University of Sydney

What should we do now for light sensitive learners?

A paradigm shift from medical model to social model of disability seems to have occurred – and nowhere is that more apparent than in the many responses to the Royal Commission on Disability. This shift adds impetus to the provision of adjustments for those I describe in my book, Light Sensitive Learners: Unveiling Policy Inaction, Marginalisation and Discrimination.  These are “light sensitive learners.” 

Under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), students experiencing visual stress and a sensitivity to lighting may be given a coloured overlay (which reduces white paper glare and filters the spectrum); access to natural lighting and/ or a personal lamp. 

Teachers have an obligation to provide such adjustments, wrote former NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli in a letter to the MP for Ballina in 2014. However, many teachers don’t know about these obligations, and little, if anything, about light sensitivity and appropriate adjustments. 

If lighting causes visual strain, then the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Workplace Guidelines suggests:

Anti-glare filters for computer screens to relieve eye strain, fatigue, headaches and stress. Place blinds on windows. Flicker free lighting. Full spectrum lighting. Light filters for covering fluorescent lighting. Lower wattage overhead lights, task lighting or other alternative lighting. Large print. Coloured Paper.

Adjustments for light sensitivity are not new. Teachers in the USA ‘led the charge’ in 1908 because they wanted something done about the dazzle of white paper which made it difficult to read. Thanks to them, a ‘glarimeter’ was developed. School principal A. W. Ray argued in 1938 that artificial lighting was an “educational” problem because it made reading difficult. He worked out that “adequate spectral quality …is essential … for … seeing”. 

That was the era when fluorescent lighting was promoted by General Electric and people started complaining about visual stress. By 1929, palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses had become common in NSW. Then they were forgotten.

Governments did nothing about the spectral qualities of lighting. But, half a century later, entrepreneurs (a school psychologist and a professor of psychology) promoted light spectrum filtering lenses again. Ophthalmologists reacted and claimed light spectrum filters are just  a placebo!  But visual perception lies within the discipline of psychology and not ophthalmology and the NHMRC is recommending light filters for overhead artificial illumination!  

 The spectral quality of artificial lighting in schools is still a problem. White paper is whiter because manufacturers have added fluorescent dye as a marketing strategy. Those who prescribe palliative light spectrum filtering (coloured) lenses compete for business. Many people can’t afford light spectrum filtering lenses, even if they know about them.

But teachers can, and ought to, provide adjustments for light sensitive learners. Why? Think about visual perception, a dynamic interactive process between light/eye/brain. Changing lighting changes visual perception. Visual perception impacts on most daily activities, including driving, playing sport and – reading. How could it not? This light sensitivity/visual perceptual problem is not just about reading, but reading is what most teachers, parents and researchers are interested in.

Teachers, along with parents, picked up the baton for light sensitive learners in the late 1980s at Alstonville High School in NSW and  developed a policy for them (the only one in the world, to my knowledge and I write about this in my book). Academic results improved. Students told us that light spectrum filters or coloured paper take “the glare away and [take] away the movement [of words] quite a bit”. Some professionals don’t believe them. They say that schools should use evidence, but a student’s experience is not the type of evidence they want so they don’t ask for it.

No one picked up the baton and ran with it throughout Australia. No one ran with it throughout the world. Why not? There are several reasons including –  vested interests! What are those vested interests? The lighting industry, the remedial reading industry, and the coloured lens industry.

The lighting industry is not accountable to any government. The Australian Standards authority in conjunction with the New Zealand Standards Authority (AS/NZ) has total control. More lights, more money and– who cares about spectral quality?

Some people in the remedial reading industry disparage coloured lenses. They are not ‘Magic Glasses’– they don’t cure dyslexia or learning disabilities. But, the problem is not dyslexia, and it’s not a problem with learning, it’s a problem with light sensitivity and visual perception. However, if light sensitivity and visual perceptual anomalies were acknowledged, the need for remedial reading might drop and that would reduce profit. So they would say that wouldn’t they?   

The global coloured lens market in 2022 is valued at USD 5403.28 million” and growing. Allegedly, there’s a “surge of eye disorders”. That’s good for ophthalmic professionals but, as Ray discovered back in 1938, artificial lighting was the problem, not his eyes. A significant number of six-year-old children in Sydney, experienced symptoms of “eye strain”, but researchers demonstrated in 2006 that “the vast majority had normal eye examinations”. Is light sensitivity their problem? 

If teachers do nothing, the consequences for light sensitive learners include reduced academic results; visual fatigue, headaches, and lowered self esteem. A cumulative effect may be inattention and poor behaviour. Moreover, compliance with the DDA is mandatory. 

Begin to shift attitudinal and environmental barriers by asking, “Would you like me to turn the lights off?”

Wendy Johnson PhD  negotiated inclusion of the term “learning differently” in the Australian Disability Discrimination Act when working as a secondary school teacher. She has also worked as a tutor and lecturer in the tertiary sector but is now an independent public policy scholar and advocate for light sensitive people.


How engaging hearts leads to engaging minds

“I’m not here to make you feel guilty, but I’m here to give you truths and facts that ensure that the pain ends with us” is how the Uncles from the Stolen Generation begin their stories of tragedy, trauma and survival. We are with Uncles from  KBHAC (Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation) who are speaking to around 100 students and staff at the University of Sydney. KBHAC was established in 2002 to support survivors of the Kinchela Boys Home to heal and reconcile from their experiences of trauma by honoring their narratives and recovering their stolen identities, by engaging in truth-telling.

Through established processes, their Care Model and networks of support, empower each survivor to “take control of their future” and break the cycle of trauma. The Uncles establish a safe space for the largely non-Indigenous preservice teacher audience to learn by making it clear that they do not intend for the audience to feel shamed, attacked, or guilty for the past. Telling their story, talking about their culture and the impact of their removal from their families and culture, supports their healing. The Uncles invite listeners to learn from their stories, with no judgment toward those without prior knowledge of Aboriginal histories and cultures. As they explain, this is an opportunity to educate future teachers so their grandchildren have teachers with a deeper understanding and empathy for Aboriginal children and their families.

Engaging hearts and engaging minds 

The process of listening to Aboriginal narratives of lived experiences creates a deep emotional engagement that we argue is critical to learning; that is, an openness and willingness to engage in deep listening, understanding, learning, and feeling (Thorpe et al, in press). For effective learning and change to take place, emotions need to be awakened, expressed, understood and unpacked. Engaging hearts to engage minds contrasts sharply with dominant Western approaches that emphasise objectivity and positivist knowledge.

