Greetings from EduTech Asia in Singapore, where Emmanuel Bernet is speaking on "The role of ICT in pedagogical activities and its impact on achievement motivation: Scientific evidence and practical applications". He started with a standard "introduce yourself" icebreaker, which is unusual for a conference, but worked well. He started with the beliefs of the teacher and how they influence learning. I got a bit lost with a list of dozens of models of the use of ICT in teaching. Perhaps all these models are because ICT is relatively new. Do teachers feel the need to learn different models of the use of pen, paper, and books?
After the first hour I realised that what Dr Bernet was talking about were really issues of general student motivation, not specific to ICT, which is not a bad thing. We did a TPACK self evaluation. I worry with such tests as to if they have been scientifically tested, that is comparing what people self score with an independent evaluation of their knowledge and skills. The workshop ended with SAMR, which did not make much sense to me. All the examples given appeared to me to be substitution of ICT to carry out an exercise which could be done without it (we had video, for example, before computers). Dr Bernet advocated combining TPACK and SAMR, but I can't see much value in either.
The research shows that, as expected, those from less wealthy backgrounds want to get a qualification for a job quickly, and are interested therefore in forms of apprenticeship, where they can work and study at the same time. It is good to have one's personal experience validated by research (I am from a low SES background), but I suggest the research needs to go further and look at why HE is not routinely providing the form of education the students want.
The idea that students want vocationally orientated, part-time, off-campus education appears to be treated as an embarrassment, and inconvenience, by many academics. On-campus graduate research is what they focus on, plus some full time, on-campus students to help pay the bills, and to provide future researchers. But why is this? It is simply self interest, or are there deeper reason for the disconnect with what the customer wants? I suggest this is a fruitful area for research.
Sarah O' Shea (Curtin University) asks "So what more can be done?" to get disadvantaged, particularly regional, students into university. I suggest this is the wrong question. Stone, King, and Ronan (2022) provide some of the answers. They suggest working with Regional University Centres and regional campuses to support online study options for regional students.
Also I suggest university may not be the best place for these students, and the goal should be broadened to include vocational education and training (VET), as this is just as useful for the community (and the student), if not more so, than university study. Regional students can undertake a short, job relevant program, at a nearby VET institution, which caters to students with limited schooling. If universities want to have those same students succeed, they need to either partner with VET, or set up campuses, courses, and services, to meet their needs.
The length of programs aimed for at university should be shortened, to allow for certificates, & diplomas, as well as degrees. A student who successfully completes a program shorter than a degree is not a failure. Their success should be celebrated, and they should be made to feel welcome to return, with full credit, to continue their studies in a nested degree program, later. Also the learning needs to be provided when and where the students are, online and flexibly. Lastly, the learning needs to include basics and study skills, for those students who missed these.
As it is, universities have been set up to cater for students from affluent suburbs, who undertook courses at school (especially elite private schools), to prepare them for university. It is not surprising that if you don't have a university nearby, have never seen a campus, have no one in your family who went to university, don't know anyone who did, and did no courses to prepare you for university, that it might be difficult to contemplate enrolling, let along completing.
Harvey et al. (2022) have provided a detailed report on how to get students back to study after a deferral or leave. They include on low SES, rural, those with a disability and Indigenous students. However, I suggest it would be more beneficial to increase the flexibility of study, so students don;t have to break their studies. Reducing the need to defer will help both the students and universities. Flexibility could include the option of online study, low rate part time study, work integrated learning, and credit for real world projects. Nested programs, where a student is awards a certificate, or diploma, and welcomed back to continue their studies with full credit, would also be useful.
As a low SES student myself, who was not comfortable with university study until becoming an online, low rate, part time, WIL student, I can understand the issues. Also at one point I was offered the choice of exiting with a certificate or continuing on to a degree. This was an either/or choice: if I took the certificate I could not resume the degree. That is a decision I should have not been forced to make (I ended up taking the certificate, and resuming my studies outside Australia in a more flexible higher education system).
The authors point out that two thirds of deferrals are by school leavers. So I suggest universities could offer introductory study skills programs (with course credit), to ease the transition. Similarly, other students have leave for very good reasons. Rather than universities try to get students back into a rigid program which forced them out in the first place, the programs need to change to allow students to study, and have a family, job, and life, at the same time, wherever they are.
References
Harvey, Andrew; Luckman, Michael; Gao, Yuan; Kubler, Matthias; Tomaszewski, Wojtek; Dempsey, Naomi; et al. (2022): Towards the point of return: Maximising students' uptake of university places following deferral and leave. La Trobe. Report. https://doi.org/10.26181/19897210.v1
The University of Newcastle's course for teachers "Aspirations: Supporting Students’ Futures" references Gore, Holmes, Smith, et al (2015). While 2015 now seems a long time ago, the issues it investigates are very current. As we (hopefully) emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a good time for educational institutions to rethink who their potential students are, and what they want.
The researchers set out to find if low low socioeconomic status (SES) students don't consider university, and contact by universities in schools, would change their minds. They asked about 3,000 NSW school students, in Years 4 to 10, split evenly between city and regions, at mostly government schools. As the authors point out, conventional wisdom is that Year 10 is too late to change a student's views on studying at university (as well as being too late for them to select suitable courses to get into university).
The researchers found that earlier year students were more certain about a future career than later year ones. They therefore suggest discussion of careers in primary school, with the aim of maintaining this interest in later years.
