Talking Teaching

February 7, 2014

not science as I know it

This was first posted on my ‘other’ blog :)

By accident,  I came across the curriculum document for Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) which provides teaching & learning materials to parents who are homeschooling their children. New Zealand students who complete the program right  to year 13 gain university entrance.

Home Schooling NZ gives parents advice about the ACE program, but makes it clear that HSNZ does not work for Accelerated Christian Education or sell their teaching & assessment materials.  However, I was startled to see the following listed by HSNZ as one of the ‘distinctives’ [sic] of the ACE program:

Each student is taught from a biblical perspective developing critical thinking skills that will enable them to discern what is truly “…the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

Having had a fair bit to do with the development of the Science section of the current national curriculum document, specifically, the Living World component, I was naturally interested in seeing how ACE handles a science curriculum. The answer is, poorly.

In fact, I feel that it’s most unfortunate that the ACE science program is officially recognised here, given statements such as this from Sir Peter Gluckman (the PM’s Chief Science Advisor) about the importance of science and science education. For example, from the curriculum overview material for grade 1 students we learn that students will

  • [pronounce and learn] new vocabulary words as they are defined and used in the text
  • [discover] God’s wisdom as he1 learns about God creating Earth…
  • [learn] about the design and care of the human eye and ear; high, low, soft and loud sounds.
  • [learn] about the importance of personal health – clean teeth and hands.
  • [gain] a respect for God as he learns about God’s wisdom, goodness, kindness, and that all things belong to God.
  • [read] stories and answer questions about God’s creation.
  • [continue] to build eye-hand coordination by drawing shapes, irregular shapes, and directional lines.

That’s it.

In contrast, the New Zealand Curriculum document has a number of subject-specific achievement aims for students at this level, in addition to those relating specifically to the nature of science. For example, students in their first year or two of primary school should

  • Learn about science as a knowledge system: the features of scientific knowledge and the processes by which it is developed; and learn about the ways in which the work of scientists interacts with society.
  • Appreciate that scientists ask questions about our world that lead to investigations and that open-mindedness is important because there may be more than one explanation.
  • Explore and act on issues and questions that link their science learning to their daily living.

Remember, that’s in addition to the achievement aims for biology (Living World), chemistry (Material World), earth sciences (Planet Earth & Beyond). and physics (Physical World).

And so it continues. I mean, how could this (from the ACE objectives for Grade 3) be construed as science by anyone assessing the document?

Studies Bible topics such as Jesus’ return; sin, death, and the curse; man’s freedom to choose to love and obey God.

Or this?

Discovers the Bible to be the final authority in scientific matters.

Science, it ain’t. It would appear that helping students to gain and enhance critical thinking skills isn’t on the curriculum either – after all, teaching students to look to authority for the answers runs completely counter to encouraging critical thinking and teaching students how to weigh up evidence.

While I haven’t read all the PACEs available for the curriculum, partly because I am not going to buy them in order to do so, I have read through the samples available on line. Among other things, the materials I viewed encouraged rote learning rather than deep, meaningful understanding of a subject – a long way indeed from current best-practice models of teaching & learning.

However, others have read ACE’s PACE documents, & have been extremely critical of them. The Times Education Supplement, for example, was startled to find that ACE materials available in 1995 contained the claim that the Loch Ness Monster has been reliably identified and seems to be a plesiosaur. (It seems this reference has since been removed from new textbooks published in Europe.)

The TES also addressed some rather trenchant comments to the UK educational body responsible for giving the ACE curriculum equivalent status to O and A level examinations. Perhaps the NZ equivalent of that body should give the ACE documents a closer second look.

 

1 No female pronouns used, that I could see. (No room for female scientists in this curriculum, either – students are introduced to ‘early men in science’.)

 

January 21, 2014

teaching laboratories – the shape of things to come?

A quick post from notes I took during another talk at the Ako Aotearoa Symposium last December: this was an exciting presention on the changing form of teaching laboratories, by Ken Collins and Joanne Kelly from Labworks Architecture (another colleague also mentioned this session, in her own post on the day’s proceedings).  Ken & Joanne began by noting that lab spaces are used for students to gain and enhance a range of skills: critical thinking, developing solutions to problems, working collaboratively, practising practical skills. ‘Traditional’ lab spaces don’t really accomodate all this, they said, & went on to explain why & to share with us some of the solutions they’ve developed for various clients.