This deep emotional engagement allows and legitimizes the sharing of personal experiences and truth-telling, giving a human face to complex issues, and bridging the disconnect between policy and the people, communities and Countries that are affected by these. Rather than textbook teaching, learning from an Uncle sharing his experiences of discrimination today and his efforts to shield his family from these experiences, provides listeners who may be emotionally and intellectually disconnected from this reality, an opportunity to understand history as a living reality for Aboriginal peoples in this country.

Motivation to do better

Emotional discomfort, difficult conversations and disquieting knowledges are important for channeling negative emotions into motivation to do better. Engaging in controversial and complex dialogue builds critical consciousness to work towards a more equal, equitable society. Lasting change requires support from the ground up, where dominant attitudes cannot easily be shifted by changes in power.

In order to do this, critical consciousness must be built through the exposure of narratives that challenge the status quo.“Emotionally engaging with such truths may be means of understanding the inhumanity of the status quo, which can lead to a commitment to collective humanization”. When people come to understand the injustices that others face, they may feel more personally responsible for helping undo these systems as “the right thing to do,” 

Embodying Truth-Telling through Learning From Country

Learning from Country (LFC) is a pedagogical approach that involves being present and going on a journey with Aboriginal Elders and community members on Country to experience Aboriginal narratives of place and the effects of colonisation. By collaborating with Aboriginal organizations such as KBHAC, pre-service teachers have opportunities to deepen their understanding of Aboriginal cultures, histories and knowledges through place-based learning on Country.

The University of Sydney’s Learning From Country (LFC) course is a three-week intensive program that engages hearts to engage minds, where most of the teaching time is spent learning from Aboriginal community-based educators. Through this approach, complex issues are addressed, and negative perceptions about Aboriginal peoples are challenged to educate and  empower preservice teachers to create culturally-safe classrooms. Pre-service teachers come to understand their privilege, how it shapes their reality and feel motivated to ameliorate these inequalities for their future students. The transformative impact of these experiences is noted by one preservice teachers 

The emotion and pain in the room was palpable, but in hearing those stories and bringing them to light, I felt as a room it was a shared feeling of motivation as educators to do what we could in our roles to support breaking those cycles of intergenerational trauma. As an educator, I want to hold onto the grief that I felt in that room for the people that were and still affected by those policies and use it to motivate and inform my actions.

The Way Forward

The LFC approach of engaging hearts to engage minds provides a way forward by thinking about what is critical in developing culturally responsive teachers who feel empowered to challenge the education systems which continue to fail Aboriginal children. When students’ lifeworlds are not reflected in curriculum and assessment, when their families and communities are victims of the system claiming to help them, and their histories of trauma, tragedy and survival are silenced, disengagement, failure and alienation ensues.

“Indifference to these issues denies all students with the opportunity to be informed about those socio-political discourses that have forged the environment in which Aboriginal people exist in Australia today”. We need to continually remind ourselves of the human, social and cultural purposes of schooling to bring perspective and prioritize accountability to our students and communities, rather than to the system.

Culturally safe learning environments

Healing and social change is a collective process which can be achieved through the efforts of teachers. Knowledgeable, confident and emotionally engaged teachers who provide culturally safe learning environments to foster culturally aware, empathic students, can help  end cycles of generational trauma for Aboriginal students and generational ignorance in the broader student population. “We need the systems to listen and respond to good practice based on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being, and doing that have been shared and demonstrated over many decades under colonization”.

Thus, programs like LFC that collaborate with Aboriginal community-based educators and organisations such as KBHAC, provide opportunities to rewrite dominant narratives, beginning with teachers emotionally engaging with Aboriginal histories, cultures and communities for the benefit of their future students, and society. Our mission is to never let another cohort of Australian students go through the system without knowing the true history of this country.

From left to right: Study Abroad student Caroline Pontaoe is a third-year student at Cornell University, USA is studying education in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. While studying at the University of Sydney, she researched Australian Aboriginal education policy and the significance of emotions in policy.

Cathie Burgess is an associate professor and researcher Aboriginal Community Engagement, Learning from Country and Leadership in Aboriginal Education programs at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her teaching and research centres on the transformative impact of Aboriginal community-led education in university and school education. Cathie’s work is acknowledged through the 2024 Teacher Educator of the Year Award, Honorary Life Member, NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and Life Member, Aboriginal Studies Association NSW Email: cathie.burgess@sydney.edu.au Valerie Harwood is a Professor of Sociology and Anthropology of Education in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. Her research is centred on a social and cultural analysis of participation in educational futures. This work involves learning about collaborative approaches and in-depth fieldwork on educational justice with young people, families and communities.Email: Valerie.harwood@sydney.edu.au

Header image: Learning From Country July 2020. Aboriginal presenters Kareel Phillips, Macoy Hansen, Willy Gordon, Tiarna Fatnowna, Julie Welsh & Gloria Duffin. Lecturers Valerie Harwood (SSESW), Cathie Burgess (SSESW), Reakeeta Smallwood (Sydney Nursing School) with nursing students.

Professional development: The minister claims she trusts teachers. But does she really? 

The NSW Minister for Education Prue Car has just announced important changes to professional development for registered teachers in NSW. Among them, ‘accredited’ PD has been dumped, along with the constraints of ‘mandatory priority areas’ introduced in 2021, and removing some time-consuming documentation and evaluation. The changes were announced directly to teachers last week via email. In an earnest talking head video, Prue Car vigorously defended the need to trust teachers, as “the architects of learning” and “the experts in identifying the tools and the resources …[they] need”.  

While this focus on trust is admirable, the changes raise some serious questions. 

What counts as teacher professional development?

The Minister emphasised that teachers will be trusted to “choose the professional development that suits their needs”. But when we look at the fine print, there are professional development activities currently highly valued by teachers that are either not included in the Government’s new framework, or explicitly excluded. This includes professional reading, collaborative planning, and the moderation of student assessment – core professional activities at the heart of good teaching practice. Furthermore, while research shows that ‘home grown’, school-based, teacher-led activities are highly effective in supporting teacher development, there is a disturbing pervasive idea that PD is something “delivered” to teachers by a “provider”.

Curiously, “compliance training” is, for the first time, explicitly included as professional development. First aid and child protection updates are undeniably important in maintaining teachers’ fitness to practice. But it is questionable whether they meet the benchmarks of high quality teacher professional development we should be aspiring to. 

Who decides what teachers will do?

The second question is, who decides? While the Minister emphasised that the changes will “ensure that every hour of professional development that you do is relevant and valuable to you and your practice”, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) website also states that employers “may choose areas of priority for their staff”, decisions which can be made at both a school and “system level”. There has been a trend toward NSW Department of Education ‘control and command’ approaches to dictating the focus and form of professional development activities for public school teachers. This suggests that teachers may continue to have little say in the kind of PD that matters to them. 

