All posts by cattard2017

Types of science learners: What kind are you?

Post By Jessy Abraham, Philip Smith and Maree Skillen

To engage children with science at primary level, we need teachers who are confident and enthusiastic about teaching science. However, research shows that in general, Australian primary school teachers are not comfortable with teaching science. They often lack content knowledge and their low sense of teaching self-efficacy is well documented in international primary science education literature science (e.g. Fitzgerald, Dawson & Hackling, 2013).  The decline in confidence and interest in science is also evident when students enter primary pre-service teacher education courses.  Pre-service teachers (PSTs) acknowledge a lack of understanding of content essential to teach primary science effectively (Stephenson, 2018).

Students’ early interest in science begins at primary schools and therefore, poor science teaching at this level can lead them to losing interest in science and eventual discontinuation from the subject during their transition to senior secondary and tertiary studies. This decline in science enrolment has attracted much attention in Australia in recent times.

Several factors influence a student’s science learning and teaching self-efficacy. Personal beliefs are one of them. Bleicher (2009) asserts that the science learner ‘typology’ of a PST would be shaped from their earlier experiences with science, and this can influence their teaching self-efficacy. His research classified PSTs into four types of science learners, based on disclosure of their prior science learning experiences. These types were: fearful of science; disinterested in learning science; successful in science, and enthusiastic about science. His study concluded that each ‘type’ has a distinct effect on science teaching self-efficacy and confidence to learn and teach science.  For example, fearful science learners perceived themselves as substantially less confident to learn science than all other types. Interestingly, disinterested science learners did not demonstrate a lack of confidence to learn science.  As an extension to this study, Norris, Morris and Lummis (2018) identified a new type of science learner (not clearly identifiable), located in the middle of the other four categories.

At Western Sydney University (WSU) in the Primary Science & Technology program, we wanted to identify the type of science learners our PSTs are. The purpose of this being to optimise their science learning during the methods unit. Our expectation was that WSU PSTs would display a range of dispositions towards science as primary teachers are generalists, not specialists like their secondary counterparts.  The guidelines of Bleicher’s study (2009) were followed in classifying the types.  Pre-service teachers were informed that the types are not mutually exclusive categories and, although there might be overlap between the descriptions of categories, they were to identify the category that best describes them.

Our survey attracted 91 PSTs (82 females and 9 males) and revealed interesting results. The majority of the PSTs discontinued formal study of science either at Year 12 (39%) or at Year 10 (37%). Only 19% of the students who responded had studied some science subjects to a Degree level while 6% discontinued at Year 11.

Out of the 91 respondents, 13% identified themselves as disinterested in learning science (e.g. dislike or disinterest for science during secondary education/felt bored/not engaged during class/not interested in teaching the subject), while 26% identified themselves as fearful of science (e.g. afraid or have apprehension towards science/the subject content felt foreign and did not make sense/ ‘scared’ about teaching due to a lack of conceptual understanding). It was pleasing to note that 41% are enthusiastic science learners (e.g. highly interested in science/enjoyed or enjoy science classes/attended extra-curricular science type of activities or hobbies/not necessarily achieving highest grades in classes but looking forward to teaching science). Only 6% reported that they are the successful in science type (e.g. high achievers in the area of science/ have science hobby or hobbies/specific interest outside of school science/feel confident to learn and understand science concepts/ confident in teaching science). Interestingly, 14% of students were categorised into not clearly identifiable type (e.g. like some parts of science/ like one branch of science but not some other branches/does not like school science but like science fiction or movies/ will avoid teaching science if possible).

Further, PSTs were asked about the branch of science that they prefer with more than one option being possible to select. Biology was the most popular option (50%), followed by Earth Sciences/Geology (40%), Chemistry (20%), Physics (12%), and Astrophysics (10%). It was notable that 26% of PSTs did not like any branch of science. While a fearful science learner admitted “science is boring and I just can’t retain the information”, not clearly identifiable type felt “science is exciting but challenging at the same time”. Interestingly, enthusiastic science learners disclosed that they “love science, but nervous about teaching the subject”. A successful in science learner described that they “deeply madly fall in love with science”. In general, PSTs felt they lack confidence in certain areas such as Chemistry and Physics than Biology and Geology. Yet, they are all expected to teach a key learning area incorporating all these branches, namely Primary Science, once they qualified as a teacher.

