Note that this is my interpretation, reps from the AIP, RACI and EA will be releasing their own version in due course. If you were there and I missed something or got something wrong, please make a comment.
What is the plan from here?
I would like to do something similar in Brisbane. Townsville is too small and too far away from where it all happens.
Maths and Science Teacher Forum
16 June 2009
Minutes
Attendance
Professor Peter Ridd, Physics Department, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, JCU,
Professor Richard Keene, Royal Australian Chemical Institute (also JCU)
Mr John Daicopoulos, Australian Institute of Physics (also JCU)
Dr Govinda Pandey, Engineers Australia (Atlantic Civil Engineers and JCU)
Prof Yinghe He, HOS, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, JCU
Also present were 25 teachers, and approximately 15 others including parents and other JCU academic staff.
The meeting convened at 7:00 pm and concluded at 8:30 pm with other discussions continuing until 9:30 pm.
The meeting was opened with short preamble talks by Prof Ridd and Prof Keene.
Prof Ridd stated that the aim of the forum was to find what were the views of teachers on a wide range of topics that affect teachers and the teaching of Science and Maths. He stated that the system could be changed if it is necessary, but that it would require organization. He gave the example of PLATOWA (http://www.platowa.com/) which is an organization that was recently responsible for the removal of the Outcomes Based Education system in WA.
Prof Richard Keene said he thought the new syllabi, if implemented well, could result in a considerable improvement in the enthusiasm of students for Chemistry. He was less sure whether the practical implementation would match the promise.
The following three sets of questions were presented by Prof Ridd to guide discussion.
(1) QSA Syllabi
•How well are they working?
•What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new systems of teaching and assessment?
•Are the assessment systems a significant increase in workload, and if so, are they worth the extra effort?
•Do they prepare students better for University?
•Do they prepare students better for non-tertiary futures?
(2) University Entrance Standards/prerequisites
•Has the lowering of university entrance standards affected enrolments and motivation of students in Physics, Maths and Chemistry at school?
•Should universities allow entrance to courses for students with deficient academic backgrounds, and if so, how should it be done?
(3) Teacher Education, Preparation, Retention and Professional Development
•Are tertiary teacher training courses preparing teachers for their careers?
•What improvements could be made?
•How do we get more Maths and Science teachers into the profession?
Comments
A wide range of views were expressed and the following is an attempt to capture the major points
(1) QSA Syllabi
Almost all teachers were of the view that the new QSA syllabi had some merit but that the assessment schemes were extremely time-consuming and not necessarily more accurate than previous systems.
16 June 2009
Minutes
Attendance
Professor Peter Ridd, Physics Department, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, JCU,
Professor Richard Keene, Royal Australian Chemical Institute (also JCU)
Mr John Daicopoulos, Australian Institute of Physics (also JCU)
Dr Govinda Pandey, Engineers Australia (Atlantic Civil Engineers and JCU)
Prof Yinghe He, HOS, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, JCU
Also present were 25 teachers, and approximately 15 others including parents and other JCU academic staff.
The meeting convened at 7:00 pm and concluded at 8:30 pm with other discussions continuing until 9:30 pm.
The meeting was opened with short preamble talks by Prof Ridd and Prof Keene.
Prof Ridd stated that the aim of the forum was to find what were the views of teachers on a wide range of topics that affect teachers and the teaching of Science and Maths. He stated that the system could be changed if it is necessary, but that it would require organization. He gave the example of PLATOWA (http://www.platowa.com/) which is an organization that was recently responsible for the removal of the Outcomes Based Education system in WA.
Prof Richard Keene said he thought the new syllabi, if implemented well, could result in a considerable improvement in the enthusiasm of students for Chemistry. He was less sure whether the practical implementation would match the promise.
The following three sets of questions were presented by Prof Ridd to guide discussion.
(1) QSA Syllabi
•How well are they working?
•What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new systems of teaching and assessment?
•Are the assessment systems a significant increase in workload, and if so, are they worth the extra effort?
•Do they prepare students better for University?
•Do they prepare students better for non-tertiary futures?
(2) University Entrance Standards/prerequisites
•Has the lowering of university entrance standards affected enrolments and motivation of students in Physics, Maths and Chemistry at school?
•Should universities allow entrance to courses for students with deficient academic backgrounds, and if so, how should it be done?
(3) Teacher Education, Preparation, Retention and Professional Development
•Are tertiary teacher training courses preparing teachers for their careers?
•What improvements could be made?
•How do we get more Maths and Science teachers into the profession?
Comments
A wide range of views were expressed and the following is an attempt to capture the major points
(1) QSA Syllabi
Almost all teachers were of the view that the new QSA syllabi had some merit but that the assessment schemes were extremely time-consuming and not necessarily more accurate than previous systems.
A teacher in favour of the new assessment system expressed the opinion that with practice the time taken gets smaller.
Some teachers were clearly angry at the time imposts of the new system.
Most teachers did not think that rating students against criteria was a worthwhile method of assessment. Those that were in favour of using criteria stated that this system can guide and enhance teaching.
The use of EEI’s and NEI’s was also stated by most teachers to be very time consuming but a significant number of science teachers expressed a view that some of these tasks were very beneficial to student attitudes to the subject and helped with motivation.
There was general concern that because the EEI’s were very time consuming, it was likely that not all teachers would be able to make these experiences particularly valuable for the students. If this happened the EEI’s would be more harmful than beneficial to motivation.
