The Federal Department of Education predicts an alarming teacher shortage of 4,100 teachers by 2025. It is now more pressing than ever that we explore ways of addressing this crisis.
Our research examined female Initial Teacher Education (ITE) completion data in Australia to identify trends around which degree types (postgraduate and undergraduate) and study modes (internal, external, and multimodal) are likely to attract more potential female ITE students, and subsequently increase the ITE completion and ultimately the teacher supply pipeline.
The research reveals a declining trend in ITE completion by females in the internal study mode for both degree types. On the contrary, there has been an increasing trend in ITE completion by females in the external and multimodal study modes for both types of programs. We therefore argue that policymakers and universities should make these programs and study modes more accessible to potential female ITE students. This would help to maximise female ITE completion in tackling the predicted teacher shortage.
Why use female ITE completion data?
Historically, the teaching profession in Australia – and globally – has attracted more females than males. As such, efforts to increase the number of females graduating from ITE programs would play a significant role in bolstering the teaching workforce. Supporting women’s entry and retention in the teaching profession is key to ensuring an adequate ongoing teacher supply.
A closer look at what the female ITE completion data tell us
Our research shows that for the period from 2001 to 2021, there was a significant decline – by nearly 40 per cent – of female ITE completion in the internal study mode for undergraduate ITE programs. But at the same time, female ITE completion by multimodal study doubled and nearly tripled for female ITE graduates in the external study mode.
Similar observations can be seen with the postgraduate ITE programs. The internal study mode declined by nearly 20 per cent in the same period. For the external and multimodal study modes, there were mammoth increases of 264.40% and 1089.11% respectively in female ITE completion.
It is clear that there is a growing interest by females to enrol in and complete ITE programs in the external and multimodal study modes as opposed to the internal study mode.
The upward trend in the external and multimodal study modes is likely attributed, in part, to technological advancements. The increased use and accessibility of the internet in homes would have contributed to the growth in female ITE completion in these modes of study.
These same technological advancements facilitated the adoption of online delivery methods for ITE degrees by universities. The shift to online learning around 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic would have also contributed to the upward trend in the external study mode.
Given the increasing trend in female ITE completion in these flexible study modes, universities would be wise to make these modes more accessible to maximise ITE completion. We argue that policymakers, universities and schools have an important role to play in this space to address the teacher shortage.
Policymakers should consider:
Offering financial support, such as scholarships and financial incentives, which are specifically targeted at female students, for example:
loans or grants for female students during placements to help cover living expenses; and
needs-based support for female students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds.
Capping tuition fees to ensure they remain affordable for all female students.
Universities should consider:
Providing support for students balancing academic studies with other commitments, such as family duties, which disproportionately burden female students, such as:
flexible assignment extension and leave of absence policies; and
subsidised childcare services.
Offering flexible study options, which might include:
part-time study;
evening classes;
block study; and
mixed study mode.
Enhancing the accessibility of external and multimodal programs by:
providing 24/7 IT helpdesk support and certified training programs to aid the development of skills required for online learning;
implementing user-friendly learning management systems and eLearning tools; and
offering funding for suitable IT equipment and internet access, especially for those in regional areas.
Fostering supportive and inclusive learning environments by:
establishing peer support groups and academic skills advising tailored to external and online students;
providing networking opportunities;
mentorship programs; and
further initiatives that address the unique challenges faced by women in tertiary study.
Schools should consider:
Collaborating with policymakers and universities in structured partnerships to:
facilitate the establishment of outreach programs;
provide mentoring initiatives; and
promote teaching as a viable and rewarding career choice for females.
Investing in flexible, supportive, and financially accessible ITE programs, alongside broader strategies can encourage more females to enrol in and complete ITE degrees. This would contribute to ensuring a steady supply of qualified teachers to help avert the pending teacher shortage.
From left to right: Scott Cowie is a librarian in Academic Engagement Services at Griffith University, who has a keen interest in educational research. Loan Dao is an Educational Designer at the University of New South Wales and an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Access Education at Central Queensland University. Jeanne Allen is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University and is also a member of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research. Darren Pullen is a Lecturer in Health Science and Information and Communications Technology in the School of Education at the University of Tasmania.
Numbers show school exclusion is on the rise. But there is very little evidence to show it is an effective mechanism for improving or managing student behaviour. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with a disability, or living in out of home care continue to be significantly overrepresented in suspension and exclusion statistics. These patterns of systemic exclusion are part of a much longer story. Ahead of the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s inquiry into the education system, what might we learn from this history that can help us to end school exclusion?
