Primary Archives - Page 5 of 5

Making Science and Technology a Prominent Part of the Primary Curriculum

Christine Preston provides a straightforward guide to teaching Science and Technology in the primary years …

Primary teachers in NSW have been implementing the new NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum, Science K-10 (Incorporating Science and Technology K-6). The new syllabus has invigorated teachers who want to ensure that science and technology learning is authentic and effective. It provides an excellent opportunity for teachers to reflect on the status and quality of this KLA in their schools. Now, more than ever principals are prioritising teacher professional development in science and technology. Whilst Science and Technology has been a mandatory component of the primary curriculum since the early eighties this KLA has not always been given the attention it deserves.

Schools that are focusing on science and technology are implementing whole school change by revising their scope and sequence plans and running in-school professional development. Teachers are also being supported to attend outside courses. Representatives then return to their school enthused and ready to lead curriculum improvement in science and technology. There are positive aspects to new syllabus implementation including the opportunity to make science and technology a prominent part of the primary curriculum.

Changes to the new syllabus

Significant changes have been made to both the structure and content of the syllabus compared to the previous version. Structurally, the syllabus is organized by two knowledge and understanding strands, Natural Environment and Made Environment; and two skills strands, Working Scientifically and Working Technologically. Content wise the outcomes are specific and explicitly outlined with suggested activities for students. This makes it very unlikely that schools can continue using exactly the same teaching program as before.

The syllabus retains its dual focus on science and technology. Considering this some schools now realize that the technology component was previously overlooked in previous teaching program. Schools using various resources, including Primary Connections need to ensure that technology as well as science outcomes are adequately addressed.

K-10 FRAMEWORK
Reading the aims (pages 14 & 79) and rationale (pages 12 & 77) of the K-6 and 7-10 syllabuses lets you compare the underlying intentions of primary versus secondary science and technology. First primary learning experiences ought to be wonderful, intriguing, engaging and related to children’s interests. We must make learning science and technology in all primary schools enjoyable (not boring or arduous). The schools that already have effective teaching programs engage children in relevant learning experiences that make them think and understand more about their world. This happens when teachers help children link everyday experiences with scientific phenomena and technological applications.

Placing the K-6 syllabus within a K-10 framework provides a learning continuum and enables you to easily check the level of content. Gravity, for example, occurs in both stage 2 and stage 4. In stage 2, gravity is taught as an example of a non-contact force. Students drop things to observe how gravity pulls them down. Science toys that take advantage of gravity are fabulous resources for this. In stage 4 students learn that the pull of gravity is towards the centre of Earth and they focus on unbalanced forces and mass and weight. This means you are not expected to teach facts about gravity but rather organise learning experiences for children to observe its natural effects. Using the syllabus like this helps ensure primary learning is appropriate. The K-10 framework then reinforces the quite different aims of K-6 and subsequent 7-10 parts of the syllabus.

CONTENT – KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDINGS
Most teachers find the new syllabus is well documented and easy to follow. You will be familiar with many of the names of the content sub-strands from the previous syllabus. The science content reflects the key disciplines of physics (Physical World), geology (Earth and Space), biology (Living World) and now chemistry (Material World). The technology content includes previous topics (Built Environments, Information, Products) and a new one (Material World). Material World relates learning to both the natural and made environment.

As well as changes to the organization, changes to the concepts or topics have also been made. Key concepts are emphasized, some topics have changed stages and some is no longer taught in K-6. The content of the specific outcomes are elaborated by using dot points (bullets), making it easy to work out exactly what you have to teach. This enables teachers to prepare for specific topics where their background knowledge may need to be developed. All of the outcomes and the dot points that elaborate the content are mandatory. The examples at the end of the dot points are not compulsory. If you can think of more interesting or relevant examples for children then use them. This element of the syllabus provides you with the flexibility to do what primary teachers do best – be creative.