The researchers also found that the assumed preference of higher SES students for more prestigious occupations (requiring university qualifications) was relatively small. Most students aspired to skilled, para and professional jobs (vet, teacher, sportsperson). The exceptions were two occupations: mechanic (aspired by low SES, and doctor (high). It was noted that low-SES students were aiming for financial security, with high were more often selecting a career out of interest.
A key finding was that how the students had done in their study was more important than SES in determining their view of a future career. Those who did well aspired to higher status jobs. However, the researchers could only account for a small minority of the variation in career choice (13%). While they speculated what might account for the rest, they do not know.
As someone from a low SES background I found this of interest. It was not until after completing a graduate certificate and masters of education, that it occurred to me I was a low SES background, first in generation to university student. As a child I had aspirations of being an engineer, which was likely influenced by a strong mechanical bent of all males in the family (my nephew now designs robots for assembling cars). I ended up on the academic staff of an Engineering and Computer Science College of a university.
Obviously there is self interest in universities wanting to attract low SES students, as the pool of high SES ones dries up. However, is this in the interests of the students, and the public interest? I find talk of striving for excellence by by academic colleagues troubling. As a student myself, as recently as 2016, I was not striving for excellence, I was aiming for the minimum required to complete my studies (or just a bit above the minimum , to be on the safe side). Even though I am now financially secure, and it doesn't really matter if I pass or fail, I can't break the habits of a lifetime, aiming to complete as quickly, cheaply and safely as possible.
Rather than trying to lure low SES students into university courses which they, for very rational economic reasons, may be avoiding, I suggest providing options which make sense to them. As an example, students can be offered a path from VET, where they can get a qualification for a secure well paying career, through further study at university to a higher paying career. That will make more sense to someone needing to aim for financial security, than asking them to aim for excellence, but likely end up with no qualification after several years of university study, and a large student debt.
References
Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M. et al. Socioeconomic status and the career aspirations of Australian school students: Testing enduring assumptions. Aust. Educ. Res. 42, 155–177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0172-5
The University of Newcastle is providing a free 20 hour course for teachers "Aspirations: Supporting Students’ Futures" to teach students "... from diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socio-economic backgrounds". This is intended for school teachers, but may also be of value to those teaching in VET and universities. As well as the content, it would be useful for university academics with limited teacher training to see what a well designed online course looks like. In particular the ways the course directly references professional skills standards provides an example of what universities should aspire to.
The course is implemented using Newcastle's Canvas LMS, in a conventional online course format. There is also a 41 page learning journal, in the form of a Microsoft Word document, with versions to print, or fill in online. This contains the same course content as online, with places for the student to fill in answers. That may seem a little old fashioned, but makes the course backward compatible for students who do not have Internet access, or prefer a printable workbook.
The course has six units:
Introduction (10 minutes)
Introduction to aspirations (2 hours)
Aspirations matter (2 hours)
Factors that matter (2 hours)
Relationships and connections that matter (2 hours)
Schooling and teachers matter (2 hours)
I was able to quickly register with UoN's system and enroll in the course. Canvas provides a text rich usable interface.
There is a glossary included in the workbook, but buried in Unit 2 (it would be better if separate). Some of the definitions are a bit difficult to understand, for example, "Cultural capital: Symbolic assets such as cultural awareness and knowledge, skills, mannerisms, and credentials". I am not really sure what a "Symbolic asset" is or what makes a mannerism an asset. The author's biases might be showing also, for example with "Cultural capital" being measured, in part, by the student's interest in classical music. Apparently only formal Western music has culture. ;-)
The course invites teachers to think about how their background shapes their aspirations, as well as those of their students. For example:
"What are some of the reasons why you chose teaching as a career? What other careers might have brought a similar sense of fulfilment?
How might you use the reasons given by your students for their occupational aspirations to broaden their sense of possible selves?"
Some of the questions are very relevant to the future of higher education in Australia, such as:
"Thinking about the students you teach, what might be some of the reasons behind misalignment in university and VET aspirations?
What role can teachers play in ensuring that students understand differences between university and VET and the educational pathways required to reach a particular occupation?"
This is a question which might be asked of the leadership of universities which seem to be trying to be everything to any possible student, trying to provide everything from vocational training to graduate research.
The course is not peppered with long reading lists and quotes from research papers, which makes many university courses so annoying. However, a few embedded references and readings would be useful. The course apparently draws on a study from draws on a study from Newcastle, however only a title "the Aspirations Longitudinal Study" is provided, with a broken hypertext link. As an experienced online learner I am used to hunting down web pages in the Internet Archive, but this link appears to have broken two years ago. It would have been useful to have a full formal citation of the research report, which took me a couple of minutes to track down (Gore, Holmes, Smith, et al, 2015).
As it is there is a reading list section at the end of the course, but I was unable to get this to display, instead getting an error message (which I have reported):
Integration Failure
Reading List Display Failure
Unable to display the reading list due to the error below. Please review the error and if the error persists then contact support
Error code user_is_missing eReserve Plus was unable to create the necessary records when processing the launch from the platform (https://canvas.newcastle.edu.au). Please contact support.
There is also a discussion forum called "Community". I was able to read the postings there, but could not register to participate. It is not clear why this forum is not using the same ID I was provided with for the rest of the course (which I was able to get access to).
References
Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M. et al. Socioeconomic status and the career aspirations of Australian school students: Testing enduring assumptions. Aust. Educ. Res. 42, 155–177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0172-5
Devlin and others (2022), estimate that it costs about six times as much for an Australian university to support a low socioeconomic status (SES) student as a high one. As someone who was a low SES student, I found this a startling claim, as I don't recall extra resources being lavished on me. In fact it was only when I became an online student, with minimal resources provided, but ones expertly crafted by qualified educators, that I became a successful student.