The shift from ‘accredited providers’ to ‘recognised providers’ seems at odds with the Minister’s messaging, by reinforcing the idea that teachers are not best placed to decide which PD to engage with. The list of recognised providers will be “overseen by an expert advisory panel”, whose membership is as yet unclear. The use of the term ‘providers’ again suggests a view of PD as something ‘‘delivered’ to teachers rather than something they actively engage with and have ownership over.  

Will teachers’ professional development be monitored?

Finally, while there does seem to be a reduction in administrative compliance work as part of this change, particularly for ‘providers’, teachers will still have to log their hours and be subject to an ‘audit process’ described by the Minister as “an annual review of the PD teachers have recorded so that the 100 hours of appropriate PD can be verified if needed”. This monitoring signals the continuation of “appropriate” teacher professional learning being defined by ‘experts’ (rather than by teachers themselves), which does not include many of the professional learning activities teachers may value the most.

Good teacher professional development is not measured in hours. If, in the words of the Minister, PD has “always been at the heart of [teachers’] practice… it was simply what teachers did”, then why is an auditable log of hours required? It hardly illustrates the ‘trust’ the Minister was at pains to express for teachers.

Increasing trust in teachers is a worthy and much-needed objective. But these changes make little meaningful progress toward it. While teacher PD continues to be framed as a set number of auditable ‘hours’ that are ‘delivered’ by ‘providers’, we will miss an opportunity to genuinely support teachers to do what they value and sustain them in the profession.


From left to right: Nicole Mockler is professor of education within the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has a background in secondary school teaching and teacher professional learning. Meghan Stacey is a senior lecturer in the UNSW School of Education, with a particular interest in teachers’ work. She has a background in teaching English and drama in public secondary schools. Claire Golledge is a lecturer in education and the co-ordinator of HSIE Curriculum (Secondary) in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She worked as a secondary teacher of humanities. Helen Watt is professor of educational psychology at the University of Sydney, initiator of the Network Gender & STEM (www.genderandSTEM.com) and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia.

Header image of Prue Car from the Minister’s Facebook page.

NAPLAN: There is no need to panic

Jim Tognolini: What do the results really mean

Every year when results for large scale tests such as NAPLAN are released, there is a need to remind parents – and people in general – about the need to reflect judiciously on  what they really mean. 

It is also very important to address the misconceptions that are promulgated by journalists who start off with a preconceived notion of what they want the results to say (for one reason or another) and then proceed to misinterpret and draw unsubstantiated conclusions that they argue support their notions.

This year’s NAPLAN is just another case in point.

Overall, the results are best summarised by the CEO of ACARA, Stephen Gniel when he says, “The data shows that while there were small increases and decreases across domains and year levels, overall the results were broadly stable.”

There are some good reasons for drawing this conclusion. The results, apart from some minor perturbations up-and-down in different domains, are indeed relatively stable. 

JT: Only so much “growth”

To be honest, this should be expected because there is only so much “growth” that can occur across one or two years of learning and the only other data we can compare to is the NAPLAN 2023 data because the scale that is being used for comparison was only calibrated in 2023. 

A trend requires more than two points to be able to be reliably interpreted. It is a relatively naïve view that would expect strategies that have been introduced to address issues identified in the 2023 results would generate significant changes across a system in one year.

It is also important when reflecting on these results to stress several points. Firstly, there is some emotive language used to summarise performance which should not be allowed to go unchallenged. 

Students who have performed in the bottom two proficiency levels have been summarised as having “failed”.  However, when interpreting results like NAPLAN it is important to go beyond the “label” and look at what skills these students have displayed. The proficiency levels describe what students in these levels know and can do and an analysis of these skill sets suggests that they have a wide range of skills that will serve them well in later studies. 

JT: A sound springboard

The students in the bottom two levels have not “failed”. Knowledge and skills that students have displayed in the developing proficiency level are a sound springboard for learning within disciplines and through life.

 Let’s focus on what it is that students know and can do rather than jumping to labels that detract from the real meaning of the results.

While the NAPLAN is a battery of psychometrically sound tests, they are only tests of literacy and numeracy (there is a lot more to schooling than a test result on literacy and numeracy only). 

In addition, the results represent the outcomes on a particular day and a particular time. The key point here is that these results are only indicative. It is the trend data that are important at a system level. At an individual student level it is the cumulation of a range of data which provides the best evidence as to the overall performance of the student. The NAPLAN test scores must be interpreted by teachers using a wide range of data collected under different circumstances in the classroom. 

Parents who are concerned because the results are not consistent with what they expect from their child/children should seek clarification from the teachers.

Jennifer Gore: We know what to do. Let’s do it

These NAPLAN results are not new and not surprising. They reflect the results we saw last year with the new NAPLAN testing and reporting process and results we’ve seen for years. The fact that a third of students are not meeting proficiency standards is of great concern and the fact they disproportionately come from disadvantaged and other equity backgrounds reflects our nation’s failure to reduce educational inequality.

Education Minister Jason Clare is correct that we need reforms. The important thing is we get the reforms right.

First, we need to fully fund our public schools and end the political football over funding. Second, we need to support teachers to deliver excellent teaching. The current push for explicit teaching and synthetic phonics can only be part of the solution. Students are more than their brains. They learn in social and emotional conditions that also need to be addressed. For example, after a decade of explicit teaching and synthetic phonics, students in England are at an all-time low for enjoyment of reading, languishing toward the bottom of all OCED countries on this measure.

JG: You too can be like Cessnock

A decade of research at the University of Newcastle, including five randomised controlled trials, offers an alternative approach to school reform. Results from Cessnock High School, one of the most disadvantaged schools in NSW, shows how our evidence-based approach to improving teaching quality, regardless of the instructional strategies used, can change lives. Cessnock High achieved the most improved NAPLAN growth from Year 7 to 9 in the Hunter region and 11th overall in the state by engaging in whole school Quality Teaching Rounds. Simultaneously, teachers reported greater morale and improved school culture, which are critical factors in addressing the current teacher shortage crisis.

Thanks to funding from the Australian Government, thousands of teachers from across the country can now access this evidence-backed professional development for free.

From left to right: Jim Tognolini is Professor and Director of the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) at the University of Sydney. Jennifer Gore is the Laureate Professor and director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. She developed the Quality Teaching Rounds.

Science : this new syllabus is so last century

Imagine asking a five year old to name basic body parts. That kid’s known an eye from an elbow since the age of two.