School exclusion today
Across Australia today, schools disproportionately exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Data from 2019 shows that in Queensland and NSW, schools directed 25% of all exclusions at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students despite making up just over 10% of full-time state school enrolments in QLD and only 8% in NSW. The likelihood of exclusion increases even more for students with intersecting experiences such as living with disability or in out of home care. There are also connections between inadequate and unfair schooling systems and contact with the criminal justice system. However, access to up-to-date school exclusion data remains difficult, limiting public scrutiny and accountability for the full extent of school exclusion across Australia.
The history of school exclusion
Beginning in 1883, multiple generations of Aboriginal students at Yass were segregated, excluded and denied access to public schooling. The 70-years of school exclusion at Yass is just one of many stories of school exclusion detailed in a recent research report. For the first time, the history of school exclusion of Indigenous students across Australia has been recorded in one place. It confirms what families and communities have said for generations: the education system has a systemic racism problem. But Indigenous communities have always resisted and organised to fight exclusion. The historical record is replete with stories of families fighting back in diverse ways including strikes, organised protests, letters and petitions, media and legal campaigns.
What we found
Our research found exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students occurred across all state school systems in Australia. We found systemic exclusion, that is, exclusion in all states and territories, from the foundation of the first education systems in the 1870s to the present. We found two main types of exclusion:
The failure of governments to provide access to schooling for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students by either not ensuring access or by outright denying access.
The disproportionate use of exclusionary measures, such as suspension and expulsion, against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
Historically, Indigenous students were excluded based on explicitly racialised justifications. Today, modern forms of exclusion are represented as race ‘neutral’, yet schools use disciplinary exclusion measures disproportionately against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, compounding the educational debt that is owed.
This history highlights the explicitly racist origins of school exclusion today. It also makes clear that school exclusion is not a new issue but rather is part of a system that has yet to fundamentally rethink how it supports young people.
Problems with current policies
Exclusion has proven ineffective in addressing the underlying causes of student ‘misbehaviour’. In fact, most data shows that once a student is excluded, they are likely to be excluded again. Yet school systems in Australia continue to rely on exclusion as a form of punishment.
Our research also found troubling continuities between past and present policies. From the outset, education systems gave police powers to investigate and bring charges against families for their child’s non-attendance, sometimes leading to the removal of children from their families. Today, police continue to play a central role in managing school absenteeism in many states. In Queensland, this relationship has been formalised. Of 57 secondary schools currently in QLD’s ‘School Based Policing Program’, 41 have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student population higher than the state figure of 8-10%. This suggests a link between the racial profiling, surveillance, and over-policing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in schools, and their overrepresentation in processes of school exclusion.
Policy fixation
Another problem is policy fixation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school attendance and disadvantage which have dominated the policy-making space in Indigenous education. Yet, there has rarely been a focus on the impact of the exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In fact, notably, our research suggests that discipline policies, suspensions and expulsions are rarely mentioned in national policy documents and inquiries.
Finally, access to data remains difficult. This is despite national agreement for increased levels of transparency around school attendance. Limited availability of data on school exclusion in Australia prevents a full investigation of the racialised nature of exclusion and hinders public accountability.
So what does work?
First and foremost, disaggregated data needs to be made publicly available to increase transparency. Only then can we have a full picture of which students are being excluded which can be used to hold governments and schools to account.
Second, we need to shift away from school exclusion as a form of discipline towards more restorative approaches that emphasise repairing relationships over and above the need for punishment. Restorative justice practices are already being implemented in communities across Australia and numerous school districts in other countries are implementing restorative practices in schools as an alternative to exclusionary discipline. We have clear examples to draw on, we just need the willingness to do so.
Lastly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have fought and continue to fight resolutely to access schooling for their children and to resist discriminatory practices and policies. Today, organisations like the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition are taking up this fight, advocating for the end of school exclusion and for a self-determined education system that reflects and embodies Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.
How do we end school exclusion?
We developed a School Exclusion 101 – Youth Guide. It aims to equip young people with the knowledge and tools to challenge exclusion in schools. The guide includes an audit tool that young people can use to reflect on whether their school’s student behaviour policy (or code of conduct) is inclusive, transparent and fair. It provides a starting point to discuss ways to make such policies more inclusive.
The report underscores the need for greater attention to the historical foundations of discrimination in Australian school systems. Acknowledging this history and advocating for greater truth-telling is a pivotal step towards addressing systemic inequalities.