The following shows where a more appropriate and an additional example could be used. Stage 1 Material World suggests making concrete as an example for children to explore how people at home or work change and combine different materials for a particular purpose. This is unlikely to interest year 1 or 2 children and not safe for a practical task. It is also a misleading example of a physical change (concrete setting involves a chemical reaction). What other context could you use? Interior decorators mix different pigments with white paint to create tonal variations. Children could investigate this by adding crushed rock fragments to paint. Early stage 1 Natural Environment suggests tennis balls and blocks as examples for children to identify that size and shape affect how objects move. These are certainly useful but you could also use toy parachutes (open and closed) to further engage children in learning about this idea.

Looking at Living Things illustrates how changes are embedded throughout the syllabus and where content has changed stage level. Early Stage 1 focuses on the basic needs of living things, a change from identifying their differences. Life cycles are now in stage 2; in stage 1 children compare differences between offspring and adults and measure and record growth of actual living things. A big change is that the human body previously taught in stage 2 has been removed. Differences between living and non-living things are now taught here focusing on distinguishing characteristics. Stage 3 now specifies structural features (external not internal) as adaptations that enable particular species to survive in certain environments. Australian animals and plants are to be observed and existing adaptations described. Don’t forget you can use your own examples. This is an excellent opportunity to feature local area organisms and make learning more relevant for your children.

The new syllabus also indicates the type of learning activities children should be doing. Words like: explores, uses, identify, research, communicate, sketch, model, group, describe, compare, etc. signify the nature of children’s learning. A good example of this is Earth and space stage 2. Children are required to describe local seasonal changes due to Earth’s movement around the sun. This means focusing on observable changes such as day length and weather effects, e.g. temperature change. It does not mean children are expected to explain why seasons occur, which is secondary level content. Much of the content implies active learning by children which can be supported by modern teaching strategies and productive use of science and technology skills processes.

CONTENT – SKILLS
The new syllabus includes two skills – Working Scientifically and Working Technologically making it similar to the mathematics syllabus. In the new syllabus the skills outcomes include more explicit statements about the practical learning expectations. The syllabus clearly states children must do practical work. There is a clear trajectory of sub-skills development along the stages from ES1 to Stage 3. Following research into effective teaching of Science and Technology, the syllabus is designed so that children will develop understanding of content through active engagement in these two skills areas.

WORKING SCIENTIFICALLY
This skills area is concerned with developing the process of science inquiry. Reflecting the work of real scientists the actual method used for investigations can be varied. As you guide children to identify and pose questions they will learn a variety of ways to collect data and realize the importance of evidence in forming scientific explanations. Opportunities exist for integration with other KLAs as children communicate their findings. The syllabus clearly states children must conduct first-hand investigations aimed at developing deep understanding.

Working Technologically

The new syllabus specifies technology learning will involve the design process. Through active engagement in problem solving children learn about the applications of technology in a range of real world contexts. Encouraging children to be creative in designing solutions and justifying decisions builds their thinking capacity. Children must engage in hands-on design tasks. Your role is to support children’s active learning culminating in thoughtful discussion.

Opportunities and challenges

The new syllabus situates teachers as learning supporters rather than knowledge providers. The practice of developing children’s understanding through meaningful hands-on experiences is supported by research. This may present a challenge for teachers who have traditionally relied on textbooks, worksheets and videos. Learning shaped by the key processes of science inquiry and technological design will necessitate resource acquisition in some schools. Whole school plans may need to be adjusted to allow science and technology a fairer share of time in the school curriculum. At least one hour per week for the whole year should be devoted to the science and technology KLA in teaching programs from K-6 in the primary curriculum.

The challenge is to make all Science and Technology learning interesting and engaging for children. We need to organize authentic learning contexts that allow children to find patterns in the world and foster curiosity and surprise. Try beginning lessons with a puzzle or challenge to intrigue children and get them thinking. Allow time for sharing their ideas about the question. Involve children in inquiry where they can explore and collect evidence. Revisit children’s ideas about the novel situation discussing any advances in their thinking. As a class generate a scientific explanation and use drawing to visually represent understanding. Have children apply their understanding through a related design task. Providing creative and interesting learning experiences that are relevant for children will make Science and Technology learning in primary schools exemplary.