Their focus was on the links between space, technology, and pedagogy (something that’s been missing in most of the labs I’ve taught in, where the technology’s been retrofitted as need and funding dictate). Having more flexible spaces encourages pedagogy, which in turn is enabled by space. Pedagogy is enhanced by technology, which will also place demands on space – after all, if you’re using computer screens to show things, you want to be in a room where all students have a clear line of sight to the sceens. In other words, a modern teaching space embeds technology, which of course extends how we use the space. (I see this a lot in the way our wonderful first-year tutor delivers our lab classes, retrofitted technology & all.)

More & more, this is equally true for how we use lecture/tutorial spaces.

‘Old-style’ learning spaces have always tended to focus on the perceived needs of the teacher, & to support highly structured, teacher-led, ‘instructional’ (didactic) learning experiences. Joanne & Ken believe – & I think most of those who attended their presentation would agree – that these days, in a modern classroom, about 15% of lab-room learning would be teacher-led. Of the remainder around would see students collaborating on various investigations 75% – ie there’s much more collaborative problem-solving, which realistically is how many workplaces operate anyway – and the remaining time is given over to small- & large-group discussion & feedback. It’s arguable whether that’s best done in a lab, & so the presenters showed classrooms they’ve designed where glass doors separate formal lab space from breakout spaces. I immediately added that to my mental ‘I’d really like this for our students’ list :)

They concluded by asking us to think about classroom space in general. We’re already seeing a move from libraries as study environment to ‘hubs’, with individual work spaces alongside commons, cafes, and alcoves where people can chill out or just sit for a quiet discussion. What will the future be like, as we continue down this road? (More virtual reality, perhaps? At a previous symposium we heard about the use of ‘virtual labs’, for example, via Second Life, allowing students to practice lab skills & protocols before actually coming into the real-world lab.) Certainly any changes should allow & support innovative practice in teaching & learning; for example, new lecture theatres could be low-pitched rather than steep, with room to move between rows, & thoroughly technology-enabled.

I’ll have to make sure these options are on the table, when the time for lab refurbishment rolls round.

December 13, 2013

can we help students too much?

One of the (many) good things about writing exams at a national level was that it really taught me how to write a good question: one that lacks ambiguity, clearly identifies what’s being asked of the students, and gives them opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding. So I was a bit saddened when marking exams recently to find that one question, in particular, wasn’t eliciting what I’d hoped for.

You see, I’d written a question in two parts. Students were first asked to summarise their knowledge the process of gene expression, and then – using the phrase “in your answer you should also” – asked to explain how various events might introduce diversity into the genome. And for some reason many students went straight past the first part and answered the second (and generally did this very well, I might add).

It’s the first time I’ve seen this to any marked degree and it really bothered me, & I’ve talked about it at some length with a colleague. We’re beginning to wonder if maybe we give students too much information around the exams. Now that may sound wrong – you’d think that demystifying exams, in the sense of giving access to previous papers so students get an idea of what to expect, would be helpful. It also highlights key themes in the subject that we return to again & again. We don’t just leave it at this, mind you: we spend time in tuts discussing things like how to ‘unpackage’ questions and how to plan the answer before actually writing it. But we’re wondering if making previous papers readily available in the study guide is leading to students ‘picking questions’ – deciding what’s likely to be asked, on the basis of what’s been asked in the past, and then not just studying around that but perhaps writing and learning ‘model’ answers off by heart. And regurgitating that answer regardless of what the question actually requires of them.

And that sort of learning is not the sort of learning I want to encourage.

So we decided to do things a little differently with next year’s study guide & include just a single year’s exam paper in it. Students will still be able to access many more through the library’s database; they’ll just have to do a bit more work themselves. And thinking more on this as I’m writing, perhaps we should also devote a bit of tut time to explicitly recognising those themes & working with the students to build up a ‘big picture’ view of the main ideas associated with them, by way of encouraging that breadth of understanding – and emphasising that this approach should allow them to approach with confidence any question we might ask.

Your thoughts?