The authors report the additional costs for SES students come from: "increasing aspiration and capital prior to university; academic, personal and financial support provided while studying; establishing, maintaining and appropriately staffing multiple university campuses, particularly in highly disadvantaged areas; and supporting highly complex student needs". Of these only three sound plausible: academic & personal support while studying and supporting highly complex student needs.
Reducing the costs of support with good course design
One of the lessons of accessible design could be applied more broadly to support low and disadvantaged students, while reducing cost. The traditional approach was to wait for students with a disability to come forward and request assistance, the craft this for them. The modern approach is to assume there will be such students and build in access for them. This reduces the overall cost, and provides a better education for all students. Another is to provide well designed study materials and assessment items, so students know what they need to do, and nothing they don;t need to do. Other supposed costs of SES students sound like general, optional, university costs to me:
Increasing aspiration and capital prior to university: These are programs for school students to interest them in university and empower parents. Another name for such activities is "marketing". Universities run such programs with little evidence these are of value to the students, parents, or even the university. If the cost of such programs is excessive, universities could run them jointly, if the purpose really is to benifit the students, rather than the individual university, or move them online, or simply cancel them.
Financial support provided while studying: Universities charge student fees. Any financial support provided is, in effect, a discount on the fees. Universities provide such support so as to attract, and retain high performing students, thus boosting rankings, and to meet government mandated quotas for specific disadvantaged groups. If the financial support is not meeting these goals, then the university can discontinue it and try another way to boost their rankings. In particular universities could offer flexible programs, which allow students to work and study at the same time, and provide course credit for work experience.
Campuses in highly disadvantaged areas: Curiously, the authors do not seem to think it is providing a subsidy when universities place their main campus in a high SES area, as most of Australia's older universities are, only a subsidy when a satellite campus is placed in a disadvantaged area. However, campuses at the current scale are not needed for quality education. COVID-19 showed that mass online learning is feasible, for providing quality university education is possible, with less campus use. This was, of course, already known, with distance education provided for decades. If universities wish to reduce costs, they could shut down campuses which are using high value real-estate, and open smaller ones in low cost areas. Also, rather than build their own satellite campuses, universities could form consortia, and partnerships with the VET sector, for regional shared facilities. Smaller facilities could be co-located with upper secondary schools, and public libraries.
Reference
Devlin, M., Zhang, L. C., Edwards, D., Withers, G., McMillan, J., Vernon, L., & Trinidad, S. (2022). The costs of and economies of scale in supporting students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057450
Zancajo, Verger, and Bolea (2022), suggest the COVID-19 pandemic is resulting in only incremental changes to education policy, with "digitalisation". The rapid investment in equipment and software to teach students kept off campus, but not resulted in structural changes, the authors found. I suggest this undervalues the effect the legitimization of online learning can have. The gradual adoption of the Internet in the 1990s saw use preceding policy. It was only after adoption that policy, and law were changed to retrospectively endorse what had already happened.
Zancajo, Verger, and Bolea also point out an increasing learning gap udring the Pandemic. However, exact cause of these is not explored. Was this due to a lack of access to technology for online learning, disparity in digital skills, or external factors, such as low SES households needing to focus on getting food and shelter.
Zancajo, Verger, and Bolea also address the adverse effect of the pandemic on teachers. They note calls to update teachers’ in-service training, not just in digital skills, but also "motivational and emotional competences" to improve resilience. Teachers’ autonomy also gets a brief mention. This I suggest needs more emphasis in initial teacher training, as does training in professional skills.
Computer, and engineering students now routinely receive training in project management, working in teams and dealing with a client. The also receive some professional ethics training. I suggest that teachers could also benifit from similar training. The aim would be to equip the teacher to decide the best way to teach their students with the resources available.
References
Adrián Zancajo, Antoni Verger, Pedro Bolea, Digitalization and beyond: the effects of Covid-19 on post-pandemic educational policy and delivery in Europe, Policy and Society, Volume 41, Issue 1, January 2022, Pages 111–128,https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab016
In "Equity off course: Mapping equity access: across courses and institutions" (2022), Cakitaki, Luckman, & Harvey, provide an overview of how Australian university are doing providing education for all, or not. Something curiously missing from their report was how online learning might help, or hinder this.
Many of the report's findings (reproduced below) relate to regional and remote students, and their participation at Group of Eight (Go8) universities. All the Go8 are located in capital cities, out of commuting distance for regional and remote students. Low SES students, those with family or cultural commitments, would also find on-campus attendance difficult. These students therefore have the choice of a regional non-Go8 university or distance education. Pre-pandemic, the Go8 universities provided online limited online learning options.
Some of the findings seem self evident, such as low SES students being underrepresented in creative arts courses. Having a low SES background myself, it would never occur to me to enroll in creative arts, as that would not be likely to result in a secure well paid job.
Similarly, it would be an entirely rational choice for a low SES student to enroll in a regional university, or one of the city ones which places an emphasis on teaching, not a Go8 research intensive university.
Findings from the study included:
Relative to their overall representation in the sample, low SES, regional and remote, and Indigenous students were underrepresented at the selective Group of Eight (Go8) universities.
Low SES students and NESB students were underrepresented in creative arts and communications courses.
High ATAR students from all groups (equity and non-equity) were more likely to commence at Group of Eight (Go8) universities than other universities, yet just over half of high achieving low SES students commenced at a Go8 university compared to more than two thirds of high achieving medium and high SES students.