The new syllabus signals the time for primary teachers to make Science and Technology a prominent part of the primary curriculum. Through purposeful, sustained teaching incorporating engaging learning experiences, NSW teachers can significantly elevate the status and quality of Science and Technology in primary schools.

Dr Christine Preston is a lecturer in Science education at the University of Sydney and is a Director of the University’s Bachelor of Education (Primary) program. Dr Preston has taught Science at the secondary and primary level and continues to work in primary school classrooms. She has won awards for Excellence in Teaching, Quality Teaching and for Innovation and Excellence.

Teaching Kindy Kids, Learning from Kindy Kids

Amanda Hayes and Michelle Tregoning share insights about what our Kindy students bring to the classroom …

At the beginning of every year, a new group of Kindy kids nervously arrive. So small, they seem, in comparison to the students who know the school environment well and have etched out their own spaces to play. “They’re so little” we say as we gently care for them, protect them and guide them through the curriculum. When we see them all wearing their brand new uniforms and shiny new shoes, we somehow forget just how capable, competent and creative they are when they are outside of the school gates.

Learning about the “MeE” Framework through the Fair Go Bridges to Higher Education Project at UWS made us realise that we wanted to be mindful about how we viewed their capabilities, making conscious decisions not to consider them “little” in a way that diminished them or led us to back off, even ever so slightly.

Rather we needed to view them as “little learners”, small in size perhaps but big in potential. We wanted to challenge their learning and push their thinking. More than anything, we wanted to focus on what they can do now, what they can learn to do in the future and to be mindful of sending them powerful, positive messages about their place in this school. We also had to fathom the skills and abilities they had, and those they could acquire, in order to belong and contribute to the school community.

And so changes in pedagogy were made. What we were learning about, why it mattered and how to be successful became public knowledge. We talked about how new learning feels and embraced challenge and frustration as a necessary part of new learning. Our learning tree was formed where every new leaf represented a new piece of learning we shared as a community of learners and each flower symbolised students blossoming with every new learning pathway created in their brains.

Embedded formative assessment and visible learning strategies started filling our teachers’ toolkits as decisions were made based on research about pedagogy and learning. Conversation between learners dominated the classroom soundscape and no question or intake was left unexamined for the learning potential it might bring.

What we learnt about changed too – we found out what the students were interested in and we used their curiosities to drive curriculum learning. These practices assisted in the focus on learning over behaviour management as we reminded students of the powerful message of, “Remember why we’re here”.

We were in a fortunate position with the Kindy team as half of us were part of the project and the other teachers joined in as “accidental Fair Go-ers”. Together, we explored the role of play in building skills in language, negotiation and social skills so that students could participate effectively in a classroom based upon community, challenge, interest, inclusive conversations, feedback and reflection.

Small changes in our pedagogy and learning design led to students viewing themselves as capable learners and referring to the classroom, the learning and the achievements as “ours”. With the guidance of Amy McGinnes, who also instilled the belief that they too are competent, knowledgeable and owners of their learning, they became researchers, authors and illustrators.

The Kindy kids created a text with a common goal and purpose and used their Year 5 buddy class as the target audience. This feeling of empowerment gave them the confidence to show senior students of the school that they have something to offer as they discussed with them the writing process so they too could also write a text.

So yes, they still look little and nervous… but don’t be fooled, for underneath the shiny shoes and brand new uniform are capable, competent and creative thinkers and learners who are capable, who belong, and who have knowledge and skills that can be shared across the school. Trust in the knowledge that they bring and their thirsty brains that are waiting to soak up the exciting and engaging learning opportunities that school creates.

Amanda Hayes is in her seventh year of teaching at Fairfield PS. She has been a part of the FairGo Project and is currently engaged in the Aspiring Leaders Program.

Michelle Tregoning is an AP at Fairfield PS where she has worked as a team leader, ESL Support Teacher, classroom teacher and teaching and learning mentor. Within the role of mentor Michelle has worked with large numbers of teachers using action research examining engagement using the MeE Framework.