From left to right: Mati Keynes is a non-Indigenous historian living and working on Wurundjeri Country. Mati is currently McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Education at the University of Melbourne. Samara Hand is a Worimi/Biripi woman born on Awabakal Country in New South Wales, Australia. She is currently a PhD candidate at UNSW, visiting scholar at the University of Manitoba, and a co-founder of the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition. Beth Marsden is a non-Indigenous historian living and working on Ngunnawal and Ngambri Country. Currently, she is ARC Laureate Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Deep History at the Australian National University. Archie Thomas is a Chancellors Research Fellow at University of Technology Sydney where his research focuses on how institutions like schools and the media exclude and include historically marginalised groups.
Many nations around the world have seen a steep rise in the size of their immigrant populations, including their immigrant student populations. How educators respond to this plays a big part in how immigrant students adjust to and thrive at school. There are many success stories, but there continues to be immigrant students who underachieve, leave school early, and lose critical post-school education opportunities.
Immigrants have and will continue to play a major role in our nation’s social and economic potential and so there is an ongoing need for research that identifies how to better help immigrant students navigate the academic challenges facing them and support their academic outcomes.
Our study
A recent study published in the international journal, Learning and Instruction, sought to do this. It applied the “academic and cultural demands-resources” (ACD-R) framework to investigate the academic, personal, and ethno-cultural factors that impact immigrant students’ academic success at school. The study harnessed the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2018) data of immigrant students in Australia and New Zealand, two nations that have traditionally been “settlement countries”, receiving migrants to live, work, and raise their families. PISA is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 15-year-old school students’ motivation, engagement, and academic performance in mathematics, science, and reading.
What is the ACD-R Framework?
Before looking at the study and its findings, a brief introduction to the ACD-R framework is in order. The ACD-R framework draws on “job demands-resources” (JD-R) theory and the “academic-demands resources” (AD-R) framework. As an introduction to the ACD-R framework we’ll describe the AD-R framework and refer the reader to other literature explaining the JD-R theory.
Academic demands are aspects of learning or the learning context that can impede students’ academic development (for example, poor quality instruction, a heavy study load). Academic resources are features of learning or learning contexts that help students attain academic goals and growth (for example, instructional support, positive teacher-student relationship). In the AD-R framework there are also personal demands that are personal attributes acting as barriers to students’ academic development (for example, fear of failure, fixed mindset). There are also personal resources that are personal attributes positively impacting academic outcomes (for example, adaptability, academic buoyancy).
The ACD-R framework is an extension of the AD-R framework in that it adds ethno-cultural demands and resources to the AD-R framework’s academic and personal demands and resources. Cultural demands are ethno-cultural contextual and/or personal challenges experienced by students from culturally and/or ethnically diverse backgrounds (for example, racism at school) and are associated with negative academic outcomes. Cultural resources are ethno-cultural contextual and/or personal strengths or assets (for example, cultural pride or confidence) that are associated with positive academic outcomes for students from culturally/ethnically diverse backgrounds.
In the AD-R and ACD-R frameworks, demands and resources can also have buffering and boosting effects. Taking buffering effects as a case in point, there may be some cultural resources that reduce (buffer) the negative impacts of demands. For example, cultural pride (a cultural resource) may reduce the stressful effects of poor-quality teaching (an academic demand).
Figure 1 shows the ACD-R framework.
Importantly, the AD-R and ACD-R frameworks aim to challenge potential deficit framing of students by locating their personal resources as central to their academic development. They also aim to reallocate the task of academic development from the disproportionate or sole responsibility of students (which risks “blaming the victim”) by emphasising the major role of contextual demands and resources in students’ academic outcomes.
Figure 1. The Academic and Cultural Demands-Resources (ACD-R) Framework
The study participants
Our study comprised 4,886 immigrant students from Australia (3,329) and New Zealand (1,557) who participated in the PISA (2018) survey. The average age of students was 15-16 years. Just over half were first-generation immigrants who had arrived in the country between the ages of 8 and 9 years; the other immigrant students were second generation (born in Australia/New Zealand and whose parents were both born overseas).
Assessing the Demands and Resources Framework
The central measures in the study were online PISA survey items about academic demands and resources, personal demands and resources, cultural demands and resources—as well as academic motivation, academic outcomes, and background attributes.