December 9, 2013

shaking up the academy? or how the academy could shake up teaching

Last week I spent a couple of days down in Wellington, attending the annual symposium for the Ako Aotearoa Academy. The Academy’s made up of the winners of the national Tertiary Teaching Excellence Awards, so there are around 150 or so of us now. While only 35 members were able to make it to this year’s event (& the executive committee will survey everyone to see if there’s a better time – having said that, everyone seems so busy that there’s probably no date that would suit everyone!), we had a great line-up of speakers & everyone left feeling inspired & energised. I’ll blog about several of those presentations, but thought I would start with one by Peter Coolbear, who’s the director of our parent body, Ako Aotearoa.

Peter began by pointing out that the Academy is potentially very influential – after all, it’s made up of tertiary teachers recognised at the national level for the quality of their teaching, & who foster excellence in learning & teaching at their own institutions.  But he argued – & I agree with him – that there is room for us to become involved in the wider scene. Peter had a number of suggestions for us to consider.

First up, there’s a lot going on in the area of policy – are there areas where the Academy might be expected to have & express an opinion? For example

  • There’s the latest draft of the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES), which “sets out the Government’s long-term strategic direction for tertiary education; and its current and medium-term priorities for tertiary education.” There’s a link to the Minister’s speech announcing the launch of the draft strategy here.
  • In addition, the State Services Commission’s document Better Public Services: results for New Zealanders sets out 10 targets across 5 areas. Targets 5 & 6 are relevant here as they are a reference point for government officials looking at evidence for success in the education sector. (Such scrutiny is likely to become more intense in light of the 2012 PISA results, which have just been made public.) Target 5 expects that we’ll “[increase] the proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification”; #6 is looking for an increase in ” the proportion of 25 to 34-year-olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees (at level 4 or above)”. This will increase the pressure on institutions to increase retention & completion rates – might this have an effect on standards?
  • There’s also the requirement to achieve parity of success for ‘priority’ learners, especially Maori & Pasifika – this is priority #3 in the TES. (Kelly Pender, from Bay of Plenty Polytech, gave an inspirational presentation on how he weaves kaupapa Maori into pretty much everything he does in his classroom, in an earlier session.) And it’s an important one for us to consider. Peter cited data from the Ministry of Education’s website, ‘Education Counts’, which showed significantly lower completion rates for Maori & Pasifika students in their first degrees compared to European students, and commented that this will likely become a major issue for the universities in the near future.
  • If we’re to meet those achievement requirements, then how institutions scaffold learners into higher-level study, through foundation & transition programs, will become increasingly important. What are the best ways to achieve this?
  • Peter predicted increased accountability for the university sector (including governance reform). Cycle 5 of NZ’s Academic Audits has begun, and “is to be framed around academic activities related to teaching and learning and student support.” This is definitely one I’d expect Academy members to have an opinion on!
  • He also expects strengthened quality assurance processes throughout the education sector: this suggests a stronger (& more consistent) role for the  NZ Qualifications Authority, with the development of partnership dialogues across the sector (ie including universities).

Then, at the level of the providers (ie the educational institutions themselves – & that’s not just the polytechs & universities), we have:

  • a targeted review of qualifications offered at pre-degree level – there’s background information here;
  • a government-led drive to get more learners into the ‘STEM’ subjects (science, technology, engineering, & maths) – this poses some interesting challenges as, at university level, we’re seeing quite a few students who’ve not taken the right mix of subjects, at the right NCEA level, to go directly into some of the STEM papers they need for, say, an engineering degree;
  • the rise in Massive Open On-line Courses, or MOOCs. (I find these quite strange creatures as they are free to the student and typically attract very large enrolments, but also apparently have very low completion rates. What’s in them for the institution? A good way of offering ‘taster’ courses that hook students in?)
  • the likelihood that we will see the development of a system for professional accreditation of tertiary teachers (I’ve written about this previously and will write another post fairly soon, as accreditation was the subject of a thought-provoking session at the symposium);
  • how we achieve protection of academic standards – it’s possible that government policies (eg those linking funding to completion & retention rates) may result in a tendency to exclude of underprepared kids &/or lowering standards – neither is desirable but both are possible results of those policies.