This is the clearest indication we have that NSW syllabus writers have it so wrong. Some of the science knowledge is too simple, other ideas are too hard. Worst of all, it could lead to a return to regurgitating facts.

Why don’t syllabus writers take advice from education researchers? This question applies to both the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA). 

Advice largely ignored

Twice in the last two years a group of science education researchers from multiple NSW universities gave extensive, research-informed advice on primary science syllabus drafts. That advice was largely ignored. 

Problems which exist in the new NSW Science and Technology K-6 syllabus released last week could have been avoided. The consultation process is flawed when the people whose job it is to keep up with research about learning and teaching in science (and technology) are brushed aside. We need to create a school curriculum fit for contemporary students that gets the balance of intrigue and difficulty right. The views of primary teachers who usually lack strong knowledge in science must be balanced by research insights from science educators. NSW now has a syllabus like a leaky bucket, full of holes that science educators now must help teachers fix.

In developing the previous, 2017, syllabus, three science educators – Anne Forbes from Macquarie University, Helen Georgiou from Wollongong University and myself – spent a day with the syllabus writers advising on knowledge content. This collaboration resulted in a higher quality syllabus with accurate science ideas that were sequenced to match student ages.  

NESA claims: that “For the first time the K-6 curriculum is being developed cohesively to support depth of learning and enhance student engagement.” The science and technology section falls short of this aim.

Facts vs Inquiry

When you download the Science and Technology K-6 syllabus from the NSEA website, it reads like a list of facts to be remembered. I worry the lists of facts followed by specific examples will mean more rote learning and less engaging practical work for children. 

Inquiry is an essential science practice. Eminent science education scholar Roger Bybee (UK) argued over a decade ago “Inquiry is central to science . . . it should be basic in the design of school science programs, selection of instructional materials and implementation of teaching strategies”. Critically the word inquiry is not found in the Science and Technology K-6. Syllabus. Distinguished Alfred Deakin Professor of Science Education Russell Tytler agrees that in this time of wicked problems like climate change and advancing technologies we must build a generation of thinkers capable of advanced problem solving.

Kindergarten is too easy, other years’ content is too hard

Some topics do not suit students of different ages, despite advice from experts at four universities. Kindergarten ideas are too easy – naming basic human body parts is pre-school level. That means young learners will be bored and not engaged. 

Why does that matter? In kindergarten, children’s initial views about science and technology form. Their self‐perceptions as learners of science and technology matter and potentially impact future STEM‐related pursuits. I argue that the first year of school is the ideal time to engage children in practical inquiry. It’s also the ideal time to inspire a love of learning in science. School science learning should be stimulating from the start. Insufficient focus on basic physics misses the opportunity for children to explore how toys work.

In later years knowledge does not match students’ learning capabilities. Aligning knowledge with age-level is vital for successful learning. Some topics are slated for vastly different year levels than the Australian Curriculum, whilst content and examples are more suited to – and already taught in – high school. Examples include:

The topic of Light is Year 5 level in the national curriculum, but is to be taught in years one to two in NSW – Why? That light can be reflected and refracted is better suited to late primary (years five to six). Extra ideas of light dispersion and absorption would be misplaced in late primary, let alone years one and two.  

It gets worse

It gets worse, the more abstract ideas have been added to topics, which will hinder deep learning. Despite aims to ‘declutter’ the primary syllabus, more knowledge has been taken from secondary level. Take, for example, the transfer of heat energy taught in years three to four. It was previously limited to conduction (contact) but now includes ‘convection and radiation’. These processes cannot be observed directly which makes it difficult to understand them. The expectation that students will be able to ‘compare how different materials absorb or reflect heat energy’ is unrealistic for primary level.   

Example content includes ideas that students cannot observe directly, which makes it difficult to learn in primary school. Complex ideas in years three to four include ‘force of gravity keeps Earth, moons and planets in their positions in the solar system’ and years five to six ‘coordination of human body systems’. Both are high school level in the national curriculum. 

Writing is privileged over multimodal communication

Writing alone is not a good way to learn science and technology ideas. Australian research shows that learning and thinking is advanced when children use many ways to communicate. Teachers should encourage children to draw, talk, move their bodies, use gestures, make models as well as writing to support science and technology learning. Research led by Deakin University colleagues Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain and Peter Hubber and my own study (with Peter) show when students create multi-modal representations they engage with and learn ideas deeper. The approach also helps students see how scientists generate knowledge and motivates their learning in science and technology.

It is not too late

We cannot afford to rely on a syllabus that looks like a litany of everything that we had last century – Human biology, reduced physics in the early years and jumbled facts for memorisation and recall. Hopefully the web-based syllabus will allow NESA to review the content lists and examples. The compound outcomes, that don’t make sense, can be made more achievable by getting the content and examples at the right level for students.The opportunity exists with the help of science educators to fix the problems outlined here before the syllabus is implemented in primary schools in 2027. 

Christine Preston is an associate professor in science education in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has taught science in primary and secondary school and her research interests include science for 5-year-olds, embodied learning in maths and science, citizen science, teacher quality.

Teachers say it’s crazy now. That’s not even the whole story

The crisis facing teachers and the teaching profession over the last decade at an international level is well-established in both the academic literature and industry reports.

Borne by compliance-driven and bureaucratic policies that have heightened accountability and scrutiny over teachers’ work, a large body of evidence has documented the negative impacts felt by teachers resulting from these policies. This includes excessive workloads and intensification of work, elevated stress and burnout, and diminished health and wellbeing. Flatlining salaries and poor professional respect have also culminated to create a disincentive to enter into the profession. 

These pressures have contributed to a growing teacher shortage internationally. The situation is so dire the United Nations (UN) has recently recommended an urgent call to action to transform education systems and the teaching profession globally.    

The UN described the COVID-19 pandemic as having “turned the world of work upside down”. On top of the pressures experienced pre-pandemic, it is crucial to understand how the work of teachers changed post-pandemic. In a recently published article, we explored the legacy impact of the pandemic on school teachers’ work.  

COVID-19: Disrupting a profession in crisis

Teachers’ work changed fundamentally due to COVID. In a matter of weeks following the World Health Organization declaring a worldwide pandemic in early 2020, governments began directing schools to shut down and shift to remote teaching and learning of students.

This experience of remote learning for teachers was fairly short-lived, particularly compared to other sectors where working-from-home has increased and sustained beyond pre-pandemic levels. But empirical studies in Australia and internationally documented the significant disruption faced by teachers from this dramatic shift to their normal ways of working. Teachers’ stress and anxiety increased substantially during the pandemic, workloads grew, and resilience was challenged. 