Academic demands were assessed via ‘learning-disrupted teaching’ (students’ experience of chaotic or disruptive learning and teaching conditions; sample item, “Students don’t listen to what the teacher says”). Academic resources were measured by ‘autonomy-supportive teaching’, ‘instrumental-supportive teaching’, and ‘warmth-supportive teaching’ (students’ experience of teaching that provided autonomy support, instrumental support, and relatedness support or warmth, for example, “The teacher listened to my view on how to do things”).
Personal demands were assessed via ‘fear of failure’ and ‘fixed mindset’ (students’ concerns about failure and their view that competence is relatively fixed, for example, “Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much”). Personal resources were assessed through ‘perspective-taking’ and ‘adaptability’ (students’ ability to see others’ point of view and capacity to adjust in the face of change and uncertainty, for example, “I can change my behavior to meet the needs of new situations”).
Cultural demands were assessed via ‘discrimination’ (negative orientations to and treatment of people from different ethno-cultural groups in the school, for example, “Teachers … say negative things about people of some cultural groups”). Cultural resources included ‘cultural communication skills’, ‘cultural interest’, and ‘cultural confidence’ (students’ capacity to communicate with other ethno-cultural groups, interest in other ethno-cultural groups, and sense of pride and confidence in their own ethno-cultural group, for example, “I am interested in how people from various cultures see the world”).
Motivation was assessed via ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘valuing’ (students’ belief in their capacity to attain desired academic outcomes and their belief in the utility and importance of what they learn, for example, “Trying hard at school will help me get a good job”).
Outcomescomprised two measures of engagement—‘persistence’ and ‘non-attendance’ (perseverance towards task completion and skipping school, for example, “Once I start a task, I persist until it is finished”). Outcomes also included ‘achievement’ (performance on the PISA mathematics, science, reading tests).
In all our analyses we accounted (controlled) for student background characteristics (such as gender, home socio-economic status) and school characteristics (such as school staff/student ratio, school location).
Our findings
For this sample of immigrant students, our topline findings were that demands predicted lower motivation, resources predicted higher motivation, and motivation predicted positive academic outcomes.
That said, of particular interest were the specific demands and resources that were salient in the study—and we turn to these findings now.
The first of these was that the cultural demands and resources played a more prominent role in predicting motivation and outcomes than the academic demands and resources. With regard to cultural demands, discrimination was associated with lower valuing, higher non-attendance, and lower achievement. With regard to cultural resources, cultural communication skills and cultural confidence were positively associated with both self-efficacy and valuing, while cultural interest was linked to higher self-efficacy.
For personal demands and resources, adaptability was the factor that stood out. It was associated with higher self-efficacy (in fact, the largest effect size in the study) and valuing. Indeed, adaptability was also the only resource that featured in the ACD-R buffering/boosting process: results indicated that when immigrant students experienced discrimination at school, adaptability was important for boosting their academic valuing in the face of this.
Ideas for action
The ACD-R framework lends well to targeted practical action. Here we focus on the salient cultural and personal demands and resources in the study: discrimination, cultural communication skills, cultural interest, cultural confidence, and adaptability.
To address cultural demands (discrimination), it is important that:
Teachers act as positive role models in their interactions with immigrant students, showing respectful and inclusive behaviour that sets an example for other students to emulate, and nurtures an inclusive and harmonious classroom environment
Schools establish clear definitions and guidelines regarding intercultural relations and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours, including helping teachers and students know what racism is, defining racism, having clear processes for reporting racism in the school, and being clear about anti-discrimination legislation that schools and staff are bound by
Pre-service teacher training and ongoing professional development includes modules and in-servicing on cultural sensitivity, intercultural communication, and strategies for creating an inclusive classroom environment.
To promote cultural resources (cultural communication skills, cultural interest, cultural confidence), educators can:
Teach oral communication skills, non-verbal and visual communication, active listening, and contextual communication to help immigrant students better express themselves and be better understood
Inspire two-way interest among immigrant and non-immigrant students by enhancing intrinsic value, such as by identifying the importance of learning more about someone or something from another culture
Affirm students’ cultural identity, meaningfully involve immigrant students’ cultural community at school, and ensure appropriate representation of staff from culturally and/or ethnically diverse backgrounds.
For adaptability, students can be taught how to:
Adjust cognition by thinking about a new situation in a different way (for example, considering the opportunities a new situation might offer)
Modify behaviour by seeking out new or more resources or information (for example., asking a teacher to help with a new situation).