That’s a big list and the Academy can’t do everything! So, what should it focus on? (This is not a rhetorical question – it would be great to get some discussion going.) The Academy, in the person of its members, is effectively a resource; a body of expertise – can it become a ‘go-to’ body for advice? Speaking personally I think we need to make that shift; otherwise we remain invisible outside our individual institutions & the teaching-focused activities we’re involved in, & in a politicised world that’s not a comfortable thing to be. Can we, for example, better promote the significance of teaching excellence outside the education sector? Become involved in the discussions around & development of any accreditation scheme? Develop position papers around maintaining teaching excellence in the context of the new TES?

What do you think? And what shall we, collectively, do about it?

December 5, 2013

nz’s pisa rankings slip, & the soul-searching begins

Filed under: education, science teaching — Tags: , , , , — alison @ 11:06 am

The latest PISA results are out, and NZ – despite remaining in the ‘above the average’ group for OECD countries – has nonetheless  slipped in this measure of achievement in reading, maths administered by the Programme for International Student Assessment . This is of concern, & there are probably multiple complex causes for our decline. Certainly the previous PISA commentary (2009) recommended that we pay attention to matters of inequality (There’s interesting commentary here, & also on the RNZ website.)

This morning’s Dominion-Post (I’m in Wellington at the moment, at a teaching symposium) carries a story giving a primary-teaching perspective.There are two key issues here: many primary teachers lack a science or maths background; and primary teachers in general are not well supported to teach these specialist sujects. (The removal of specialist science advisors - something I’ve commented on previously – did not help things.) This is important, because if students don’t gain a good understanding of these subjects – and good experiences of them! – during primary school, then they’ll basically be playing catch-up when they arrive in specialist secondary school classrooms.  Sir Peter Gluckman’s suggestion (in his report Looking ahead: science education in the 21st century) that each primary school have a ‘science champion’ would help here, but in the medium-to-long term it would probably be even better if intending primary school teachers received much greater exposure to the STEM subjects to begin with.

Should we worry? Yes, but I definitely agree with Fiona Ell, from the University of Auckland, who’s quoted in this morning’s Herald as saying:

People get very hung up on the ranking … because it’s like a Top of the Pops top 10 thing. I don’t think they should be ignored … but knee-jerk reactions to rankings are really dangerous in education systems.

So, there are issues that we need to address, and as Fiona’s pointed out, there are no quick fixes – we need to deal with them in a considered way that includes as many variables as possible (i.e. not just practices in schools).

One of those issues is highlighted by Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Science Adviser, who’s said:

What’s worrying is that there seems to have been a decline in the people represented in the top end of the scale and an increase in the number of people at the bottom end of the scale.

And socioeconomic status may well play a part in this. From the Herald story:

New Zealand was one of just two countries in which socio-economic status had a strong connection to a student’s performance. Some countries’ education systems made up for social disadvantage, but this was not the case in New Zealand.

So any solution addressing the PISA results will of necessity be complex. It’s not going to be sufficient to look only at what’s going on in schools. Yes, support and professional development for STEM teaching across the compulsory sector will be needed. The quality of teaching is definitely important (for a student’s perspective see the Herald article). But without also seriously considering and attempting to deal with the social inequalities in this country, I suspect changes in the educational sector alone will not be enough.

November 21, 2013

learning leadership

and yes, that’s an intentionally ambiguous title :) (The full version was Learning leadership: the interplay between our own professional development and our classroom practice.)

I recently gave a pecha kucha** presentation on this subject, at an Ako Aotearoa mini-symposium up in Auckland. The idea for the subject of my presentation leapt to the front of my mind while I was at a Teaching Network*** meeting looking at how to raise the profile of teaching in tertiary institutions (specifically, universities). One of my colleagues kicked off part of the discussion with a brief talk on developing leadership in teaching, & I thought, all this applies to leading/guiding our students to become better learners, as well. Which is pretty much the thrust of my presentation. I pretty much use slides as talking points:

Slide2

 

Slide3

Slide4

Slide5

Slide6

Slide7

Slide8

Slide9

Slide10

And we finished up with some ideas on what future-focused leadership in teaching and learning could look like.

It would be really good to hear your thoughts on this :)

 

 

** a maximum of 20 slides, with a maximum of 20 seconds per slide. Certainly forces you to focus your ideas. Mine wasn’t that long, because I wanted to use it to spur discussion & so we need time for that in my short presentation slot.