Engagement and Mathematics: What does it look like in your classroom?

Catherine Attard continues her guidance about making Maths come alive in your primary classroom…

What does it look like, feel like and sound like when your students are deeply engaged in a mathematics task? What is it like when they are disengaged? In my previous article for the JPL I provided a definition of engagement as a multidimensional construct, consisting of three domains: operative, cognitive and affective. The coming together of the three domains leads to students feeling good, thinking hard, and actively participating in their Mathematics learning (Fair Go Team NSW Department of Education and Training, 2006; Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004).

I also provided a discussion on the importance of establishing positive pedagogical relationships as a foundation for student engagement in Mathematics. In this paper I will move beyond pedagogical relationships to discuss what happens in practice – the pedagogical repertoires that promote positive student engagement.

The following figure (Figure 1) is an excerpt from the Framework for Engagement (FEM), (Attard, 2014), which provides a summary of the critical elements of engaging pedagogies.

In an engaging Mathematics classroom pedagogical repertoires mean:

there is substantive conversation about mathematical concepts and their applications to life;
tasks are positive, provide opportunity for all students to achieve a level of success and are challenging for all;
students are provided an element of choice;
technology is embedded and used when appropriate to enhance mathematical understanding through a student-centred approach to learning;
the relevance of the mathematics curriculum is explicitly linked to students’ lives outside the classroom and empowers students with the capacity to transform and reform their lives.

Mathematics lessons regularly include a variety of tasks that cater to the diverse needs of learners

Figure 1: Engaging Repertoires (Attard, 2014)

What do these elements look like in practice? I will expand on each of the points illustrated in Figure 1, and provide some practical advice on how the pedagogies can be applied.

Firstly, how do we provide opportunities for substantive conversations between students and the teacher, and amongst students? If you consider a traditional approach to teaching where the Mathematics lessons are based on a drill and practice approach, it is difficult to see where important mathematical conversations can take place. However, consider an approach where collaboration is encouraged through problem solving and investigation, and where student reflection is an integral aspect of every Mathematics lesson, regardless of the types of tasks and activities implemented.

We must also consider the Working Mathematically components of our K-10 Mathematics Syllabus (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2012). Promoting substantive conversation allows students access to each of the five components: Reasoning, Communicating, Understanding, Fluency and Problem Solving, and provides teachers with opportunities to assess them.

The provision of tasks that provide opportunity for all students to succeed can be a challenge for teachers. It is often difficult to differentiate activities to ensure the diversity of academic ability is not only addressed, but provides sufficient challenge. Learners need to experience success and a sense of achievement if they are to develop a positive attitude towards Mathematics. One way of ensuring all learners are challenged is to provide open-ended, rich tasks rather than closed problems that only have one correct answer or limited opportunities to apply a range of strategies.

Allowing student choice in the Mathematics classroom is an important element of engagement and sends important messages relating to power and control. You can provide choice by having alternative activities within a specific mathematical content area, or you can have students choose how they present their work. Perhaps students may choose to work with concrete materials or interact with appropriate technology. This does not have to occur in every lesson, but allowing students the freedom to make choices every now and then can contribute to their overall engagement.

Technology has become an integral part of contemporary life, and as such, our curriculum requires us to use it meaningfully to enhance the teaching and learning of Mathematics. The challenge with using technology in Mathematics lessons, however, is to ensure that we promote a student-centred approach. If you take for example, the interactive whiteboard, consider how it positions the teacher. The whiteboard is fixed and usually located at the front of the classroom. Any interactivity usually occurs between one person (often the teacher), and the whiteboard. The teacher has control and students are generally passive (Attard & Orlando, 2014). How can this engage all learners?

Many schools have introduced 1:1 laptop or tablet programs, however there is a danger that the devices may be used simply as a replacement for a traditional textbook or as a word-processing device to replace pen and paper. Online Mathematics programs provide some functional improvement to textbooks, however the opportunities for students to collaborate and become involved in substantive mathematical conversations is limited.

Fortunately, the introduction of mobile technologies such as tablets has now provided us with rich opportunities to develop highly engaging, student-centred mathematical activities and tasks.