To conclude
Our study of immigrant high school students has demonstrated that including cultural demands and resources alongside academic and personal factors accounts for important aspects of their motivation, engagement, and achievement—and has potential to add to practical directions for optimising immigrant students’ academic outcomes through school and beyond.
From left to right: Andrew Martin is Scientia Professor, Professor of Educational Psychology, and Co-Chair of the Educational Psychology Research Group in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
He specialisesin student motivation, engagement, achievement, and quantitative research methods.Rebecca Collie is Scientia Associate Professor in Educational and Developmental Psychology at the University of NSW. Her research interests focus on motivation and well-being among students and teachers, psychosocial experiences at school, and quantitative research methods.Lars Erik-Malmberg is Professor in Education at the University of Oxford. His research interests are in quantitative research methods and students’ academic development.
Please write, comment, participate about our AARE2023 blog on social media using this hashtag #AARE2023.
Blog four!
Voices from the panel
Three amazing academics shared insights and experiences from the journeys they have travelled as early career researchers. Dr. Simon Knight (University of Technology Sydney), Dr. Eve Mayes (Deakin University), and Dr. Victoria Rawlings (University of Sydney) joined our panel to talk about those critical junctures they encountered that led them to where they are now in their research careers.
Voice, truth, and place, as the AARE 2023 conference theme, resonated for each with the importance of amplifying voice, speaking to issues of social justice, and the challenge of addressing injustices that pervade education and society as key to their work. As Eve stated, we need to open ourselves up to “unlearning ourselves”, and Victoria went on to ask the audience to think about:
“Who’s voices are important in your research? Who is silenced? How can we amplify their voices?”
Even further, how do we research in places that make global links without, as Eve suggests, “flattening local peculiarities.”
Each of these academics was cognisant of understanding their purpose of research and being a researcher.
Victoria spoke about the fact that “schools [as places] need to be bold” to make changes that will make a difference, and we, as researchers, have an important role and one in which we are given considerable trust and responsibility to support them to navigate this work.
The panel discussed the meaning of being a researcher, and Victoria talked about the many different responsibilities that researchers have to their communities and everyone they work with, including emerging researchers. Simon raised the fact that education suffers as a marginalised discipline globally, and yet, it is such a rich and broad space.
“It’s why I work in education… education research points to thorny and difficult dilemmas and that’s the stuff that I enjoy”.
Eve furthered this by adding a provocation about the privileging of particular actors’ research, providing a wonderful anecdote as to how deeply students themselves will theorise about schooling and education.
“As researchers, we need to think about how we can be responsive to the questions and needs of our schools, and in helping communities to answer these questions, we all benefit”.
When asked what message they would like to leave the postgraduates and ECRs with:
“Work out why you are doing it” (Eve)
“Work out what are the things you care about and look at the opportunities that come to see what will help you….and there is no unswerving path to your research career, and speaking with others will help you”
Victoria likened academia to a football game in the rain- it might be scrappy and muddy, and there are very few perfect goals and just try and get some possessions along the way- it will build up partnerships and small grants, and if all else fails get a cat”.
Blog three! Ellen Larsen reports from the Lightning Talks!
The future of education research is in good hands
The buzz was tangible and the excitement obvious as we headed into the break-out rooms for the Lightning Talks. A highly anticipated part of the Preconference Day is the Lightning Talk session. These talks are an opportunity for postgraduate and early career researcher participants on the day to deliver a lightning-fast two- to three-minute snapshot of their research, with a chance to respond to questions and receive invaluable peer feedback from their conference colleagues. Over the hour we heard a total of 21 Lightning Talks! We were both inspired and excited by the breadth and depth of the education research undertaken by these emerging researchers. Their research has challenged us to think differently about curriculum and pedagogy, issues of social justice, and contemporary challenges facing education both in Australia and internationally. These Talks have highlighted the considerable theoretical and methodological expertise among these AARE members, and the quality of these presentations was reflected by the enthusiastic participation of the audience and the discussion generated. Congratulations to all contributing researchers in this session.
Clearly, the future of education research is in good hands. Feedback from the session reflects the collegial ways of working of this next wave if researchers the field: “I couldn’t even imagine that I would see connections between my research topic and some of the others I had the privilege of listening to, but I did. We really are working together to progress education!” “What an opportunity to be immersed in such a wide range of ideas and thinking about education. A brilliant session and I am excited to keep learning about these projects over time.”
Our second contribution is from Jessica Holloway. Read Kevin Lowe’s post below.