*** an in-house group for staff from across the institution with an interest in all things to do with teaching.

October 26, 2013

doing citizen science

This is something I wrote for my ‘other’ blog, but I thought I’d post it here as well as the whole ‘citizen science’ thing has considerable value for school-level education, and I thought some of you would probably have some valuable insights into/comments on the subject.

The other day I was asked for some advice on setting up a ‘citizen science’ program. The people asking were looking at developing outreach: giving talks, helping with local science-y initiatives, setting up websites, & so on. I responded that it all sounded good, and it was great that they were looking at ways of communicating about the science they were doing, but that it didn’t really sound like my understanding of the term ‘citizen science’. (I hasten to add that I’m not an expert: I do a lot of science communication, but this is not the same thing at all.)

The idea of citizen science has been around for quite some time – there are papers on the subject dating to the 90s – but in New Zealand I would hope it’s developing a higher profile in the scientific community with the advent of the NZ Science Challenges & their requirement to get ‘the public’ more engaged with the science that we’re doing in this country.

And under the citizen science model this requires some serious thinking about the logistics, because one thing it’s not, is scientists telling laypeople what they’ve been doing. Instead, it sees school children, their whanau, members of various community groups, all getting involved in an organised and coordinated way with the actual research: making observations, collecting data, discussing the results, looking at how to apply them in their area. This is a lot more complex in terms of organisation than arranging to give a talk or write a pop-science article (or a blog!).

Jonathan SIlvertown defines a citizen scientist as “a volunteer who collects and/or processes data as part of a scientific enquiry” (2008: 467), and notes that such projects are becoming particularly common in ecology and environmental science. (And it’s not a new initative: Bonney et al (2009) point out that US lighthouse keepers got involved in collecting data on bird strikes back in the 1880s. Perhaps we could regard Charles Darwin as a citizen scientist, particularly at the beginning of his career – he certainly wasn’t doing it as part of a paying job!) He goes on to say that “[t]oday, most citizen scientists work with professional counterparts on projects that have been specifically designed or adapted to give amateurs a role, either for the educational benefit of the volunteers or for the benefit of the project. The best examples benefit both” (2008: 467). This makes it clear that planning to involve citizen scientists in a given project has to part of the initial project development; it can’t really be an add-on at the end. While many of the projects Silvertown lists are essentially surveys and censuses, Bonney et al (2009) provide a model for doing citizen science to answer particular scientific questions in a way that also enhances science literacy and engagement with the subject.

Bonney & his colleagues work at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, which over the years has seen the results of many ‘citizen-science’ projects published in a range of journals. At the same time they’ve noted increases in scientific literacy and engagement with science among many of their lay participants. These are very positive outcomes, and they’ve put together a model for setting up such initiatives and assessing their success. Commenting that “e have found that proj- ects whose developers follow this model can simultaneously fulfil their goals of recruitment, research, conservation, and education “, Bonney & his team list the following steps/stages in setting up & running a successful citizen-science project:

1. Choose a scientific question – it will probably be one that stretches across a relatively long period of time, or a large geographic area.

2. Form a scientist/educator/technologist/evaluator team – this must include individuals from multiple disciplines – the scientist to develop the question, methodology & analysis tools; the educator to field-test methods with the participants, develop support materials, etc; and so on.

3. Develop, test, and refine protocols, data forms, and educational support materials: it’s essential that participants receive clear protocols for collecting their data (using clear simple forms) & that they receive help in understanding those protocols and passing their data on to the researchers.

4. Recruit participants. How this is done is going to depend on whether the project is open to all or is intended for a particular cohort eg school students.

5. Train participants, so that they gain confidence in their ability to collect and submit data, & know they’ll be supported as and when necessary.

6. Accept, edit, and display data. “Whether a project employs paper or electronic data forms, all of the information must be accepted, edited, and made available for analysis, not only by professional scientists but also by the public. Indeed, allowing and encouraging participants to manipulate and study project data is one of the most educational features of citizen science.” [my emphasisi]

7. Analyse and interpret data. This can be tricky due to the often‘coarse’ nature of the data-sets collected by participants,  & made more so if there are (for example) errors due to species mis-identification or misunderstanding of protocols.