The use of contemporary technologies in Mathematics lessons provides opportunities to illustrate the relevance of Mathematics and bridge the digital divide between the school and students’ lives outside school. However, it does not necessarily mean students will be engaged. Caution must be taken to ensure the use of technology is driven by good pedagogy, rather than the technology becoming the focus of the lesson. Other ways to illustrate the relevance of Mathematics is to, where possible, embed mathematical concepts into real-life contexts and allow opportunities for students to apply Mathematics in meaningful and purposeful ways. This not only deepens mathematical understanding but will enhance engagement. Of course, as mathematical concepts become more abstract in the senior years it is not always possible or practical to apply all concepts to real-life contexts, however if students have developed a love of Mathematics through quality practices, their engagement will be sustained.

The final aspect of the FEM relating to pedagogical repertoires refers to the provision of variety within Mathematics lessons. Although young students do require some structure, variety can be provided within that structure. For example, in the primary classroom children can be presented with a range of tasks that use a range of resources. Sometimes Mathematics lessons can be conducted outside the classroom – consider running a maths trail at your school where students can participate in interesting mathematical investigations based upon their physical surroundings. Explore the use of tools such as Thinkers’ Keys (Attard, 2013) to provide Mathematics tasks that are open-ended and creative, and set homework that takes advantage of the Mathematics in students’ lives, rather than drill and practice activities.

I have provided a brief exploration of engaging pedagogies that are listed in the Framework for Engagement with Mathematics (FEM), (Attard, 2014). Engagement with Mathematics during the compulsory years of schooling is critical if students are to develop an appreciation for and understanding of the value of Mathematics learning. Students who are engaged are more likely to learn, find the experience of schooling more rewarding, and more likely to continue with higher education. How can you adapt your practices so that your students value the Mathematics they are learning and see connections between the Mathematics they do at school and their own lives beyond the classroom now and in the future?

References:

Attard, C. (2014). “I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind”: Introducing a framework for engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(3), 1-14

Attard, C. (2013). Engaging maths: Higher order thinking with thinkers’ keys. Modern Teaching Aids: Brookvale

Attard C, & Orlando J, 2014, Early career teachers, mathematics and technology: device conflict and emerging mathematical knowledge. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott, Curriculum in Focus: Research Guided Practice, proceedings of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia annual conference, pp 71-78. MERGA: Sydney

Board of Studies New South Wales. (2012). Mathematics K-10 syllabus. Retrieved from http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/

Fair Go Team NSW Department of Education and Training. (2006). School is for me: pathways to student engagement. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney, Australia.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59 -110

Dr Catherine Attard worked as a school teacher and proceeded to complete a PhD on student engagement. She has been a part of the Fair Go Project Team at the University of Western Sydney. She is also editor of the journal Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom.

Catherine Attard conducts a weekly blog at http://engagingmaths.co/about/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-3 that has a number of resources that teachers are able to access and use.”

Getting Passionate About Maths

Catherine Attard explores some strategies to increase student engagement in Maths …

“I like having a teacher who is really passionate about maths”: Getting students to engage with mathematics through positive pedagogical relationships

How often do teachers of Mathematics hear the phrase “why do I need to learn this?” or “I’m no good at Maths”? Many people attribute anxiety or a dislike of Mathematics to their experiences during the middle years of schooling (Years 5 to 8) and although students are influenced to some degree by parents and peers, it is the teacher who has the most influence on students’ engagement with mathematics. This article explores the construct of engagement as it relates to Mathematics, and suggests that for deep and sustained engagement to occur, positive pedagogical relationships, the interpersonal relationships between teachers and students that optimise engagement, must first be established.

Defining engagement

As teachers, we use the term ‘engagement’ often, but do we really understand what real engagement looks like? When we see students who are ‘on task’, are they engaged, or are they just involved in busy work, and in getting the task done? Consider the difference between students who are ‘on task’, and students who ‘in task’. When students are ‘in task’, their minds and bodies are focused on what they are doing. They might be participating in substantive dialogue about the topic, or they might be working in silence, thinking deeply about Mathematics they are involved in – either way, they are engaged.