How to be generous as a researcher – our collective tapestry
In the landscape of educational research, I find myself contemplating the collaborative nature of knowledge creation. Like the threads of a rug converging, our diverse backgrounds and expertise intertwine to create a collective tapestry of understanding. While this metaphor may sound overly romantic, it encapsulates the essence of how I see our scholarly pursuit. I shared my thoughts on educational research with those attending the AARE pre-conference. What follows are some of the ideas I discussed earlier today.
The theme was: “Truth, Voice, Place: Critical Junctures for Educational Research” so I explored the intricate interplay between expertise, knowledge creation, and the shared responsibilities within academia.
Within the intricate tapestry, questions about individual and collective expertise come to mind. The act of citation, particularly the principle of making labour visible, plays a crucial role. Citation goes beyond mere acknowledgment; it is a deliberate choice that shapes discourse and determines whose voices and traditions are recognized in our collective knowledge creation.
At the same time, expertise is not a solitary possession; it is a mosaic formed by weaving together various ideas, traditions, and experiences. Navigating an academic landscape that oftentimes amplifies specific voices over others requires a critical examination of citation practices, recognizing their material consequences within a power-laden dynamic.
Furthermore, accepting that we each play many roles within the knowledge creation process (e.g., researcher, author, editor, supervisor) can help us not only fortify resilience in the face of rejection, but also foster a sense of unity within the academic community. I hope for a steadfast commitment to ethical research practices and a perspective that views individual contributions as integral components of a broader intellectual pursuit. In other words, the work is bigger than each of us individually.
Bearing this in mind, expertise also requires a degree of intellectual humility and curiosity. The loss of my dad to COVID-19 entirely reshaped my own perspective on matters of truth and knowledge. It forced me to accept the limitations of analytical tools in capturing the complexity of human existence. It also made me realise that not having the answers can create a valuable space for curiosity and the emergence of new insights.
Finally, I want to raise generosity as an often-overlooked aspect of academic endeavours. Fostering connections, building relationships, and creating space for others can help assuage the potential isolation in our profession. This collective effort can sustain us through the challenges and joys of our scholarly journey, and it will ultimately lead to better knowledge creation.
As we look forward, it’s crucial to recognize that the ideas and traditions shared today will contribute to the ongoing construction of the academic fabric. Each stitch, informed by our collective efforts, adds to the rich tapestry of knowledge. Grateful to be part of this academic community, I anticipate the remarkable contributions that each of you will make.
Our first contribution is from UNSW’s Kevin Lowe, who gave the AARE Pre-Conference Keynote
The role of educational research is one of immense responsibility, both in the conceptualisation and execution of studies that aim to bring deeper understanding to the range of issues that seem to impact the life trajectories of many students in schools.
This keynote presentation showcased the foundational principles and research practices that have been underpinned by the Culturally Nourishing Schooling Project. The target audience is higher-degree research students and early career researchers.
This presentation focuses on three interrelated ideas and the projects that ensure from them, with the hope that they provide valuable insights and propose effective strategies for the education of First Nations students in schools throughout Australia.
The presentation focussed on:
Building a research platform for consequential action: A four-year project. The initial focus looks to the question of deepening our understanding of the field such that we can push back on education systems assertions on ‘research-informed’ policy and practice change. I will focus for a moment on why I and others spent three years to undertake a comprehensive review of recent Australian research on the education of First Nations students. I will discuss the purpose of this work, and then orientate my comments to the impact of this landmark project on the future development of a critically informed educational program.
Secondly, the presentation explained how these systematic reviews were used to develop the Culturally Nourishing Schooling Project. The initial iteration of this project has been implemented in eight schools across New South Wales as a practice/research initiative between 8 researchers, 5 staff and 8 schools. Its aim is to promote a whole-school approach, where schools are seen to work with First Nations families and communities to shift schooling practices. I will briefly describe how the project works with teachers to deepen their understanding of the histories and cultures of local communities, and how this consequently impacts on their beliefs and teaching and learning practices. It also examines curriculum theories in relation to teachers and indigenous knowledge. Lastly, it provides support to teachers in developing a relational pedagogy that aligns with discipline-oriented practices.
Finally, the presentation delved into an investigation of how deeply entrenched epistemic constructs regarding Indigenous peoples, knowledge, and culture are ingrained in the fundamental constructs of educational policy. This discussion aims to uncover how these assumptions are embedded in ways that are considered normal and foundational, and therefore, persist over time to the detriment of educational opportunities for First Nations students.