Findings of our survey indicate that a science classroom can include various types of learners. For us this means that our PSTs need more time and learning experiences to reduce their nervousness about science learning and teaching. Furthermore, the areas in which they are less confident about teaching need to be more strongly scaffolded. Thus a knowledge of science learner types can transform the design of a methods unit and assist teacher education providers in building confidence and capacity of future science teachers. Likewise, while designing programs for in-service teachers’ professional development, the typology of science learners needs to be considered.

A knowledge of learner types in school science and integrated science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) classrooms can assist school teachers as well. Science programs can include learning experiences that inspire and engage various types of science learners. Engaged and inspired learners will be actively involved in higher-level discussions, critical thinking and problem solving (Tyler & Pain, The Conversation, March 15, 2017).  Focusing on building the various types of learners’ identity in relation to ‘Working Scientifically’ (Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus, 2017) can boost the longer-term success of STEM education which is at the core of the government’s science agenda.

About the authors

Jessy Abraham coordinates and lectures in Primary Science and Technology at Western Sydney University.

Philip Smith is a casual academic specialising in science education at Western Sydney University.

Maree Skillen coordinates and lectures in Primary Mathematics education at Western Sydney University.

 

References

Bleicher, R. (2009). Variable relationships among different science learners in elementary science methods courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 293–313. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9121-8

Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining the beliefs and practices of foureffective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9297-y

Hackling, M., Peers, S. & Prain, V. (2007). Primary Connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53(3), 12-16.

Stephenson, J. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Research on the Knowledge and Skills of Australian Preservice Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.7

Norris, C. M., Morris, J. E., & Lummis, G. W. (2018). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach primary science based on ‘science learner’ typology. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2292-2308.

Tytler,R  & Pain, V.  (2015). Science curriculum needs to do more to engage primary school students. The Conversation, March 15, 2015. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/science-curriculum-needs-to-do-more-to-engage-primary-school-students-74523

Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus.  (2017). NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). Retrieved from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/science/science-and-technology-k-6-new-syllabus

 

 

 

Learning and thinking about languages in super-diverse classrooms

Post by Dr Jacqueline D’Warte

In 2019, cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and a broad international commitment to multilingualism and linguistic diversity are at the centre of global educational policy and practice (UNESCO 2018). In this International Year of Indigenous Languages, global educators are working in classrooms that commonly comprise young people who speak multiple languages and dialects. These young people connect to and interact with diverse cultures and traditions across time and space, and they make meaning in multiple languages, multiple modes and media.

If people know my language they will know my personality (Ahmed Age 10).

I got to understand more about myself, my language and about the languages of my friends (Maura Age 11).

The above comments from Ahmed and Maura are representative of those shared by many multilingual young people involved in a recent Australian research project undertaken in Western Sydney classrooms (D’warte, 2014; 2016; 2018). This research conducted over four years, engaged young people and their teachers in Years 1 through 8 as researchers of ways they were reading writing, talking, listening and viewing in one or more languages, inside and outside of school.

This research was undertaken as part of regular classroom lessons; students learned to be researchers, observing and collecting information about the languages heard and seen within the school and surrounding neighbourhood. They also interviewed each other, collecting information about their language and literacy practices, for example, the languages they spoke and when, where, and with whom they were spoken or learned. They collected information about translating for family and friends and ways they were communicating, reading, and viewing in online environments. Students also created visual representations of their individual practices and experiences. Teachers created lessons that supported students to collate and present their collected data and they used the students’ information for ongoing learning. This included a range of lessons across subject areas: for example, working with data in math, facilitating writing tasks and comparing words, sound systems and grammar in English, mapping and research work in geography and history

What has been learned?

Teachers’ and students’ understandings and awareness of the ways young people were navigating their multilingual worlds were enhanced.  As the student quotes above suggest, there is a powerful relationship between language and identity. This relationship was illuminated as home languages were validated and students became knowledge producers. Very few students involved in this research saw any relationship between the language and literacy practices and experiences of home and school as the research began. Most often they did not view their foundational linguistic knowledge as fundamental to learning and did not view their linguistic capacity as a strength.

Over the course of the classroom work, student confidence increased as many students began to consider what they knew and could do and began to discover ways to apply their knowledge and skill to English tasks. For many English as an Additional Language or Dialect Learners, learning moved away from typically focusing on what was limited or lacking to using students’ knowledge and skill as a starting point for learning. Evidence suggests this work promoted intercultural understanding for all students, and had a significant influence on self-esteem, and belonging for many young people who were struggling with English learning.