8. Disseminate results. While this will involve scientific publications, it’s also important – & essential – that the results and their interpretation & application are also communicated with the citizen scientists who helped to generate them.

9. Measure outcomes. These will be both scientific and educational. The former are fairly straightforward to quantify: number of papers published, conference presentations given, or students successfully completing theses, for example. The educational outcomes may be harder to define, but Bonney et al suggest assessing things like the length of time people were involved with the project; how often they accessed web sites associated with the project; whether their understanding of the science content improved over the duration of the research; whether their understanding of the nature of science was enhanced; positive changes in attitudes towards science; better science-related skills; the number of participants stating increased interest in a career in science.

Doing all this will of necessity require education or social science research techniques, so there’s someone else to add to the team. Yes, there are costs, in dollar terms but also in terms of the time taken to set up a rigorous project with benefits for all involved. But there is potential for those benefits to be significant.

R.Bonney, C.B.Cooper, J.Dickinson, S.Kelling, T.Phillips, K.V.Rosenberg & J.Shirk (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59(11):977-984

J.Silvertown (2008) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9): 467-471

September 23, 2013

teach creationism, undermine science

This is something I originally wrote for my ‘other’ blog.

Every now & then I’ve had someone say to me that there’s no harm in children hearing about ‘other ways of knowing’ about the world during their time at school, so why am I worried about creationism being delivered in the classroom? 

Well, first up, my concerns – & those of most of my colleagues – centre less on whether teaching creationism/intelligent design is bringing religion into the science classroom1, & more on how well such teaching prepares students for understanding and participating in biology in the 21st century. For example, if a school can make statements like this:

It is important that children and adults are clear that there is one universal truth. There can only be one truthful explanation for origins that means that all other explanations are wrong. Truth is truth. Biblical truth, scientific truth, mathematical truth, and historical truth are in harmony2.

and go on to list the “commonly accepted science we believe in”, then their students are not gaining any real understanding of the nature of science. And the statements regarding the science curriculum that I’ve linked to above indicate that it’s not just biology with which the school community has an issue. Physics, geology, cosmology: all have significant sections listed under “commonly accepted ‘science’ we do not believe in”3. (Did you notice the quote marks around that second mention of science?)

Science isn’t a belief system, & while people are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to their own facts. Any school science curriculum that picks & chooses what is taught on the basis of belief is delivering (to quote my friend David Winter) “a pathetic caricature of actual science, … undermin[ing] science as a method for understanding the world and leav[ing] the kids that learned it very poorly prepared to do biology in the 21st century.” Or indeed, to engage with pretty much any science, in terms of understanding how science is done and its relevance to our daily lives. And if we’re not concerned about that lack of science literacy, well, we should be.

 

although I do think this is a problem too.

2 with the subtext that the first ‘truth’ takes precedence.

Taken to its extreme, the belief system promoted in teaching creationism as science can result in statements such as this:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing…

…We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of miniscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.

This does not look like a recipe for good environmental management to me.

 

September 20, 2013

charter schools can teach creationism after all

I first wrote about charter schools just over a year ago. At the time I was commenting on statements that such schools would be able to employ as teachers people who lacked teaching qualifications, wondering how that could sit with the Minister’s statements around achieving quality teaching practice. But I also noted concerns that charter (oops, ‘partnership’) schools could set their own curricula, as this would have the potential to expand the number of schools teaching creationism in their ‘science’ classes.

Well, now the list of the first 5 charter schools has been published: two of those schools is described (in the linked article) as intending to “emphasise Christian values in its teaching.” By itself that =/= creationism in the classroom – but yesterday Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint program (17 September 2013) reported that the school’s offerings will probably include just that.

In addition the prinicipal has reportedly said that the school will teach “Christian theory on the origin of the planet.”

And today we’re told (via RNZ)

The Education Minister has conceded there’s nothing to prevent two of New Zealand’s first charter schools teaching creationism alongside the national curriculum.

Two of the five publicly-funded private schools, Rise Up and South Auckland Middle School, have contracts that allow a Christian focus.

The minister, Hekia Parata, said on Tuesday that none of the five schools would teach creationism alongside or instead of evolutionary theory.

But on Thursday she told the House two of the schools will offer religious education alongside the curriculum.

Ms Parata did not specify how the two would be differentiated in the classroom.

