Monday 4 August 2014

Concurrent Session Block 1

Concurrent Session Block 1

Cooperative learning is widely recognised as a pedagogical practice that promotes socialisation and learning among students from preschool to post-secondary education and across different key learning areas and subject domains. It involves students working together in small groups to achieve common goals or complete group tasks. Interest in cooperative learning has grown rapidly over the last three decades, as research clearly demonstrates how it can be used to promote a range of achievements in reading and writing, conceptual understanding and problem-solving in science and mathematics, and higher level thinking and reasoning. It has also been shown to promote interpersonal relationships among students with diverse learning and adjustments needs and among those from culturally and ethnically different backgrounds. In fact, it is argued that there is no other pedagogical practice that achieves such outcomes. The purpose of this presentation is to highlight those factors that have been found to contribute to the success of cooperative learning, including recent research in neuroscience that helps to explain how and why students learn when they cooperate.

Over the past two decades, there have been no gender differences in mathematics achievement in Australia in large-scale international surveys such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Similarly, when mathematical literacy was measured in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2003, there were no gender differences. However, PISA 2012 found that, while average scores in mathematics had declined in Australia, males in Australia were significantly outperforming females, and females had significantly higher average levels of anxiety about and significantly lower levels of confidence in mathematics. In light of the recent report of the Australian Council of Learned Academies, which points to an underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers in Australia, these trends are worrying, and point to the possibility of even fewer females progressing into these areas. This paper unpacks the PISA 2012 data to further investigate the achievement, attitudes and beliefs of young Australian females and males about mathematics. For whom is Australia providing a quality education in mathematics, and to what extent is this provided in an equitable way? It is hoped that a more differentiated view of the achievement, attitudes and beliefs of both males and females will assist governments in making policy decisions that will encourage participation and higher levels of achievement for females.

Using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), this is the first analysis for Australia to evaluate the impact of attendance at preschool programs on matched Year 3 nationwide National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test outcomes in the domains of numeracy, reading, spelling, writing and grammar. We also disaggregate the impact of specific teacher qualifications on children’s cognitive outcomes. While one year of learning in Year 3 is represented by about 50 NAPLAN points, we find average preschool domain effects as much as 10–15 points. The impacts for NAPLAN scores in numeracy, reading and spelling domains are the strongest and are significant. The highest increases in NAPLAN scores were attained by children whose preschool teachers had diploma- or degree- level qualifications, identifying for the first time the crucial nature of teacher qualifications in driving nationally representative long-run preschool treatment outcomes.

While there is much to be valued in regional and rural education, studies in Australia have identified location and isolation as key dimensions of additional need in the provision and delivery of education. Forty years ago, in the report to the Australian Schools Commission, Karmel identified several aspects of educational disadvantage experienced by schools in country areas – including high teacher turnover, low retention rates, less confidence in the benefits of education, limited cultural facilities in the community, lack of employment opportunities for school completers, and a less relevant curriculum – that led to lower levels of attainment (Karmel, 1973). These issues are still relevant today. This study uses a range of indicators, including National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results, attainment, post-school transition and student engagement and well-being data, to set out some of the dimensions of rural and urban differences in schooling. Results show that some, but not all, of the challenges facing regional and rural schools arise from the social, economic and community differences between city and rural environments.