Many definitions of engagement are found in education literature. Some provide a narrow view that relates only to behaviour and participation. Others provide a deeper understanding that is multi-dimensional. Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004), define engagement as a deeper student relationship with classroom work, multi-faceted and operating at cognitive, emotional, and behavioural levels. In this paper, I draw on work of the Fair Go Project (Fair Go Team NSW Department of Education and Training, 2006) and define engagement as the coming together of three facets – cognitive, operative, and affective, which leads to children valuing and enjoying, and actively involved with school mathematics, and seeing connections between the Mathematics they do at school, and their own lives beyond the classroom now and in the future.

Pedagogical relationships and mathematics

This paper is informed by a longitudinal study on the influences on engagement (for a more in depth description see Attard, 2011, 2013, in print). In the study, data were collected from a group of 20 children across three years of their schooling from Year 6 to Year 8. The major selection criterion for participation in this project was that the students had to identify themselves as being engaged with Mathematics (through the use of a Motivation and Engagement Scale (Martin, 2008). Data were collected through individual student and teacher interviews, student focus groups, and classroom observations.

During the first phase of the study when the students were still attending primary school, they identified their current teacher as someone they perceived to be a good Mathematics teacher. They articulated several attributes directly relating to the pedagogical relationships the teacher had formed with her students, such as her ability to cater to individual needs through the differentiation of tasks, and her modeling of enthusiasm and passion towards Mathematics. Comments such as these were typical: “I like having a teacher who is really passionate about Maths” (Alison, Year 6), and “…while you’re doing the work she also has fun teaching the Maths as well” (Tenille, Year 6).

In the second phase of the study, things changed for this group of students. They began their secondary education, at a new school that was significantly different at the time from traditional secondary schools. At the time the school identified itself as a ‘ground breaking’ learning community in relation to its multi-disciplinary approach to curriculum, large open teaching spaces and a teaching structure that saw a group of Mathematics teachers rotate amongst classes, which meant each class group did not have one allocated teacher and saw each teacher every fourth lesson. These structures were not conducive to building relationships – the teachers had very limited opportunities to identify student needs and abilities, and as a result, students became disengaged: “everyone’s excited when there’s no Maths. I think it’s because, not having someone explain it to you and you don’t get it. If you don’t get it that means you don’t like it” (Kristy, Year 7).

Fortunately circumstances improved for the students in Year 8. Teachers were allocated a class group and the students were back on the path to engagement. They felt that they were now seen as individuals rather than a collective, and teachers cared more about their learning. They also felt that if they required assistance from their teachers, they felt safe in asking for help and felt the teachers now wanted to help them. The increased opportunity to develop pedagogical relationships also improved the level of feedback students received, which began to re-build their confidence as well as their engagement.

During the course of the study the students experienced a wide range of teaching and learning situations that resulted in significant fluctuations of their engagement levels. Although the data overwhelmingly confirmed the teacher was the strongest influence on these students’ engagement, this influence appeared to be complex, consisting of two separate yet inter-related elements: pedagogical relationships and pedagogical repertoires. Pedagogical repertoires refer to the day-to-day teaching practices employed by the teacher.

Results of this study suggest that it is difficult for students to engage with Mathematics without a foundation of strong pedagogical relationships. Positive pedagogical relationships exist when:

• students’ backgrounds and pre-existing knowledge are acknowledged and contribute to the learning of others;
• interaction among students and between teacher and students is continuous;
• the teacher models enthusiasm and an enjoyment of Mathematics and has a strong Pedagogical Content Knowledge;
• the teacher is aware of each student’s abilities and learning needs; and
• feedback to students is constructive, purposeful and timely.

It can also be argued that it is through engaging pedagogies that positive pedagogical relationships are developed, highlighting the connections between relationships and engaging repertoires. So what are considered engaging pedagogies in the Mathematics classroom? These will be explored in the next issue of The Journal of Professional Learning.