To ensure continuity of learning, teachers had to very quickly upskill in new technological platforms and systems, working around-the-clock to support their students, despite reports of many teachers feeling very unprepared and overwhelmed. EdTech companies seized the pandemic as an opportunity to further roll out digital technologies and online learning support to help schools during intense remote learning while profiting significantly. 

The teacher workforce shortage problem was made even more acute by the pandemic, mirroring the ‘great resignation’ trend occurring elsewhere in the world of work where millions voluntarily quit their jobs in a re-evaluation of their life and career decisions. 

Post-COVID: Sustained impacts for the teaching profession? 

The World Health Organization announced in mid-2023 that the pandemic was no longer a public health emergency. As economies and societies moved to recover from the global pandemic, the opportunity is ripe to consider how ways of working have fundamentally changed, or not, from the world of work being ‘turned upside down’. 

In a recent article, we outlined a research agenda to understand ways in which the pandemic may have marked an inflection point in disrupting education systems, specifically its sustained impact on teachers’ work and workload. We were curious to understand how the pandemic reshaped or hastened existing thinking and practice around teachers’ use of technology, delivery models of education, and more flexible ways of working. While it is difficult to establish direct causal links, we were interested to understand the ways in which teachers’ work and workload has been changing in light of these complex crises and the impact of these global trends. 

As experts in work and employment, we looked to broader patterns of change happening in the world of work, which the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated, such as remote and flexible work, automation, and augmentation to work roles and content of work, to understand what was happening to teachers’ work. Our call for further research on these trends was complemented with an interview-based project with school teachers and leaders in New South Wales, in which we share some emerging insights, to understand how the pandemic has changed teachers’ work. 

How is teachers’ work changing?

Classroom teaching remains primarily a face-to-face learning experience in physical environments for five days a week with a relatively small number of students (unlike the massification of higher education), supported by online learning. 

There are some early signs of departure from notions of fixed time and place for learning. While in interviews, some teachers mentioned that “I don’t think that fully online is the answer”, there are examples of ways that schools are experimenting with hybrid or blended ways of learning. Flexible arrangements in the form of a four-day school week have been introduced and tested in states such as Queensland in Australia and Missouri in the USA as a way to save teachers’ time and manage costs and staff shortages

Advancements in artificial intelligence have activated discussions around enabling teachers to work more efficiently and effectively through automating repetitive tasks and standardizing processes. ‘Time-saving’ strategies for teachers have also been proposed in policy solutions like the NSW Department of Education’s ‘Quality Time’ Program which uses online tools of ‘banks’ of curriculum and lesson planning material to support teachers’ lesson preparation. 

Yet, these developments have potentially major impacts for how teachers carry out their work and in understanding the way the ‘job’ of teaching is changing. And further questions remain on the implications for students’ learning and needs around social and emotional connection, as well as impacts on parents and local communities from changing models of learning. 

Always on, always available

For example, concerns have been raised about the ways the pandemic intensified the expectations of teachers (and other professional workers) to be ‘always on and available’ to work. This was a concern directly raised by teachers in our interviews, with one reporting the encroachment of work activities on their ‘personal’ time: “it’s crazy, it just feels like it’s never ending, you feel like you’re just constantly on your computer”. In response, new industrial and policy provisions in New South Wales and Queensland are empowering public school teachers with the right to ‘digitally disconnect’ to limit non-urgent communications, protect teachers’ non-work time, and support their wellbeing, with this right to become available for other workers Australia-wide under new legislation.

Many teachers also anticipate online delivery of learning to continue in the future, yet have tempered this with caution of the knock-on effects for students, as one teacher commented: “I can definitely see these online platforms, like this online delivery of content being really big in the future. I definitely think that’s going to take over most of content delivery “teaching”. But there’s still such a need for relationships and that social interaction.” 

Careful consideration needed

Technologies and emerging work arrangements are changing the way that teachers carry out their work, which has been intensified with the pandemic. But careful consideration is needed of the implications of these trends so that teachers’ professional autonomy and expertise is protected and so that there is due consideration of the impact of changes on teachers’ workload and working conditions. 

Mihajla Gavin is a senior lecturer in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney.Her research is onl education reforms affecting teachers’ conditions of work. Find her on Twitter  @Mihajla_Gavin. Susan McGrath-Champ is Professor in the Work and Organisational Studies Discipline at the University of Sydney Business School, Australia. Her research includes the geographical aspects of the world of work, employment relations and international human resource management.

Escape Oppression Now: Disrupt the Dominance of Evidence-Based Practice

Evidence-Based Practice dominates every Australian education system facilitated through government and non-government organisations including NSW’s Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE), the national and independent Evidence for Learning, and the all-encompassing Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). In other human fields, EBP has been questioned, challenged, and modified or even replaced while Australia’s education systems continue to promote a narrow base of evidence as ‘what works’ for student achievement.

At the recent AARE/ATEA/ACDE event “What counts as evidence in teacher education research and policy?” one point for action raised was the need to pushback on its dominance.

This disruption is the focus of a project I have been developing with colleagues at the University of Sydney.

What’s the problem?

More than twenty years of critique on EBP exists in academia, alerting us to problems for the teaching profession, initial teacher education (ITE), student learning, wellbeing, and life outcomes, democracy, and more. Central to the problems of EBP is the removal of discussion on the purpose of education and in turn the limiting of education to learning.

Perhaps the most pernicious problem is the simplification of practice that is immensely complex

Teaching is a non-causal practice but EBP relies on causal research, with random controlled trials as the gold standard. That neglects the breadth of research that supports understanding of – and engagement with-  the complexity of teaching. The range of teaching approaches become limited to  options offered from causal research. 

The children and young people who do not comply directly or indirectly to respond in the pre-determined manner are problematised and excluded rather than looking at the full breadth of evidence from practice to problem solve and design action to support stronger relationships between teaching and learning

One of the most inequitable education systems in the world

Teachers’ work is simplified, supporting arguments that anyone can teach. ITE is denigrated for developing pre-service teacher (PST) ability to engage with the complexity of teaching. It alsosupports a  return to the reproductive model of teacher training absent of critical thinking, reflection, and engagement with theory and research. Ultimately, the status quo is maintained, along with the ranking of Australia as one of the most inequitable education systems in the world.

EBP limits teaching approaches by sacrificing  teacher autonomy for claims of causality. The prioritised practice is a conceptualisation of explicit teaching positioned in the camp of direct instruction (see the CESE definition of explicit teaching and representations of explicit teaching by the NSWDoE in the Sydney Morning Herald compared to that articulated clearly in the Ambassador Schools Project). 