There was concern that it was difficult to do effective EEI’s in schools with poor facilities, already high work loads, and/or teachers who were not necessarily experts in Physics or Chemistry. This was likely to be the case in remote schools.
One view expressed about the new syllabi was that it was too early to tell whether they would work better than the old system and we should wait and see what happens before making an adverse judgement.
Excessive use of written tasks was viewed as a problem for the Maths and Physics syllabi. One comment (after the meeting) was that the new system greatly favours girls who are more likely to be better at written tasks.
(2) University Entrance Standards/prerequisites
· There was general agreement that lowered prerequisite standards for university admission were discouraging students from choosing particularly Maths C at the end of year 10.
· Ridd stated that it was a weak position for an academic to argue about the Physics and Maths C syllabi when these subjects are not required by any university for entry. (JCU Physics presently only require Maths C or Physics. No other University Physics or Engineering course requires either subject).
· There was concern that reinstating these prerequisites may exclude some potentially very good students from Engineering and hard science courses. It was felt that if some of the prerequisites were reintroduced there would have to be an alternative, and possibly more time consuming, avenue for student entry.
· Academics stated that it would be very difficult to reintroduce more prerequisites unless most universities, especially UQ, were to do so simultaneously. It could be very risky for a single university to go-it-alone.
· A view was expressed by an engineer (not an academic) that times had changed and it was no longer necessary for engineers to have such a rigorous mathematical training. This view was not shared by other (academic) engineers present.
(3) Teacher Education, Preparation, Retention and Professional Development
There was general dissatisfaction with both the number and quality of new teachers. The numbers of teachers training in Maths and Physics is not anywhere near the requirements to replace those teachers leaving the profession. It was stated that in some schools a very small fraction of Maths teachers could be described as “qualified” to teach maths and significant remedial effort needed to be made to bring some teachers up to standard.
A JCU Education Faculty academic pointed out that for secondary teachers, it was the role of the academics in Science and Maths to ensure that students had sufficient training in the disciplines that were to be taught. It was also stated that there was very little time available in a BEd or Dip Ed course for training in the teaching of specific disciplines.
The very low OP entry for Primary School teachers was thought to be a serious problem and it was stated that there was no longer a guarantee that Primary School Teacher graduates knew sufficient Maths to teach year 7 mathematics (fraction etc).
Ontario Canada was given as an example of how, with effort, it is possible to attract good people into teaching. Apparently Ontario does not have a shortage of Maths and Physics teachers.
Prof Yinghe He said that in China, the government strongly encouraged good students into teaching with a range of incentives including scholarships and fee waivers.
There seemed to be general agreement that, more than anything else, good teachers are the key to a good education system.
I wasn't able to get to the meeting but I read these minutes with interest. It's good to see academics taking a stand to make up for the lackluster efforts of Principals. Some views of my own:
ReplyDelete"Prof Richard Keene said he thought the new syllabi, if implemented well, could result in a considerable improvement in the enthusiasm of students for Chemistry. He was less sure whether the practical implementation would match the promise."
That doesn't surprise me at all, because most of the time the documents are verbose, jargon-laden, and utterly incomprehensible. In translating high-minded ambition to reality, all sorts of traps are waiting, and I applaud teachers that can stumble through those exercises in hermeneutics to work out how to teach a subject. Out of my own interest, I was comparing HSC and VCE maths subjects with Queensland ones, and I was astounded at the amount of scrolling involved in any attempt to find substantive discussion of actual content. The contemporary syllabus seems to be a thirty-thousand-foot overview of 'outcomes', 'learning objectives', and 'skill fostering', as opposed to an actual outline of topics. Critics of this arrangement are usually denounced as out of touch with the 'modern' world in which 'knowledge boundaries are constantly shifting', presumably with the result that learning any actual skills or facts is pointless. It's telling that when challenged that the system is too abstract, manipulable and intellectually dubious, its defenders respond by becoming even more cryptic, grandiose, and condescending.
"Academics stated that it would be very difficult to reintroduce more prerequisites unless most universities, especially UQ, were to do so simultaneously. It could be very risky for a single university to go-it-alone."
For the case of JCU I think that's a false conclusion. Would students go to Brisbane to avoid having to do maths C?
"There was general dissatisfaction with both the number and quality of new teachers. The numbers of teachers training in Maths and Physics is not anywhere near the requirements to replace those teachers leaving the profession. It was stated that in some schools a very small fraction of Maths teachers could be described as “qualified” to teach maths and significant remedial effort needed to be made to bring some teachers up to standard."
I'll admit that this area is hazy to me. I never really enquired as to whether my high school maths teachers had maths majors. According to the JCU website, a teacher must study 3 lvl 3 subjects in a field in order to be qualified to teach that field at year 12 level. Some of my maths teachers would certainly have had this sort of proficiency. For others, it's inconceivable to think they had actually done any university maths at all. I would be inclined to explain the disparity by guessing that some schools simply don't have the teachers on hand, and so use year 10 qualified maths teachers, etc.
"... there was very little time available in a BEd or Dip Ed course for training in the teaching of specific disciplines."
I find that very difficult to believe.
Dr Ridd, you might be interested in this essay ( http://www.mrbauld.com/chomsky1.html ) by the linguist Noam Chomsky in which he criticizes some of the key thinkers of the contemporary education academics, and the book Triumph of the Airheads by Shelley Gare which deals in part with the dumbing-down of education.