Flexibility, Technology and Academics' Practices : Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps

The project investigated the relationships between diversification in modes ofdelivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed, in two of the three large universities in Brisbane—Griffith University and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The project’s initial plan involved the investigation of two sites: Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Education (Kelvin Grove campus) and Griffith University’s Faculty of Humanities(Nathan campus). Interviews associated with the Faculty of Education led to a decision to include a third site—the School of Law within Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Law, which is based on the Gardens Point Campus. Here the investigation focused on the use of computer-based flexible learning practices, as distinct from the more text-based practices identified within the original two sites.

Visual arts, technology and education : how can teaching and learning in high school visual arts classrooms be enriched by the use of computer technology?

Whilst a variety of studies has appeared over the last decade addressing the gap between the potential promised by computers and the reality experienced in the classroom by teachers and students, few have specifically addressed the situation as it pertains to the visual arts classroom. The aim of this study was to explore the reality of the classroom use of computers for three visual arts highschool teachers and determine how computer technology might enrich visual arts teaching and learning. An action research approach was employed to enable the researcher to understand the situation from the teachers' points of view while contributing to their professional practice. The wider social context surrounding this study is characterised by an increase in visual communications brought about by rapid advances in computer technology. The powerful combination of visual imagery and computer technology is illustrated by continuing developments in the print, film and television industries. In particular, the recent growth of interactive multimedia epitomises this combination and is significant to this study as it represents a new form of publishing of great interest to educators and artists alike. In this social context, visual arts education has a significant role to play. By cultivating a critical awareness of the implications of technology use and promoting a creative approach to the application of computer technology within the visual arts, visual arts education is in a position to provide an essential service to students who will leave high school to participate in a visual information age as both consumers and producers.

Learning and teaching epidemiology with audience response technology

Background The learning and teaching of epidemiology is core to many public health programs. Many students find the content of epidemiology, and specifically risk of bias assessment, challenging to learn. Howbeit, learning is enhanced when knowledge is able to be acquired from an active-learning, hands-on experience. Methods The innovative use of wireless audience response technology “clickers” was incorporated into the lectures of the university’s post-graduate epidemiology units and the tailored epidemiological modules delivered for professional disciplines (e.g. optometry). Clickers were used to apply several pedagogical approaches of active learning including peer-instruction and real-world simulation. Students were also assessed for their gain in knowledge within the lecture (pre-post) and their perceptions of how the use of clickers helped them learn. The routine university-wide end of semester Insight Survey provided further information of the student’s satisfaction with the approach. Results The technology was useful in identifying deficits of knowledge of key concepts either before or after instruction. Where key concepts were re-tested post-lecture, as expected, knowledge increased significantly and provided immediate feed-back to students. Across the lecture series, typically 85% of students identified the technology helped them learn, increased their opportunity to interact with the lecturer, and recommend their use for future classes. The Insight Survey report identified 93% of respondents identified the unit in which clickers were consistently used provided good learning opportunities. Numerous student comments supported the teaching method. Conclusions Epidemiological subject matter lends itself to incorporation of audience response technology. The use of the technology to facilitate interactive voting provides an instant response and participation of everyone to enhance the classroom experience. The pedagogical approach increases students’ knowledge and increases their satisfaction with the unit.

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.

It really is black and white when you look at it like this : reporting on a study into Australian professors' research and teaching priorities

Despite optimistic claims about the research-teaching nexus, Australian academics still face tension between research and teaching. The teaching and research priorities, beliefs and behaviours of 70 Professorial and Associate Professorial academics in Science, Information Technology and Engineering were examined in this study. The academics from 4 faculties in 3 Australian universities, were asked to rank 16 research activities and 16 matched learning and teaching (L&T) activities from each of three perspectives: job satisfaction, leadership behaviour, and perceptions of professional importance. The findings, which were remarkably consistent across the three universities, were unequivocally in favour of Research. The only L&T activity that was ranked consistently well was “Improving student satisfaction ratings for Teaching”. The data demonstrates that Australian government and university initiatives to raise the status of L&T activity are not impacting significantly on Australia’s future leaders of university learning.

Learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage : Critical factors in embedding sustainable university-wide engagement in external awards and grants funding initiatives.

Teaching awards, grants and fellowships are strategies used to recognise outstanding contributions to learning and teaching, encourage innovation, and to shift learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage. Examples range from school, faculty and institutional award and grant schemes to national schemes such as those offered by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the United States, and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning in higher education in the United Kingdom. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has experienced outstanding success in all areas of the ALTC funding since the inception of the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in 2004. This paper reports on a study of the critical factors that have enabled sustainable and resilient institutional engagement with ALTC programs. As a lens for examining the QUT environment and practices, the study draws upon the five conditions of the framework for effective dissemination of innovation developed by Southwell, Gannaway, Orrell, Chalmers and Abraham (2005, 2010): 1. Effective, multi-level leadership and management 2. Climate of readiness for change 3. Availability of resources 4. Comprehensive systems in institutions and funding bodies 5. Funding design The discussion on the critical factors and practical and strategic lessons learnt for successful university-wide engagement offer insights for university leaders and staff who are responsible for learning and teaching award, grant and associated internal and external funding schemes.