South Auckland Middle School has told Radio New Zealand it plans to teach a number of theories about the origins of life, including intelligent design and evolution.

Point 1 (trivial, perhaps?): South Auckland Middle School needs to look into just what constitutes a theory in science. (Hint: a theory is a coherent explanation for a large body of facts. “A designer diddit” does not remotely approach that.)

Point 2 (not trivial at all): Why do people responsible for leading education in this country think it acceptable for students to learn nonscience in ‘science’ classes? After all, the Prime Minister has commented on “the importance of science to this country.” Evolution underpins all of modern biology so how, exactly, does actively misinforming students about this core concept prepare those who want to work in biology later? Nor does teaching pseudoscience sit well with the increased emphasis on ‘nature of science’ in the NZ Curriculum.

This is really, really disappointing. We already have ‘special character’ schools which teach creationism in their classrooms (see herehere and here, for example). It’s irking in the extreme that state funding will be used to support the same in the new charter schools.

August 23, 2013

what am i?

I’ve been involved in a few discussions lately, on the issue of what ‘we’ actually are. That is, are those of us who work with students in our lecture rooms, laboratories and tut classes, teachers? Is that the label we want attached to ourselves (eg in things like paper & teaching appraisal surveys)?

Disappointingly, there seems to be a fairly large body of opinion that says “no, no that’s not the right name. ‘Teachers’ is what people in schools could be described as. But we’re lecturers, not teachers.” (Someone went so far as to say that using the name ‘teacher’ would only be confusing, as students associated the term with their school experiences & didn’t expect it at university.)

Interestingly, this is not a reflection of how universities are described in the 1989 Education Act. Section 162 of the Act tells us (my emphasis in bold font) that

 universities have all the following characteristics and other tertiary institutions have 1 or more of those characteristics:

  • (i)they are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:

  • (ii)their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:

  • (iii)they meet international standards of research and teaching:

  • (iv)they are a repository of knowledge and expertise:

  • (v)they accept a role as critic and conscience of society;

and that

  • a university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of, knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning:

This all makes it fairly clear that the official view of what folks like me do, in our university jobs, is teaching i.e. facilitating advanced learning in our students, helping them to become independent, autonomous learners, and (while last, definitely not least!) promoting learning in the wider community. (I have to say, in Hamilton at the moment, this often feels like an uphill battle in the face of widespread misinformation about water fluoridation. But you can read more about this here, and here.)

And that’s true whether our job descriptions include the word tutor, lecturer, or professor. To me, if the word ‘teaching’ is included in the description of what universities do, then we are ‘teachers’.

Now, I suppose you could argue that I’m just being picky, but I think this is actually quite an important issue as it relates to what we perceive ourselves doing in our classrooms. That’s because if someone sees themselves as a lecturer, & not a teacher, then they could well have a mental image of what the role of ‘lecturer’ entails. And it’s a fair bet that this includes, you know, lecturing: standing in front of a class and delivering 50 minutes of information on a topic in which that person has expertise.

And to me, this is a problem because there’s an increasing body of research now that clearly shows that this passive-student model of teaching & learning – not just lectures, but also ‘cookbook’ lab classes – is probably the least effective thing we can do, in expanding students’ knowledge & understanding of a subject. This was demonstrated very clearly by Richard Hake in his 1998 analysis of the outcomes for more than 6,500 students enrolled in a total of 62 introductory physics courses. Hake found that courses that used ‘interactive-engagement’ techniques for teaching and learning were significantly better – much better – in terms of successful learning and retention of material. Subsequently Carl Wieman and his science-education research group have built on the work of Hake and others in the physics area – have a look at the figures at the end of this 2005 paper, for example: teaching techniques that encourage passive learning by students don’t result in any real long-term learning or retention. Nor is it just physics; I’ve written previously about similar research findings from the area of biology education (e.g. Haak et al. ,2011).

‘Teacher’ to me implies the use of a much wider range of classroom techniques that encourage active student engagement and successful long-term learning. And yes, I’m a teacher, and proud of it!

 

Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, & Freeman S (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science , 332 (6034), 1213-6 PMID: 21636776

Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74

Wieman C & Perkins K (2006) Transforming physics education. Physics Today Online, http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-11/p36.shtml

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

The WordPress Classic Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 163 other followers