High achieving regional and remote students were much less likely to commence at Go8 universities than metropolitan students.
Indigenous students with high ATARs were much less likely to enrol at Go8 universities than non-Indigenous students.
Recommendations from the study included:
That the DESE report equity participation and achievement data for the official “Fair Chance for All” equity categories, both by field of education and by the 21 QILT study areas.
That, where the Department of Health has set equity targets for Indigenous and regional and remote participation in medical training and allied health courses, they also include targets for low SES students.
That the DESE reform the existing Access and Participation Plans by adopting the UK system of making institutions set equity targets and evaluate progress towards those targets. Such an approach could be connected to the Performance Based Funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme or the awarding of the Indigenous, Regional and Low-SES Attainment Fund.
That the DESE commissions a review into the representation of women in male dominated study areas, with the object of setting participation targets in the terms of reference.
That individual institutions monitor and track equity participation rates by course and discipline as part of their standard evaluation and monitoring processes.
That institutions set themselves targets to increase equity participation in their most selective courses.
That institutions employ an achievement focus as part of their school outreach work.
That institution approaches to outreach are cognisant of career stereotypes and expectation differences by class, race, gender and other categories. Effort is required to ensure that all students are receiving the information, advice, and guidance required to make an informed choice when applying for a course.
That equity researchers conduct further research on the course choices and motivations of high achieving equity students.
In "Who do universities serve? Everyone, or just the elite few?"Julia Horne asks the age old question about higher education (June 1, 2015). Horne points out the The Bradley Review reported that remote, indigenous and low socio-economic-status (SES) students were under represented in 2015. How much has this improved and what more can we do? I suggest that designing courses to allow students to study remotely would help, as would more project, and work integrated learning, and authentic assessment.
As a low SES student I did not really flourish at university, until I discovered online learning. It was not so much being able to study remotely (I live in a capital city a few km from four campuses). It was that the distance education courses were very structured, explaining what I needed to do, and when I needed to do it. The assessment was in gradual steps through the course, based mostly on project work, not a large paper based exam at the end (I have learned from bitter experience to avoid courses with large exams).
Greetings from room 2.02 of theMarie Reay Teaching Centre, Australian National University, where I am student in a workshop on "Cross-Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies", Dr Marina Iskhakova from the ANU College of Business and Economics. This face to face session was preceded by a week long "Coffee Course". With this approach students are given a small chunk to learn and respond to each day. The face to face workshop then reinforces the learning.
One simple tip from Dr Iskhakova was to learn to pronounce student's names. But I found much of the material very challenging, perhaps being what the main text (Howe & Lisi, 2018) describes as a WASP. As part of the dominant culture of Australia, I don't notice a lack of cultural recognition, or discrimination, as I am not the one being discriminated against.
There were some cultural aspects which resonated with me, being from a low SES background. Also, unlike the discipline I teach (computing), which is dominated by male students and staff, as a student of education I felt very much the minority.
At the face to face workshop, we did some exercises, such as using a color every fifth word, to help understand how difficult it is for students speaking a second language. I only speak English, but the difficulty of this reminded me of being interviewed for a podcast (which I was this morning by Ben O'Shea for The West Live).
I teach mixed classes of domestic and international students, in degree programs accredited by Australian professions. So I am required to teach the students to fit into an Australian workplace, using techniques developed in the UK and USA. In professional programs the students are, in effect, being trained to speak, write and act in the customs of that discipline and culture. However, these students will be working in multicultural teams, in Australia, online and internationally, so some exposure to multicultural work practices would be useful for them.
Perhaps the approach applied to provide access for those with a disability could also be used for multicultural education. Rather than try to customize content and technique to each student, provide a variety of materials for them to choose from. This would avoid a flaw which apparent in the multicultural pedagogy which assumes that people have fixed "learning styles". Instead, all students, including those from a different culture, could choose the form of learning which suits them, at the time.
Unfortunately most of the texts in this field are from a USA perspective. While there are some similarities with Australia, particularly the exclusion of the indigenous population from educational opportunities, much is USA specific. At Chapter 8, Howe & Lisi (p. 216, 2020), started to get interesting and relevant, with "Instructional Approaches Needed by Multicultural Educators". However, an Australian text on this topic would be useful. The best source of such material currently is the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, such as that by Dr Cathy Stone.
References
Howe, W. A., & Lisi, P. L. (2018). Becoming a multicultural educator: Developing awareness, gaining skills, and taking action. Sage Publications.
The Minister for Education, Hon Dan Tehan MP, announced changes to Australian Government funding of university courses last Friday in a National Press Club address (). The Minister characterized this as "... educating
Australians for the jobs that will be in demand in the future". However, the government has focused on universities, and not addressed the vocational education sector, which is intended to provide and shorter, cheaper more flexible forms of education, and better equipped to deliver "micro-credentials".
Minister Tehan pointed out that research showed the "... majority of
new jobs will require tertiary qualifications" and suggested "... almost half of all
new jobs will go to someone with a bachelor or higher qualification". However, I suggest student's first qualification should not be a degree, and need not be at an institution which conducts research.
Growth areas the minister identified were: health care, Science and Technology, Education, and Construction. The government will also include agriculture, although it was not one of the growth areas identified.
The government will provide 39,000 more university places by 2023 and 100,000 by 2030, but without any increase in funding. Instead this will be done by shifting government subsidies for different subject areas. The ANU VC did point out that funding will again be indexed for
inflation, which will help universities.