Our goal is to create sophisticated programs that can tackle intricate problems effectively. We conduct research with the aim of making a tangible impact in the world.
Kevin Lowe (kevin.lowe@unsw.edu.au)is a Gubbi Gubbi man from southeast Queensland. He is a Scientia Indigenous Fellow at UNSW, working on a community and school focused research project on developing a model of sustainable improvement in Aboriginal education. Kevin has had experience in education as a teacher, administrator and lecturer. He has expertise in working with Aboriginal community organisations on establishing Aboriginal language policy and school curriculum implementation. Recently Kevin has worked with colleagues to review research across key areas of schooling and established the Aboriginal Voices a broad-base, holistic project which is developing a new pedagogic framework for teachers.
Australians don’t support educational inequity, so why do we accept a system that creates it?
What is ‘fair’ in education? This is an important question in a country like Australia, where our school system features considerable inequality in resourcing. It is common knowledge that some schools in this country are much better resourced than others, especially those which charge high fees.
But does this matter? If parents wish to spend more money on their children’s schooling, is it fair enough that they should be able to do so? Or does it depend on the outcome of this additional spending?
What do you think?
In an article recently published in the Australian Educational Researcher, we report on the fairness perceptions of a sample of 1,999 Australian adults who participated in a survey conducted in NSW in 2019. We asked respondents a range of questions including whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources; whether children of high-income earners should receive a better-quality education because their parents pay more taxes; and whether they felt a scenario in which children from high-income and low-income families attended schools with respectively more or less qualified and experienced teachers, performed more or less well on nationwide tests, was fair or unfair.
We found that there was a relatively even split between respondents who believe it is fair and those who believed it is unfair that children of affluent families attend schools with ‘more resources’. However, respondents were more likely to perceive inequality as unfair or very unfair when it comes to educational quality (59%) or educational experiences derived from differences in teachers’ qualification and experience (62%).
Additionally, we found that self-interest (being a parent, or experiencing financial comfort) and neoliberal orientations (favouring policy emphasising individual students’ responsibility, school competition, and performance-based school funding) predicted people’s fairness perceptions, with such respondents more likely to perceive educational inequality depicted in the questions and the scenario as fair.
But overall, our results suggest that Australians are divided about the fairness of parents ‘purchasing’ additional resources for their children; yet the majority tend to consider it unfair when unequal educational opportunities are directly linked to unequal educational outcomes.
And yet, the ‘purchasing’ of a place in a fee charging school is indeed linked to unequal educational outcomes. Enrolling in a private school is not just a matter of having access to a swimming pool or castle-esque library; the differences are not merely recreational or aesthetic. Indeed, the more insidious, and perhaps less commonly understood impact is in the ‘peer effect’ created via socio-economic segregation, as Michael Sciffer explained recently in The Conversation. Allowing students to be grouped into schools based on parental financial capacities has an impact on individual students’ achievements – on both ends of the spectrum. This is not because the students in these groups are more or less talented, but because of the dominant socio-cultural norms and knowledges that the system privileges, and the way in which this is reflected in the particular educational outcomes assessed within it.
So, we wondered: if most Australians do not support such inequity, then why do we continue to have a school system that actively creates it?
Perhaps Australians need a better understanding of how our current school system operates as a mechanism of social reproduction. While school funding may be a common topic of conversation at your local park or pub, perhaps the inequitable effects of a system in which a privileged peer group can be ‘purchased’ via fees is something that needs to be added to those conversations.
This is important because if the public better understood the inequitable effects of our current school system, then our survey data suggest there could be considerable public pressure to change it.
And this, by extension, would suggest that policymakers are not, at present, adequately responding to the views of the public they have been elected to represent. While pursuing fairer funding models is essential, addressing segregation effects created by our differentiated school system should also be a political imperative.
The Australian school system continues to perpetuate socioeconomic inequality, and this appears to contradict the fairness perceptions of most Australians. Policymakers therefore need to respond more effectively to the Australian public’s views.
Meghan Stacey is a lecturer in the School of Education at UNSW Sydney. Meghan’s primary research interests sit at the intersection of sociological theory, policy sociology and the experiences of those subject to systems of education and is a former high school English and drama teacher. Meghan is on Twitter @meghanrstacey.
Jung-Sook Lee is an associate professor in the School of Social Sciences UNSW. Her research focuses on educational and social policy provisions to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantages. In 2020, she was recognized as one of the world’s top two per cent of researchers in her field (Stanford’s World Ranking of Scientists).
