pattern matching, and comparative analysis. Findings indicated there was variation in teachers’ content knowledge across the five mathematical strands and that teachers might not demonstrate the depth of content knowledge that is expected of four year specially trained early years’ teachers. A significant factor that appeared to influence these teachers’ content knowledge was their teaching experience. Therefore, an avenue for future research is the investigation of factors that influence teachers’ content numeracy knowledge.

The development of the extended adolescent injury checklist (E-AIC) : a measure for injury prevention program evaluation

The Extended Adolescent Injury Checklist (E-AIC), a self-report measure of injury based on the model of the Adolescent Injury Checklist (AIC), was developed for use in the evaluation of school-based interventions. The three stages of this development involved focus groups with adolescents and consultations with medical staff, pilot testing of the revised AIC in a high school context, and use of the finalised checklist in pre- and post-questionnaires to examine its utility. Results revealed that responses to the final version of the E-AIC were meaningful and remained consistent over time. The E-AIC appears to be a promising measure of adolescent injury that is simple, time-efficient and appropriate for use in the evaluation of school-based injury prevention programs.