In his speech the minister said "It’s a similar model to the one we used rolling out our
microcredential initiative that offers short, online courses in areas of
expected job demand.". However, the program referred to was not for micro-credentials, but bachelor and graduate certificates (equivalent to half a year long diploma). Microcredentials are much shorter qualifications.
At the time of the previous announcement, I assumed the Minister had misspoken in interviews referring to certificates as "microcredentials". However, the latest press club speech refers to micro-credentials seven times, so this is no accident. Graduate certificates already existed, and while undergraduate equivalents of these were new, they were hardly revolutionary. However, they did herald a more interventionist approach by Government, as they were for specific priority areas.
Under the new funding approach students of agriculture and mathematics pay 62% less than before, in teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English and languages 46% less, and science, health, architecture, environmental
science, IT, and engineering will pay 20% less. There is no chnage for medicine, dental, and veterinary science. To balance the cost, students in Humanities pay 113% more, Law and Commerce 28%.
The Government strategy assumes more students will enroll in the cheaper degrees, but the ANU VC suggests this may not happen. Most domestic student receive a HECS government loan, and research says they therefore do not see a strong price signal. The result could be that just as many students enroll in the higher cost degrees, resulting in more loans and cost for government.
An important point to note is that while most of the speech refers to the cost of degrees, the costs are per unit (or what is called a "course" in US terminology). So what an individual student pays depends on what units they choose each semester. The Minister emphasized an Arts student could save money by doing IT units. This will create an added level of complexity and potential for gaming the system by re-categorizing units. As an example, law courses categorized as "IT", to make them cheaper, or IT courses categorized as law to make them more expensive.
One aspect of the new policy not discussed by the minister is if a university degree is the best preparation for a job, or are there better cheaper, more flexible, alternatives? The "micro-credentials" mentioned by the minister are made up of introductory units from traditional inflexible degree programs. This differs from the training provided by Australia's Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector.
State government TAFEs and private VET organizations are specifically designed to provide fast flexible job specific training, unlike university degrees. As an example, after completing a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education in the university system, in undertook the equivalent Certificate IV in Training and Assessment in the VET sector.
For university I completed traditional semester long units. In contrast, there were no conventional classes for the much shorter modules which made up the VET Cert IV. Instead I met with an assessor, who helped me prepare evidence of my prior learning, and then select short online units for missing skills. It would be possible to use a similar approach at university for a degree, but this would require retraining staff and re-imagining what university is for. The Australian Government's approach appears to be to nudge universities in this direction.
The Government will also provide funding for regional, remote and Indigenous students, with a Tertiary Access Payment of $5,000 to relocate
to study and a Fares
Allowance. Interestingly, this will apply to a Certificate IV, as well as university degrees. However, no funding was announced to improve the quality of online learning, which could improve the education of many more regional, remote and Indigenous students. A$500 m fund to support Indigenous, regional
and low SES students into and through university might be able to be applied to e-learning. There is also $21 m for Regional University Centres which support regional students.
Near the conclusion of his speech, the Minister said he expected demand for international education
will "remain strong post COVID-19, if borders start to open by 2021". Unfortunately there was no mention of any initiatives to help universities expand new forms of international education. In 2016 and 2017 I warned an international crisis could stop students getting to Australian campuses and suggested an online option be made ready for this contingency.
The Australian government did not take up this suggestion and Australian export revenue has suffered as a result. There are other longer term trends threatening the Australian international and domestic education industries, which unfortunately the government and universities are not addressing. In the decade after COVID-19 it is likely we will see competition for students from new forms of institutions around the world.
The Australian Government commissioned five reports on the impact of remote learning on vulnerable children during the COVID-19 emergency. These were done very quickly, but are by Australian researchers who have extensive knowledge and experience.
Brown, Te Riele, Shelley, and Woodroffe
found that nearly half students are at risk of significantly compromised learning, and this is not confined to low socio-economic status families. They call for a social workers, psychologists, speech
pathologists, and school nurses to be on site when students return to school. This seems to me to be unrealistic, and it is likely help will be by professionals who now provide online support.
Masters pointed out that younger children need more scaffolding and support, particularly those who are vulnerable. This is supported by Lamb, who also points out the challenges for indigenous students, who had less less experience with ICT before COVID-19.
Clinton recommends increased digital inclusion. I suggest that while the focus should be on teaching return to the classroom quickly, the potential benefits for all students from online learning to supplement classroom education should not be neglected.
While the government has relied on these reports to justify the reopening of schools, the reports themselves were made difficult to find on the Department of Education's website, so here they are:
While online learning is now taking place on a scale not seen before, it is worth keeping in mind it is not new. The impact of distance education is a well researched field. There thousands of studies over decades, most involving just a few dozen, or a few hundred students, but some with thousands, or tens of thousands. I had to sift through a lot of this stuff as a graduate student of education. I have attended education conferences with, and talks by, many of the people who wrote these reports, and it is not like they just started think about the implications of e-learning in the last few weeks.
This is not an entirely new, or unanticipated situation. After SARS, educational institutions in the region planned how they would switch to e-learning if students where quarantined at home.
The level of preparation by Australian education departments and institutions, might be a useful area for any Royal Commission into the pandemic to explore. This would be along with an investigation of the general preparedness by Australian governments, and if Ministers exercised their duty of care by initiating, and participating in, pandemic preparedness exercises.
Some excerpts from the reports:
Brown, N., Te Riele, K., Shelley, B. & Woodroffe, J.