While many teachers knew their students spoke languages other than English, they were surprised by the variety and frequency of students’ language use and the complex multimodal, multilingual tasks they were engaged in outside of school. Teachers across classrooms reported the discovery of previously unknown information about their students. This classroom work enabled students and their teachers to make explicit connections between home and school, with teachers reporting an increase not only in students’ confidence but also in learning. They also reported an increase in their own ability to build on home language learning and reimagine curriculum that was cognitively challenging and engaging for their students. This work offered new opportunities for building relationships with parents and community members and this resulted in increased parent participation in classrooms and in student learning more generally.

            Language is not just about culture it is about who you are (Mona, Age 11)

It is well established that capacities in one language can support or advance the development of another (Baker & Wright, 2017; Cummins, 2015). However, recent national and international research also identifies strong links between the recognition and use of first language and student identity and wellbeing and the ways this can improve education outcomes (García & Kleifgen, 2018; Rymes, 2014; Wright, Cruikshank, & Black, 2018; Yunkaporta & McGinty, 2009)

Australia’s 120 surviving Indigenous languages (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2018) are joined by more than 300 languages spoken by 21% of Australians who speak a language other than English at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). Australian classroom are culturally and linguistically dynamic spaces that offer exciting teaching and learning opportunities. What we do know is that the future is multilingual and multicultural and perpetuating and fostering a pluralist present and future (Alim & Paris, 2017) is a crucial and important educational endeavour.

About Dr Jacqueline D’Warte

Jacqueline is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at Western Sydney University. She has 15 years of K-12 teaching experience in Australia, the United Kingdom, and India. She began her career as an elementary school teacher teaching a range of grades and specialising in ESL and literacy development. Jacqueline’s research interests include exploring connections between language and learning and how these influence educational equity, teacher and student expectations and teacher practice in culturally and linguistically diverse educational settings. Jacqueline’s most recent research involves students in primary and high school in being ethnographers of their own language and literacy practices. This research builds on the linguistic and cultural diversity that exists in 21st century classrooms by engaging young people in exploring how they use, change, invent and reinvent language and literacy practices in new and interesting ways.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017, 2016 Census: Multicultural – Census reveals a fast changing, culturally diverse nation. March, viewed 28th January, 2017, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/media%20release3

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2018. Indigenous Australian Languages: Celebrating 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages, viewed 10 November, 2017 https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/indigenous-australianlanguages

Paris, D., & Alim, S. (2017). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies. Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press.

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. (6th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Wright, J. Cruickshank, K., & Black, S. (2018) Languages discourses in Australian middle-class schools: parent and student perspectives, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(1), 98-112

Cummins, J. (2015). Intercultural education and academic achievement: A framework for school-based policies in multilingual schools. Intercultural Education, 26(6), 455–468.

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for English learners (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rymes, B. (2014). Communicative repertoire’ in C Leung & BV Street (Eds.). The Routledge companion to English studies, Routledge: London, pp. 287-301.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2017). International mother language day: Towards sustainable futures through multilingual education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/international-mother-language-day/UNESCO, 2018.

Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post‐multiculturalism. Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal 61(199), 83-95.

Yunkaporta., & McGinty, S. (2009) Reclaiming Aboriginal Knowledge at the Cultural Interface. The Australian Educational Researcher 36(2), 55-72.

 

Conceptual analysis for decolonising Australia’s learning futures: Implications for education

Professor Michael (מיכאל) Singh (ਸਿੰਘ)

Bionote

A postmonolingual teacher-researcher, Professor Singh’s work focuses on extending and deepening teacher education students’ literacy skills through using their full repertoire of languages-and-knowledge; equipping them to meet the demands of teaching Australia’s multilingual students, and increasing their confidence in the added value postmonolingual skills provide graduating teachers. He enjoys watching movies that make postmonolingual practices visible, such Bastille Day and The Great Wall (长城), and the xenolinguistics of Arrived. Having an interest in polyglot programming he is able to write, incorrectly in 11 languages, “I am not a terrorist.”

Re: Conceptualising learning futures

The concepts we use in education are important. Concepts express educational values, assign status to the students with whom we work, and provide the basis for rules for governing the moral enterprise that is education.

Now and then, it is important to pause in our busy working-life to think critically about the concepts we use in education. Against the technologically driven speeding up of education, it is desirable to slow down, to contemplate if some concepts have accumulated unwarranted baggage that poses risks we might have overlooked.