Catherine Attard worked as a school teacher and proceeded to complete a PhD on student engagement. She has been a part of the Fair Go Project Team at the University of Western Sydney. She is also editor of the journal Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom.

Catherine Attard, University of Western Sydney
c.attard@uws.edu.au

References:

Attard, C. (2011). “My favourite subject is maths. For some reason no-one really agrees with me”: Student perspectives of mathematics teaching and learning in the upper primary classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 363-377.
Attard, C. (2013). “If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths”: Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 569-587.
Attard, C. (in print). “I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind”: Introducing a framework for engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives.
Fair Go Team NSW Department of Education and Training. (2006). School is for me: pathways to student engagement. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney, Australia.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59 -110.
Martin, A. J. (2008). Motivation and engagement Scale: High school (MES-HS) test user manual. Sydney: Lifelong Achievement Group.

How Goes the New K-6 English Syllabus?

Jenny Williams and Mary-Ellen Betts share some ideas about how Primary English is unfolding …

Primary teachers in NSW have been implementing the new NSW K-6 English Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum. At this point in the implementation it is timely to look at teachers’ reactions to the syllabus and consider how they are using it to plan and assess in their classrooms. Discussions with teachers across the state reveal some interesting trends. There are positive aspects to the implementation as well as challenges.

The Positives

The new K-6 English Syllabus supports twenty-first century learners. The learning across the curriculum and Objective E Reflective Learning excite teachers. ‘Assessment for, as and of learning’ fit comfortably with meeting the needs of twenty-first learners. Teachers are addressing ‘assessment as learning’ enthusiastically when they understand the connection with learning intentions, success criteria and feedback. The text requirements open many teachers’ eyes to the possibility of exploring multimodal and spoken texts. Many teachers feel a sense of relief that the syllabus emphasises purpose and audience and how purpose and audience shape the composition of texts, rather than a rigid study of text types.

The key processes of responding to and composing text resonates with teachers as reciprocal aspects of ‘making meaning through language.’ (NSW K-6 English syllabus, page 24) This understanding leads to teachers integrating reading, writing, speaking and listening within the English block.

The Challenges

Implementation of the syllabus document occurred at the same time that the number of DEC consultants available to support teachers across the state diminished significantly. Unfortunately, some overly enthusiastic people with a personal viewpoint to share have partially filled this gap. When searching the internet teachers find sites recommending a scope and sequence of concepts K-6 or using the Literacy continuum to plan for English. Bypassing the syllabus to go in these directions has caused some confusion for teachers. Of course all the new syllabuses have key concepts related to the KLA and the literacy continuum has a purpose but the English syllabus is the mandatory document and the challenge for teachers is to unpack this document, first, with the learning needs of their students in mind. Much of the new document is familiar to teachers from the previous syllabus and actually exploring what is familiar and what is new is the best starting place.

Another challenge for some teachers is how to replace a text type driven view of the syllabus with a more flexible approach to the teaching of reading and writing shaped by the key processes of responding and composing.

Recommendations

All teachers need a hard copy of the syllabus as well as access to an online copy. Both serve different purposes. Teachers need a hard copy to be able to discuss the syllabus in stage meetings and annotate as they explore the content.

Units of work created during the implementation process should be recognised as DRAFTS. As a deeper understanding of the syllabus develops modifications will be made through a process of continual evaluation and improvement.

The main goal now should be familiarisation with the syllabus through discussion with colleagues on the same grade or stage. The more teachers explore what the intended learning in each objective means, the better they are able to design teaching and learning plans to address the intended learning. This exploration leads to planning units of work and experimenting with new texts and concepts. This experimentation is an essential part of coming to understand the ‘Englishness’ of the syllabus. Whole school plans or scope and sequences may follow after this initial phase. So the best advice: open the syllabus and read it.

Jenny Williams and Mary-Ellen Betts have extensive experience as teachers in public schools, including at the senior levels, and now work assisting teachers including through the Centre for Professional Learning and trioprofessional. They can be contacted at trioprofessionallearning.com.au .