(2020). Learning at home during COVID-19:Effects on vulnerable young
Australians. Independent Rapid Response Report. Hobart: University of
Tasmania, Peter Underwood Centre for Educational Attainment.
Executive summary
FINDINGS
Nearly half the national school student population are at risk of having their learning and wellbeing significantly compromised by not being at school because they are either an early years’ student or are in a vulnerable group. As soon as health restrictions permit there is an urgent need to reconnect these students to the physical context of school-based learning to support their learning and
wellbeing outcomes. Concurrently there is a need to invest rapidly in developing significant capability in schools to deliver education both online and on-site. ...
HOWEVER, THE HOME-BASED, ONLINE MODEL IS HARMING LEARNING, ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY
YEARS AND IN VULNERABLE GROUPS
Nearly half (46%) of Australian children and young people are at risk adverse effects on their educational outcomes, nutrition, physical movement, social, and emotional wellbeing by being physically disconnected from school.
It is already clear that nationally, children and young people are experiencing learning losses. This means that there will not be the expected cognitive gains for these students over the period of learning at home. These losses will cause a delay in cognitive gain and achievement in some students and result in others being lost to the education system. ...
The reason for these losses is that many families lack the physical spaces, technology and other resources to support learning at home. Additionally, many parents and caregivers lack the time needed to support their children’s learning. This is occurring irrespective of socio-economic status, with full-time waged and sole parent-waged families reporting difficulties. ...
A TARGETED STRATEGY OF PHYSICAL RE-ENGAGEMENT AT SCHOOL COULD MITIGATE MANY OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT
There is a need for a coherent cross-jurisdictional communications strategy and implementation plan to incentivise and support vulnerable students to physically attend school. The strategy should:
• Ensure schools have the safety protocols in place for physical reconnection of a significant number of students including ensuring that allied professional staff (social workers, psychologists, speech pathologists, and school nurses) are able to provide services on site where possible.
• Where full time reconnection of significant number is not going to be possible for safety or logistical reasons plan for a blend of on-line and physical presence through a week.
• Encourage universal full-time on-site attendance for pre-school to year 2 nationally
• Utilise direct and personalised invitations to specific vulnerable school students and their families/carers to see those students attend school and complement this group with invitations to a balanced cohort of students to reduce stigmatisation of specific groups and ‘normalise’ attendance.
• Enable universal on-site attendance at dedicated Flexible Learning Options, Schools for Special Purposes and Re-Engagement Programs nationally.
• Invest in targeted and personalised learner engagement for students who are not physically attending and who cannot access online learning, are not engaging in learning, or are at risk of disengaging over the short and long term
• Invest in, and support, teachers:
- to manage the increased workload of teaching both offline and online by providing additional staffing on a short-term basis: teachers, teacher assistants, and social/youth workers; and
- with professional learning for skills and expertise in the creation of non-school based learning strategies, such as high-quality online content, lower technology radio, as well as television content; and
- for re-engagement and trauma-informed approaches for the most vulnerable students.
Recognising the necessary input from parents to support learning at home goes beyond physical provision of resources. Many families require additional support beyond the current web-based material (eg. utilisation of television and radio, as well as outreach through community networks, and support in the moment).
THIS STRATEGY HAS ONLY MODERATE COST AND REGULATORY ISSUES
Most of the cost will likely be related to additional resourcing at the commencement of the strategy and short to medium terms, as well as for teams with ongoing responsibility for implementation and oversight of operations, and reporting. Immediate investment can achieve social impact through maximising the value created by Commonwealth Government and State and Territory Government spending on education.
The financial costs may include:
• provision for teachers to have time to enhance skills in, and implement, online pedagogy;
• additional resources for allied professionals within schools;
• co-construction and implementation of an Indigenous strategy;
• attendance incentivisation strategies;
• resources to facilitate learning in the home (eg. a national hotline for parents supporting their children’s learning; TV and radio content; enabling part-time employment for a period with Commonwealth support to sustain full-time equivalent superannuation entitlements); and
• provision to effectively resource and implement Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) safety regimes.
There could be a consideration of regulatory changes to enable final year pre-service teachers to work on Limited Authority to Teach or as Teacher Assistants; and counting those hours worked towards practicum. This group may provide a valuable additional resource for schools.
THERE ARE KEY RISKS AND SENSITIVITIES TO THE STRATEGY
There are risks and sensitivities in targeting specific groups to attend school as it can be stigmatising and counterproductive. The risk of stigmatisation does not only include students who may be classified as ‘at risk’ or vulnerable, but also children of essential workers, who may be perceived by other parents/children to be carrying the virus.
• States and Territories may resist elements of a national approach. Integrating the communications plan with known positions can mitigate this risk.
• Negotiating a consistent cross-sectoral approach (public, Catholic and independent schools) will alleviate parent and care-giver confusion.
• There is a risk that employers are unable to effectively meet workplace health and safety and other industrial relations obligations on school sites.
• There is a risk of industrial disputes if changed practices are not effectively negotiated and lawfully implemented. ..."
Masters. G. (2020). Ministerial Briefing Paper on Evidence of the Likely Impact on Educational Outcomes of
Vulnerable
Children Learning at Home during COVID-19, Australian Council for
Educational Research. URL
https://www.dese.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ministerial_briefing_paper_covid19_and_vulnerable_children_acer_22april2020.pdf
"Summary points
● Vulnerability in this paper is considered from two interrelated perspectives: social and educational.
● Socially vulnerable children are over-represented among the group of students who are educationally vulnerable.