Positioning explicit teaching (ie. direct instruction in this case) in opposition and superiority over inquiry-based teaching, creates a false binary. This is constructed through misunderstanding and misrepresentation of inquiry based teaching. It neglects  the essential inclusion of explicit teaching within inquiry based teaching along with a range of approaches necessary to build relationship between teaching and learning with the diversity of students. 

Other professions have questioned, challenged, even moved on from EBP. Social work has recognised the damage of EBP as ‘evidence-based oppression’ through neglect for attention to structural issues in society favouring the neoliberal focus on individuals and individual responsibility.

What is needed in education to pushback on the dominance of evidence-based practice?

Broad understanding of the problem is needed beyond academic discourse. We have over twenty years of academic critique of EBP. Yet it  it rarely reaches professional media for teachers, school leaders and other education stakeholders to access. It rarely reaches mainstream media for parents/carers and the broader general public.

False claims need to be highlighted. Amongst the many falsehoods espoused in the construction of EBP’s dominance is the absence of evidence in EBP claims.

In the subordination of teachers, research is pre-digested into easy-to-read summaries for teachers to know the practices being prescribed are ‘evidence-based’. Such pre-digestion of research is selective presentation of evidence to promote desired practices. It further removes teachers from engagement with research evidence. 

AERO’s latest guide Assessing whether evidence is relevant to your context – For educators, teachers and leaders directs teachers to AERO’s own materials. One document referred to is Formative assessment: Know where your students are in their learning which simplifies the research on formative assessment to consideration of just six papers summarised in two pages. It neglects key aspects and oversimplifies leading to errors. Further examples of ‘evidence’ disseminated to teachers in pre-digested formats include CESE’s Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand which is based on a paper widely critiqued as a strawman fallacy. CESE’s paper is then relied upon by AERO in their presentation of evidence for cognitive load theory to teachers.

AERO leads to more AERO

Teaching must be valued for the complex, ‘problematic’ practice that it is. Wider understanding is needed on how teachers have and do use evidence to build relationship between teaching and learning to support other teachers and school leaders, along with teacher educators and PSTs. Teachers have been making evidence informed decisions for action long before the emergence of EBP. Matthew Clarke reminded us at the AARE/ATEA/ACDE event that evidence is not proof, and that evidence cannot speak for itself, rather evidence must be interpreted. 

We need to reclaim and clarify

Teachers are surrounded by evidence and analyse evidence to inform teaching for student learning. Recognising that teaching is non-causal requires teachers to draw together a range of evidence to help them build relationship between teaching and student learning. EBP dominance is hindering teachers’ opportunities to utilise the full range of evidence necessary to teach children and young people.

We need to reclaim and clarify the language of Evidence Informed Practice (EIP): drawing on the work of Helen Timperley who presented EIP as involving integrated analysis of evidence from research, evidence from teaching, evidence from students to make decisions for further action within an ongoing cycle of practice whereby further evidence is collected through action. EIP involves practitioners in the collection and analysis of evidence to make decisions for action with broader consideration to the purposes of education. It utilises evidence in consideration to the context and the possibilities from other contexts. Evidence Informed Practice recognises a broad range of evidence including a much broader value for the diversity of research than EBP’s reliance on causal research. EIP is research in itself and when formalised and shared enables practice to feed back into research and policy development.

So, what are we doing?

First is a forthcoming paper tracking how education has come to be in this position of EBP dominance drawing together the breadth of academic critique.

Next is a multi-stakeholder workshop that will happen later this year, leading to the development of a green paper for public consultation to inform the development of a white paper to give school leaders, policymakers, and others a basis on which to pushback on the dominance of EBP and strength to develop their EIP.

From there will be a program of research. Pivotal will be case studies of EIP in action in schools to share insight to the complexities of practice, the scope for how teachers engage in EIP, and the wide-ranging benefits for children, young people, teachers, and society. The case studies will provide further basis for teachers and schools to pushback on the dominance of EBP and guidance in using EIP. From there we will work with schools to support practitioner inquiry to develop EIP. Threaded through this program of research will be ongoing exploration of work with PSTs positioning them as agents for change in the transition from EBP to EIP through the development of reciprocal learning during professional experience and into their early career teaching.


Nicole Brunker is a senior lecturer in the School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney. She was a teacher and principal before moving into Initial Teacher Education where she has led foundational units of study in pedagogy, sociology, psychology and philosophy. Her research interests include school experience, alternative paths of learning, Initial Teacher Education pedagogy, and innovative qualitative methodologies. Current research projects include the diversity of pre-service teacher apprenticeships of observation and disrupting evidence-based practice in education. You can find her on LInkedIn and on X:

Civics: Is there enough room in the syllabus?

Politicians and policy makers constantly express concern over students’ lack of civic knowledge and their lack of engagement as citizens; their understanding of democracy. At the same time, Australian students consistently fail to demonstrate basic proficiency in the national assessment of civics and citizenship education (NAP-CC)

The politicians have a point. It is in all our interests to have an engaged and knowledgeable citizenry. The question is how to go about improving civics and citizenship education (CCE) in a way that makes a meaningful difference? 

Renewed focus

The current round of hand-wringing about CCE has found expression at both state and federal levels. In February, the NSW Educational Standards Authority (NESA) announced that the revised HSIE syllabus, to be revealed later this year would have a “renewed focus” on civics and citizenship education, although we are yet to see what this renewed focus looks like. Meanwhile, last week the Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters held public hearings (chair Kate Thwaites pictured in header image) as part of the inquiry into civics education, engagement and participation in Australia. It was disappointing that amongst the many experts appearing before the hearing last week, none were current classroom teachers. 

It is hard not to notice that it is history teaching, or more specifically history teachers, who are (paradoxically) considered both a key cause and solution to the deficiency in student knowledge of CCE, with former education minister Alan Tudge famously calling for a more “optimistic” version of Australian history to be taught in classrooms so that “Individual students learn to understand the origins of our liberal democracy so that they can defend it, they can protect it, they can understand it, and they can celebrate it”.  

Voices and concerns of students

Despite what might be offered by the latest round of curriculum reform in NSW, and without pre-empting the findings of the parliamentary inquiry, it needs to be said that efforts to pursue CCE through more mandated content in humanities courses, won’t on their own improve the quality of student civic knowledge or engagement. Efforts to improve CCE need to include the voices and concerns of students and teachers, and consider the different contexts in which teachers approach CCE across the diversity of Australian classrooms. 

Teachers get it

I’ve undertaken research with history teachers across NSW, and it’s clear from my interviews with them and time spent in their classrooms that they do understand history education as having a pivotal role in the teaching of CCE. But critically, they see history as doing this through the teaching of disciplinary skills such as the critical reading of sources, the ability to ask robust questions and notions of the contestability of knowledge, rather than through the teaching of any sort of ‘canon’ of knowledge about Western democracy and civilisation. In an era of misinformation and fake news, the ability of students to ask critical questions – of individuals and our institutions is perhaps more important than ever. 