Currently, I am using the method of concept analysis (Walker & Avant, 2005) in a project that is exploring ways of making better use multilingual students’ repertoire of languages-and-knowledge (Singh, 2019).

Concept analysis provides a framework that educators can use to analyse existing labels related to our working-life so as to develop guidelines for leading students’ learning futures. Findings from my research employing this method are presented below (Singh, 2017; 2018).

The aim of this conceptual analysis was to determine how the concept of ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ (CALD) was constructed and is interpreted in education.

In determining the defining attributes of CALD, the intellectual roots for this concept can be located in the sociological theory of labelling. Where diversity is framed as a social pathology it is equated with deviance, and standing as against the stability of the prevailing cultural-linguistic order in education.

Adusei-Asante and Adibi (2018) indicate that CALD is attributed to students who are framed as problems. They ‘fail’ to meet the requirements of the cultural-linguistic order because they have limited proficiency in a particular version of English.

A historical antecedent for CALD is Australia’s Immigration Restriction Act 1901 which prohibited the educational use of languages from beyond Europe in Australia’s colleges, schools and universities. The dictation test in Section 3(a) of the Act was designed to be failed by persons who spoke languages originating outside Europe and thereby to exclude them and their languages from Australia.

In the 1970s the concept ‘Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) was applied to persons in Australia who spoke languages originating from elsewhere than Europe. However, this concept proved inappropriate for measuring linguistic diversity, overly simplistic in its approach to providing educational services, neglectful of the intellectual value of students’ linguistic diversity, and loaded with negative connotations. In its Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity (McLennan, 1999) the Australian Bureau of Statistics stated that this concept and related terms should be avoided.

Consequently, CALD began to be used. CALD drew attention to students’ cultural-linguistic characteristics, did not label them based on what they are not, and enhanced professionalisation of those working in this field.

However, CALD is now a borderline concept because it has taken on the negative connotations of NESB (Adusei-Asante & Adibi, 2018).

CALD is now associated with the negative portrayal of students as learning problems. Further, CALD marks students as having the inability to relate to the prevailing cultural-linguistic expectations of Australian educational institutions. Specifically, CALD is the category for students having difficulty with writing in English; some are said to have no hope of learning English outside academic English literacy programs.

What are the implications of this conceptual analysis for decolonising Australia’s learning futures?

First, Australian educators who speak languages from multilingual Ghana and Iran (e.g. Adusei-Asante & Adibi, 2018), are contributing to the transformational leadership required for decolonising Australia’s learning futures.

Second, from time-to-time it is necessary to question our taken-for-granted use of concepts to explore the challenges they present, rather than treat them uncritically.

Third, to provide more precision in educational terminology there is a need for multiple concepts, rather than looking for a single concept to replace NESB or CALD.

Fourth, the century-old prohibition on the using languages from outside Europe for knowledge production and dissemination in Australia’s colleges, schools and universities must be reversed.

To illustrate the possibilities for postmonolingual education and research let us briefly consider concepts related to International Women’s Day (8th March 2019). To add educational value to the capabilities of students who speak English and Zhōngwén (中文) they could make meaning of issues relating to ‘thinking equal, building smart, innovating for change by:

  1. thinking marriage equality through Li Tingting (李婷婷) and Li Maizi (李麦子).
  2. using the cross-sociolinguistic sound similarities of Mǐ Tù (米兔) to explore what it means for sexual harassment regulations.
  3. building knowledge in METALS — mathematics, engineering, technologies, arts, language and science — through using the concept chìjiǎo lǜshī (赤脚律师) for critical thinking
  4. building research smarts through theorising population policy using the concept of shèngnǚ (剩女)

Slowing down to decolonise Australia’s learning futures reminds us that a source of educational knowledge is internal to student-teacher themselves and is to be found in their repertoire of languages-and-knowledge.

 

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the Decolonising Learning Futures: Postmonolingual Education and Research Research Cohort for their feedback on this post.

References

Adusei-Asante, K., & Adibi, H. (2018). The ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse’ (CALD) label: A critique using African migrants as exemplar. The Australasian Review of African Studies, 39(2), 74-94.

McLennan, W. (1999). Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Singh, M. (2017). Post-monolingual research methodology: Multilingual researchers democratizing theorizing and doctoral education. Education Sciences, 7(1), 28.

Walker, L. & Avant, K. (2005). The Strategies of Theory Construction in Nursing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.