● The negative impact of educational vulnerability on students’ capacity to learn across all areas of the curriculum is exacerbated by their reduced access to resources at home (e.g., adequate food and shelter, ICT, a quiet place to work, books, learning support from parents), and is associated with social vulnerability. This is, in effect, a continuous cycle of disadvantage.
● While parents play a crucial role in remediating educational disadvantage, the level of education, socioeconomic status, and consequent capacity to provide home learning support and resources for students is lower among parents of educationally disadvantaged students than in the broader community.
● The likelihood of any positive impact of educational programs on vulnerable students will be greatly increased if support is also provided to deal with their basic needs.
● The basic profile of educationally vulnerable children appears to be consistent across students, regardless of their age.
● While this paper focuses on vulnerable students, it is important to note that high proportions of primary-school children are not able to work independently when using technology, and need scaffolding and support. The level of support needed is higher for younger students and those who are vulnerable.
● Schools and teachers play a vital role in supporting vulnerable children. However, most schools do not have the requisite infrastructure to support remote learning, and many teachers do not currently have the confidence or skills to manage remote learning and require support.
● While access to digital technologies and the internet is high in Australia, there is still evidence of a digital divide, with poorer Australians and those in remote locations being relatively disadvantaged.
● Many remote-learning programs exist and may be leveraged to help support the learning of vulnerable students at home. However:
○ the basic human needs of students must first be met in order for education programs to be able to succeed;
○ there is no one-size-fits-all approach that can work; and
○ programs should be tailored to meet the specific needs of vulnerable students."
This paper particularly focuses on factors that will impede access to quality education, of the effects on the more vulnerable groups, and it outlines models of support and recovery that evidence suggests are useful. This brief synthesis draws parallels from literature on natural disasters and school interruptions such as school holidays, teacher strikes, economic downturn, and natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes.
According to the Productivity Commission, disadvantage in Australia needs to be assessed against three metrics: relative income poverty, material deprivation (inability to afford life’s essentials), and social exclusion. Children experiencing these metrics can include those living very low SES contexts, jobless households, children with special needs either physical or psychological, children with language other than English backgrounds and refugee populations, rural and remote contexts, and Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait islanders. Recently, low digital inclusion has been considered an additional category particularly when this interacts with the other categories.
It is useful to consider the impact of the current pandemic from a Population Life Course perspective which illustrates the determinants of Education and its efforts in in reducing vulnerability. The figure below illustrates the trajectory for those in the existing vulnerable, the potential vulnerable and the protected categories within the population along with those determinants of education that drive the curve up or down.
Australian children living in poverty will experience exacerbated risk as a consequence of the COVID-19 school interruption. For children at risk of missing approximately 10 weeks of in school education, (with the possibility of further disruption over a longer period), given the context in that they live; it’s probable that there will be a significant interruption of learning, access to support for health and well-being, a decrease in the development of individual protective factors, and a lack of surveillance systems to identify issues that school provides.
Subsequently, the equity gap will increase and for many, the chance of recovery from the impact of living in these vulnerable contexts will be diminished. Essentially, there is the probability that across this education life course, the size of the vulnerable group will increase. Those on the cusp of vulnerability will have the greatest movement.
Currently we can define our major disadvantaged groups, and it is expected that students with the following characteristics (Table 1) are most likely to be affected by the current suspension of normal schooling. We expect that these students will experience an interactive effect of CoVID19 and any prior disadvantage. Specifically, as a consequence of the pandemic, students are likely to experience:
1. Increased stress, social and emotional concerns with possible behavioural issues arising.
2. Struggle with low self-regulation to maintain learning progression, that has been highly dependent on the teacher
3. No access to quality learning strategies and guidance necessary to promote development
4. Less educational resources and activities relative to peers in particular in relation to limited digital engagement
5. Continued and reaffirming experience of past lack of progress in school
6. Will have little concept of themselves as a learner at school, and likely the same at home. Hence impacting on future engagement in schooling such as absenteeism and dropouts
7. Lack of facility in critical reading and numeracy skills to move to the next level, and more likely to become part of the ‘low Matthew effect’
8. Living in homes which are not safe havens (for many of these students, school is the safe haven), there will be an exacerbation of physical and emotional health issues
9. Parents who have low capacity or desire to engage them in the schoolwork at home and who ignore or permit no engagement with schoolwork.
10. Upper high school preparing for high stakes exams will lose the opportunity to engage
The Table below attempts to summarise the depth of ‘risk exacerbation’ as a consequence of the pandemic by indicating with Green for a minimum effect, Orange for a medium effect, and Red, for the greatest level of exacerbation. The figure demonstrates the relationship between exiting risk categories and like area of impact.
Many of these students are likely to be already ‘at risk.’ The absence from regular class, and support suggests that the level of risk and the number of comorbidities is likely to be exacerbated. Hence the recovery will be much more difficult.
It must also be acknowledged that within these categories there are subsets of students who are successful despite the categorisation of some level risk and in fact some will do better as a consequence of the current crisis.
Recovery and Support: what does the evidence suggest? The are many ideas and much rhetoric about recovery, however there is little consolidated evidence on the support needs for vulnerable children and families in times of crisis. The following present a brief over of a number recommendation gleaned from multiple sources.
Recovery takes time There are many national and international frameworks that provide a foundation for recovery after a disaster. The UN Disaster Risk Reduction model (UN, 2015) for example, conceptualises disaster risk relief as a “Build Back Better” system.