The syllabus and HSC are hindering, not helping CCE 

Whilst it’s easy to talk about adding more CCE content to the syllabus, teachers report that they are already working with a history curriculum that they describe as ‘full’ and ‘tight’ and which as a result doesn’t allow any wiggle room to explore areas of passion or interest for their students. We need to be careful about making the syllabus even less flexible for teachers to work with. 

For one teacher in my study – Jane – who is an expert in local Aboriginal history and storytelling, the formal curriculum in senior history courses, with their emphasis on world wars and Western history, limits her ability to share this expertise with her students.

As a result, Jane is deeply cynical about attempts to formalise civics and citizenship education through mandated knowledge in the history curriculum which she sees as alienating, “boring” and “deeply irrelevant” for her students. Jane instead tries to engage with democratic notions through inclusive pedagogies and the building of a classroom community.

Lovely kids but so sheltered

For another teacher in my study – Max – who teaches in a high-fee independent school in Sydney, it is not only the curriculum that frustrates his teaching of CCE, but also the high stakes assessment of the HSC. Max describes his students as “pretty Anglo [and] affluent, they are so sheltered here. They are lovely kids, but they are so sheltered”. Max understands his task as being to challenge some of the ways in which his students are ‘sheltered’ through exposure to challenging content and ideas, and grappling with the contestation at the heart of history education.

But Max also admits that the primary expectation of him as a teacher of senior students at his school is to get his students the best possible result for their Higher School Certificate examination. This means that in his senior history classrooms, with students on the precipice of voting, he prioritises ‘teaching to the test’ and this means sometimes foregoing opportunities to pursue rich and meaningful CCE. 

CCE in an inequitable education system 

While both Max and Jane are passionate teachers of history who are seeking to embed CCE in their classroom, they are not doing so on an even playing field. Educational inequity is rarely discussed as a factor in improving CCE in Australia, and yet the resources and opportunities afforded to Max’s students make a huge difference in his ability to connect their learning in history to the development of their civic knowledge. For Jane, teaching in an under-resourced, regional school, she struggles to get students to comprehend the broader significance of their learning in history:

I am trying to teach them who Mussolini is, but they have no idea who their own Prime Minister is, that’s really quite a challenge….

I’m sure at many schools that wouldn’t be a problem. At some schools the name of the Prime Minister is on the honour board.

Jane’s insight is a telling one, because indeed the honour boards of Max’s school are replete with the names of Australian politicians and other notable individuals. Messages about democracy, participation and active citizenship are encoded into the very fabric and structure of our education system which provides so much to some students and so little to others. And yet we wonder why so many students begin their adult life feeling disengaged from politics and public life? 

Let’s hear more from teachers when we talk about CCE 

As we look around at the political and environmental challenges being faced by the next generation, there is particular urgency to engaging with the question of how to best develop in our students an appreciation for democratic ideals, a valuing of inclusive notions of citizenship and the knowledge and capacity to be empathetic and engaged civic actors. But improving student knowledge and capacity in these areas won’t happen if all we do is think about content in the curriculum without parallel regard for the systems and structures at work in our education system more broadly. History teachers are well aware of the way in which notions of citizenship and democracy can be pursued in their classrooms, and we would do well to listen to and value their insights. 

Claire Golledge is a lecturer in education and the co-ordinator of HSIE Curriculum (Secondary) in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work. Prior to taking up her position at the university, Claire worked as a secondary teacher of humanities, as well as in school executive leadership positions, leading teacher professional learning.

Our header image is from the Facebook page of Kate Thwaites, chair of Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

Transforming Online Assessment in Business Education: What do we need to know now

Elaine Huber’s collaborators on this project are: Andrew Brodzeli, University of Sydney; Andrew Cram, University of Sydney; Lynne Harris, Head of Teaching and Learning Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand (CAANZ); Corina Raduescu, University of Sydney; Amanda White, CA, University of Technology Sydney; Sue Wright , University of Technology Sydney; Sandris Zeivots; University of Sydney.

The pandemic reignited more innovative approaches to teaching and learning. It also gave us an opportunity to consider how we might conduct assessments differently in business education. 

The intricate dance of managing expectations across different stakeholders has never been more dynamic.

In a recent exploratory study, educational researchers at the University of Sydney and the University of Technology Sydney  shed light on the nuances of designing online assessments that uphold academic integrity, assure quality feedback, and enhance student experiences in business education. 

Why business education?

Business education, bound by stringent professional accreditations, is grappling with maintaining standards while navigating the complexities of online assessments. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) acts as the collective voice of Australian university business schools, which educate about one in six of all domestic students ­and nearly 40 percent of the nation’s international students. Our research project commissioned by the ABDC investigated current evidence about the forms of online assessment practices and developed a framework to guide best-practice decision-making about online assessments.

Aiming for Quality and Integrity

Drawing upon an extensive literature review and empirical data from surveys and focus groups, our research identified six key considerations essential for high-quality online assessments: ensuring academic integrity, delivering quality feedback, supporting a positive learning experience, maintaining the integrity of student information, using authentic content that reflects real-world scenarios and guaranteeing equal opportunity for success. 

A Framework to Guide Practice in Business Education

Our findings culminated in a proposed framework aimed at aiding educators in their decision-making for online assessment design. This framework takes into account the nuanced scales of delivery, resource limitations, institutional policies, and accreditation demands that shape educators’ practices. 

The imperative of authenticity

A key insight from our research was the need for authenticity in assessments, ensuring that what students learn is not only tested but also applied, resembling real-world scenarios they are likely to encounter. This authentic approach not only engages students more deeply but also reinforces the relevance and applicability of their learning beyond the classroom.

Fostering Academic Integrity in Business Education

In an online world, upholding academic integrity becomes increasingly complex. Our framework suggests the need for innovative assessment methods that can mitigate the risks of dishonesty while maintaining the credibility of the educational process. For example an approach that is growing in popularity is the Interactive Oral. Our study explores how academic integrity can be woven seamlessly into the fabric of online assessments, preserving the trust and value inherent in higher education. Since the study was published, generative AI has increased the access to mechanisms that enable academic dishonesty, making this issue even more critical to understand and address. In response to this development, integrity is receiving more attention than other considerations in the design of online assessments. 

