Bruce Waldrip’s research while affiliated with University of Tasmania and other places

Student engagement in learning science is both a desirable goal and a long-standing teacher challenge. Moving beyond engagement understood as transient topic interest, we argue that cognitive engagement entails sustained interaction in the processes of how knowledge claims are generated, judged, and shared in this subject. In this paper, we particularly focus on the initial claim-building aspect of this reasoning as a crucial phase in student engagement. In reviewing the literature on student reasoning and argumentation, we note that the well-established frameworks for claim-judging are not matched by accounts of creative reasoning in claim-building. We develop an exploratory framework to characterise and enact this reasoning to enhance engagement. We then apply this framework to interpret two lessons by two science teachers where they aimed to develop students’ reasoning capabilities to support learning.

The study analysed profiles of students’ argumentation and how lessons may develop students’ argumentation skills. The study was conducted at two Indonesian progressive private schools and a school located in Australian low socio-economic community. This study explored possibilities to draw together results from two different research approaches typical to each country. The Indonesian research project used paper and pencil tests and interviews to investigate students’ argumentation skills, while the Australian research project analysed videos of the lessons. The Indonesian study finds that there is no significant different between two types of schools and gender. The Australian classroom showed shifts in creative dispositions that include the argumentation processes but not a consistent pattern between classes. The Australian teachers actively required students to make claims, explore the robustness of these claims, transferred these claims to new settings and to think of alternative explanations that encouraged students to construct more coherent arguments. This study finds that interpreting and re-interpreting two different research approaches can produce insights that benefit both sides as it can account for the context and needs of each country. In addition, combining of two different methodologies provided perspectives often not collected through single methodologies.

This article focuses on a Personalised Learning model which has 19 scales that were used to evaluate regional students’ perceptions of their readiness to learn, assessment processes, engagement, extent to which their learning is personalised and their associations with academic efficacy, academic achievement and student well-being. The data came from an average of 2700 students during each year of a 3-year study in six schools in provincial Victoria. A previously reported instrument was developed to measure students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the above factors affecting the implementation of Personalised Learning Plans (PLPs). It employed the latest scales to assess a range of PLP indicator variables, with all scales modified for use in an Australian context and with the total number of items kept to a minimum. Only scales that were more sensitive to PLPs were used in order to minimise the length of the instrument. There were three outcome variables: academic efficacy, academic achievement and student well-being. The emergent model demonstrates that addressing personalisation of learning and well-being depends on a combination of factors rather than “just getting one factor right”. This implies that there is a need for a coherent and collaborative approach for addressing the needs of students of low socioeconomic status.

In this paper we examine how agency is characterised by teachers and students when personalised learning is enacted in the contemporary open classroom. A case study is outlined that identifies teacher reasoning for practice, the use of physical and virtual learning spaces, and student reaction to teacher facilitation of personalised learning. Agency is conceptualized as a multi-faceted set of behavioural, affective and cognitive choices, as realised by both teachers and students, drawing upon the action possibilities of contemporary educational contexts. A model of the mutuality of teacher and student agency is outlined. The model shows how a shared understanding of the affordances of flexible learning spaces and personalised learning interact to both produce teacher and student expectations and perceptions of their own and other’s choices and actions. Specific student choices and actions are examined in relation to problem-solving and open access of resources to achieve the task requirements. Implications are noted for teaching and learning in modern school contexts.

Promoting student voice in school learning is now broadly advocated to enhance the quality and personalised nature of this learning (Beattie, 2012; Elias, 2010; Mitra & Gross, 2009). In this chapter we report on a program where Year 8 low SES students participated in peer formative assessment in a humanities inquiry-based project, where they chose both the type and context of learning activities, and were taught by three teachers in an open-plan setting.

Mathematics educators now broadly agree about key dimensions of quality mathematics programs and experiences (Schoenfeld, 2014), but achieving these practices in schools with high concentrations of low SES students remains a challenge in many countries (Black, 2007; Greeno & Collins, 2008). In this chapter we first review current understandings of what enables quality learning in mathematics, as a basis for reporting on the impacts of personalised learning approaches to this subject in three of the BEP colleges: Whirrakee, Ironbark and Melaleuca.

In assessing a major educational reform of the kind enacted in the BEP, many questions are raised, requiring comprehensive, evidence-based answers. Was the original Plan well-conceptualised and effectively enacted to meet the needs of these twenty-first century learners? What are the short-term and long-term effects of this major reorganisation of schooling? What are the gains and losses (if any) of this approach? To what extent were initial goals achieved, and enacted strategies effective, and why? How sustainable are the emerging signs of positive changes to student academic attainment and wellbeing? What are lessons for like contexts and future schooling? Elsewhere (Prain et al., 2014), we have sought to answer some of these questions around BEP goals, implementation strategies, and outcomes, including key enablers and constraints.

Thanks Dr Dave. I’m glad you like the idea for my Spider-Bat and I will definitely try and fix those ears and I agree that my critter does seem a little defenceless. I will make sure to think about some ways in which my Spider-Bat can avoid being lunch!! Thanks again.