This model argues that resilience emerges from a continual, interplaying dynamic cycle between response (immediate) recovery (short-term) and preparedness (medium-term). The domains of action include teaching & learning; capacity and capability; engagement, coordination, and communications; infrastructure; assessment, policy, and planning.
Disaster response and management has several phases and it is worth drawing on these phases to consider educations response to the current COVID-19 crisis and beyond. In many recovery programs, the government-assisted stage can be separated into distinct but overlapping phases that delineate an early recovery phase. This is important as it stresses the transition from the immediate response to recovery efforts over time, as in the figure below (The Community Recovery Handbook, 2018, p. 32).While the framework below, is based on a community response model it provides a valuable template for the school sectors phased response to the current crisis and particularly for vulnerable students.
Invest in Support community & cultural engagement Evidence based multisectoral approaches Students stay home with contact options and suggestion of activity digital or otherwise.
...
Understand the context: Successful recovery is based on an understanding of the community context.
1. Recognise complexity: Successful recovery is responsive to the complex and dynamic nature of both emergencies and communities.
2. Use community-led approaches: Successful recovery is community-centred, responsive and flexible, engaging with communities and supporting them to move forward.
3. Excellent diagnosis of every student comparing their expected growth prior to COVID-19, to detect where extra attention and programs is needed.
4. Coordinate all activities: Successful recovery requires a planned, coordinated and adaptive approach based on continuing assessment of impacts and needs.
5. Communicate effectively: Successful recovery is built on effective communication between the affected community and other partners.
6. Recognise and build capacity: Successful recovery recognises, supports and builds on individual and community strengths.
Ultimately, it is important that education recovery operations must draw attention to incorporating “children’s unique mental health, physical health, educational, childcare, and juvenile justice needs into all phases of the disaster life cycle”.
Recommendations
1. Recovery needs a collective response that builds long term relationships
2. Success is dependent on teachers and schools
3. Shift the focus and build adaptive resilience through the provision of services to support socially and emotionally
4. Ensure ongoing communication with vulnerable children and families
5. Support and professional learning for teachers is essential
6. Provision of targeted content
7. Consider the investment in multiple forms and mode of resources for all.
8. Increase digital inclusion
9. Building an evidence basis: Evaluation assessments, monitoring data linking "
"The situation for indigenous Australians also presents challenges. ICT inclusion of indigenous Australians remains lower than the national average and while it has risen in the past year, the rate of this rise is slower than the national average (Thomas et al., 2019). Indigenous students tend to have less experience with ICT, with only 37 per cent of indigenous students reporting more than seven years of computer experience, compared with 51 per cent of non- Indigenous students (Fraillon et al., 2013). Fewer indigenous students report using computers at least weekly at school compared with non-indigenous students (ACER, 2013)"
"... Globally, while some countries have opted for a mass school shut-down, many schools remain open for more vulnerable students (UNESCO, 2020a). This "partial closure" is not only to enable learning in smaller targeted groups but also to offer a "safe" sanctuary for those who desperately need a regulated and secure environment including the provision of "free" hot food and also, company.
In summary, currently within Australia if there were mass school closures there is potential for around four million students to be affected:
In 2019, there were 3,948,811 students enrolled in 9,503 schools, with 2,263,207 primary students and 1,680,504 secondary students.
If 20 per cent of these young people are living in financially disadvantaged or low socioeconomic status (SES) communities and are required to study off campus then around 800,000 will be subjected to a range of barriers and/or risks including: • long-term educational disengagement • digital exclusion • poor technology management • increased psychosocial challenges.
UNESCO (2020b) have developed 10 key recommendations to ensure that learning remains uninterrupted during the COVID-19 crisis (see Appendix One). There is global evidence of countries adopting, to some degree, at least seven of these recommendations during mass closures, which include:
• examining the readiness of the school for closure (including the technology available)
• ensuring distance learning programs aim for inclusivity
• prioritising solutions to address psychosocial challenges before teaching
• providing support to teachers and parents on the use of digital tools
• blending appropriate approaches and limiting the number of applications and platforms used
• developing distance learning rules and actively monitoring students’ learning process
• creating communities that enhance connection."
Secondary school students from low SES backgrounds, and the parents, have been found to be more risk averse than their peers in deciding if they should go to university (Raciti, 2019). This was based on a national survey of more than a thousand people. While this result is well researched, I don't agree with the researchers recommendations for changing these student's minds about attending university. The student's fears are well founded. Convincing students to attend university, rather than undertake vocational education and training (VET), may not only be against the interest of those individual students, but also costing the community more, and harming the Australian economy.
The risks from attending university for low SES students are very real, and not going to university straight out of school is a rational choice. Rather than try to convince students to make the risky choice of university first, I suggest we need to change the educational system to support students, regardless of SES status, to all consider vocational education before university. This is a much safer option for low SES students. Students who choose VET first are making a smaller investment in education, in terms of time and money, with more secure employment prospects. These students can attend university later, for further qualifications. This approach benefits not just low SES students, as older more mature people, with work experience, make better university students.
At present, VET is considered a poor second choice: what those who can't get into university do. That could be changed by promoting integrated VET studies in schools, and by fixing the current broken VET funding model. Government funding can also be changed to encourage universities to better integrate with VET.
The ten risks for students identified in Professor Raciti's study were:
Functional and future work risk
Financial and resource risk
Psychological risk
Social risk
Time-loss risk
Physical and wellbeing risk
Social class identity risk
Opportunity cost
Competency risk
Overall risk
As someone from a low SES background, and a first in family university generation, I can identify with those risks.