Quality Feedback Through Dialogue

Feedback in the learning process cannot be understated. It is the subject of many studies over decades of educational research. Our study delves into how quality feedback can be integrated into online assessments, creating a dialogue between educators and students. This exchange not only clarifies expectations and enhances learning but also allows for the continuous improvement of assessment design itself. A way of doing this well is to invite students to contribute their voices to a co-design or co-creation approach to the assessment design.

Tackling trade-offs head-on

Our findings also underscore the complexity of these factors influencing assessment design. Focus group participants highlighted the constant negotiation of constraints in the assessment design process. This includes the delicate balance between ensuring academic integrity, fostering a positive learning environment, and addressing scalability. For example, while traditional assessments such as exams and essays are familiar and easily translatable to the online format, students perceive them as boring. Online assessments often lack innovation and fail to leverage the potential of technology such as enhancing authenticity through simulations and real world cases. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS

Real-world Implications

Our study not only contributes to the scholarly dialogue between educators and higher education providers but also resonates with the professional accreditation bodies of various industries such as Chartered Accountants, Property Management, Chartered Financial Analysts etc. The intricate dance of managing expectations across different stakeholders has never been more dynamic. In the next stage of our research project, we aim to validate the framework elements across relevant stakeholder groups including students, educational decision and policy makers, accreditation body representatives and employers.

The future is now

And then came GenAI. When ChatGPT and its allies landed in full force we quickly harnessed the access to our stakeholder groups to explore their perspectives on the use of AI tools. We used thematic analysis to validate the framework and uncover new elements and their relationships. Preliminary findings indicate concerns from educational decision makers (financial costs), employers (who defines authenticity), accrediting bodies (academic integrity), students (feedback), and educators (differentiating summative and formative assessment). 

Join the conversation

In the complete paper, “Towards a framework for designing and evaluating online assessments in business education,” we present a rich, data-driven discourse on the intricacies of assessment design. You can also read more on our theoretical underpinnings, the voices of educators shaping the next generation, and the potential pathways our framework paves for future research and practice. We hope to continue a conversation aimed at changing digital assessment practices, and offer a guide for those at the forefront of educational innovation. Our website is the place for this, see http://bizonlineassessment.com  

Elaine Huber, associate professor at the University of Sydney, has been designing curriculum and teaching adults for over 20 years and is currently the Academic Director of the Business Co-Design team at the University of Sydney. Elaine leads this multiskilled team of educational developers, learning designers, media producers and research associates, working together with discipline staff, students and industry partners on a large strategic project called Connected Learning at Scale.

Why a puppet can change your school for good

Celebrating World Autism Day? Bring a puppet to school. World Autism Day is always an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the important issues relating to Autism –  raising awareness, promoting acceptance and celebrating the contribution of autistic individuals to our society. But it’s also a day that offers an opportunity to us as educators. To ask ourselves – how can we be part of ensuring that all schools are positive and rich places of learning for all students? And by that, I mean absolutely every student in an education that is inclusive.

As part of a recent review of the literature, I learned of the work being done at Macquarie Fields High School by professional puppet maker and teacher librarian Katherine Hannaford. It was a wonderful reminder of the many ways that the object of a puppet is more than a toy, and how this artform, too often limited to early childhood and primary settings, can be a valuable tool in a secondary school context as well.  It was a wonderful reminder of how Creative arts and puppetry can be a vital step towards inclusion for all students. Along with other studies of high school aged students, this work is highlighting the possibilities of puppetry for many educational purposes as well as their value as a tool to support the wellbeing of autistic adolescents and young people.

Lecturer in Puppetry and Object Theatre, Cariad Astles, explains how the object of the puppet, frequently used in Theatre for Development and in educational and therapeutic contexts as the puppet can embody the real world and provide a safe distance to discuss difficult subjects or enable difficult conversations.  For this reason, the puppet is an ideal object as it may suit the communicative preferences of autistic individuals and provide a more comfortable and positive social space to engage with others. In my own research with younger children, puppets were found to impact the relationships between children and educators, creating a more positive, playful learning environment and one that elicited conversations for all children, including autistic children, children with disabilities and children speaking English as an additional language. What was so interesting in this study and something that I had noticed in all my previous work in schools was the impact of the puppet in changing perceptions- the teachers saw the children differently, and through the opportunity to see that child interact and engage with a puppet started to presume competence.

Puppets change teacher attitudes as they provide children and young people with a voice and a tool to express their thinking in ways that are uniquely their own. In playing with puppetry, the child or student can participate in a shared encounter with one another or with their educator. It is through these encounters that the educator can ‘see’ this person’s interests, ways of playing, humour, and competence. The puppet contributes to a positive learning environment and takes away the pressure that a question from an adult or another person can place on students, in particular autistic students.

A puppet is an artform and an object that teachers can use to provide opportunities to engage children and young people in their learning and in their classroom community. Teachers can consider the following questions to guide their thinking about ‘how’ to use a puppet in their classroom:

(1) What is the potential barrier that the puppet is going to remove? For example (Communication, Interest). Puppets have been shown to motivate student interest and promote engagement, in younger children, this can be due to the visual appeal of the puppet and the sense that the puppet is magical and appeals to their imagination. For older students, the puppet can be created in class to represent themselves, or a character from literature, film or as a political or historical figure. Difficult topics or issues can be explored from a position of safety as the object of the puppet is ‘speaking’ and expressing the ideas and not the puppeteer. The teacher is also less authoritative and can have the permission to be playful and creative with their students and therefore creating a different dynamic in the classroom.

2) Where do I plan to use the puppet? (History, King Lear, Dance, Music, PDHPE, Drama, Science discussions, Literacy, Morning Circle).The opportunities to utilize puppets is limitless and one than lends itself  to cross curriculum priorities as well as General Capabilities such as encouraging Critical and Creative Thinking and Personal and Social Capability. The puppet is an ideal way for children and young people to express who they are in the creation of the puppet or in the animation of the puppet. Rather than using the puppet to “teach” or “model” social skills, see puppetry as an opportunity to for an individual to discover and share who they are, without an expectation of a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and instead an opportunity for us all to learn about ourselves, one another and to make meaning about an issue or concept.

 (3) What do the children like? (favourite animals, creatures, or activities, textures, colours)
preferences? While a beautiful hand puppet can be ideal for early childhood or primary school, move beyond this notion of a puppet for your Secondary school students and think about the materials and objects that you can bring to life as a puppet. I have included a link here to inspire you.

A puppet can celebrate and speak to us all, without relying on a single spoken word. How inclusive is that? Bring a puppet to school and listen to everybody’s voice.

Olivia Karaolis teaches across the School of Education and Social Work at Sydney University. She completed her research at USYD after working in the United States in the field of Early Childhood Education and Special Education. Her focus has been on creating inclusive communities through the framework of the creative arts.