Universities around the world train professionals to support children and young people’s academic and social-emotional development. A lot of this training is about the brain. Paediatricians, for example, learn much about the biochemistry of the child’s brain. Endocrinologists learn a lot about the brain’s role in adolescent psycho-physical development. Developmental neuropsychologists learn about the brain’s neural structure. Occupational and speech therapists learn about neuroplasticity. For teachers, it is the human memory system that is central to what they do—especially for how they develop and deliver instruction. The recent Strong Beginnings report has quite rightly recommended that initial teacher education include core content related to the “brain and learning”.
The Human Memory System Goes to School
The human memory system—especially working and long-term memory—is central to how we learn (Baddeley, 2012). Working memory is the space for information that students are currently and consciously aware of, and where they focus their attention in the moment. Long-term memory is where information is stored for later retrieval and application by the student (such as when they attempt to solve a problem, or answer a question). Working memory is very limited in capacity and duration—just a few items of information for about 15-30 seconds. Long-term memory has vast storage capacity. When information moves from working memory to long-term memory, we can say that it has been learnt.
Where Do Teachers Fit?
The task for teachers is to develop and deliver instruction in a way that accommodates the limits of students’ working memory and harnesses the vast potential of long-term memory. According to cognitive load theory (a major theory of instruction; Sweller, 2012), teachers do this by managing two types of load on students as they learn: intrinsic cognitive load and extraneous cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the burden put on learners by way of difficult subject material, syllabus content, and learning activities. Extraneous cognitive load refers to the burden put on learners by way of unnecessarily complex, confusing, and unclear instruction.
If there is too much cognitive burden on students, their working memory becomes overloaded and only part (or none!) of the information will be encoded to long-term memory. That is, the student does not learn. Effective instruction reduces cognitive load on students, eases the burden on working memory, and maximises the opportunity to encode information to long-term memory. Load reduction instruction (LRI; Martin, 2016, 2023; Martin & Evans, 2018) has been developed as a practice framework for putting key tenets of cognitive load theory into action.
Load Reduction Instruction
LRI is an instructional approach to help teachers manage the cognitive burden on students as they learn—especially when students are learning something new or difficult. LRI has five key principles as shown in Figure 1. The first four principles are:
Principle #1: Reduce the difficulty of instruction in the initial stages of learning, as appropriate to the learner’s level of prior knowledge and skill;
Principle #2: Provide appropriate support and scaffolding to learn relevant knowledge and skill;
Principle #3: Allow sufficient opportunity for practice;
Principle #4: Provide appropriate feedback-feedforward (combination of corrective information and specific improvement-oriented guidance) as needed.
Figure 1
Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) Framework – adapted with permission from Martin (2016)
These first four principles are quite linear, systematic, and structured approaches aimed at easing the burden on students’ working memory in the initial stages of learning (when they are novices)—so they can successfully encode the information to long-term memory.
Then, when teachers are satisfied students have learnt the necessary information, principle #5 comes into play:
Principle #5: Guided independent learning.
Independent learning is appropriate at this point because students no longer benefit so much from highly structured approaches once they have acquired fundamental knowledge and skill (the “expertise reversal effect”; Kalyuga, 2007). They now benefit from more open, problem-solving, inquiry-oriented approaches.
The Brain as a Basis for Building Pedagogical Bridges
In fact, the fifth principle of LRI is where explicit and constructivist instructional approaches can be drawn together. That is, once the teacher has provided sufficient difficulty reduction, instructional support, practice, and feedback-feedforward for students to learn requisite knowledge and skill, more exploratory and inquiry-oriented independence is beneficial for students’ further learning and development.
Teachers’ knowledge of the human memory system is thus essential for capitalising on the pedagogical opportunities afforded by explicit and constructivist approaches to instruction. When they understand and teach to the human memory system, gone is the false dichotomy of positivism (e.g., explicit instruction) and constructivism (e.g., discovery learning) that has plagued initial teacher education for decades: as far as the human memory system is concerned, the success of one instructional approach is inextricably tied to the success of the other.
To the extent that core content in initial teacher education focuses on the learner’s brain and helps beginning teachers understand the human memory system and their part to play in this, bring it on.
Andrew Martin, PhD, is Scientia Professor, Professor of Educational Psychology, and Co-Chair of the Educational Psychology Research Group in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. He specialises in student motivation, engagement, achievement, and quantitative research methods.
