Smith and Lynch 2004 A New Paradigm in Training Teachers for a New World David Lynch and Richard Smith 2004 The world is changing and with it a new set of circumstances is impacting upon teaching, schooling and by association, that of teacher education.
This set of
circumstances is known collectively as an emerging Knowledge Economy.
The fundamental proposition underlying this paper is that rapid and irreversible social changes that affect student behaviours, work place conditions and the knowledge and skill base require a reassessment of teaching and ultimately, the ways schooling itself operates. It follows that preparing teachers for these conditions, that are already upon school systems now, entails a different kind of curriculum and a decidedly different work place in which prospective teachers (‘learning managers’) can develop a futures capability.
This paper explores these propositions with particular emphasis on
‘learning management’ exemplified in Central Queensland University’s Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM), designed in collaboration with teachers, school authorities and teachers’ unions. This paper has four parts. In part one the emerging Knowledge Economy is examined for its impacts on teaching, schooling and by association that of teacher education. Part two overviews current teaching practice, where it is argued that teaching has not kept pace with changes in the economy. In part three the concept of Learning Management is explored as the fundamental principle of teaching and learning activities in a ‘knowledge age’ context. Part four concludes the article where the BLM is detailed as a change strategy for the teaching profession in the 2000 epoch.
The Emergence of A Knowledge Economy The term Knowledge Economy was coined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in their report The Knowledge-based Economy (OECD, 1996). The term describes the emergence of economies based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information. By comparison, the economy of the twentieth century relied predominantly on the sale of raw resources, commodities and primary processing to generate income and wealth. The
1
Smith and Lynch 2004 key commodity in the Knowledge Economy, by contrast, is ‘knowledge’ and its use to create new products and services (Donkin, 1998; Gibbons, Limoges, Notwotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow, 1994). Characteristic of the Knowledge Economy are ‘man-made brain power industries’ where there is rapid development, and the subsequent merging of new information and communication technologies, creating a global inter-connected economy (Thurow, 2000,p: 1). In this global economy, time and distance are compressed through advances in information communication technologies and travel, leading to the intertwining of the world’s economic and cultural systems, in a process known as Globalisation (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons, 2001). Globalisation is defined as “a set of economic, social, technological, political as well as cultural structures and processes arising from the changing character of the production, consumption and trade of goods and assets that comprise the base of the international political economy” (Milani and Dehalvi, 1996, p:3). Globalisation is one of many phenomena within the Knowledge Economy, and is the result of a larger building process of a world markets that started when mankind first began exploring the world by land and sea expeditions (Thurow,2000; Milani and Dehalvi,1996). The principal driving force in the globalisation process today is the search by both private and public firms for worldwide profit. Their efforts made possible by advances in information communication technologies and by decreasing transport and communication costs. These advancements and efficiencies are allowing business to be conducted at any time of the day and contact to be made with all countries by ‘jet age’ travel or by using a range of information communication technologies (Thurow, 2000). An effect of globalisation is an increasing structural differentiation of such goods and assets, having spread across traditional political borders and economic sectors, resulting in a greater influence of political and economic changes. Consequently governments of today are dispensing with their ‘regulator role’ or the function of controlling their national economies “to become ‘platform builders’ that invest in infrastructure, education and research and development, so as to allow their citizens to have the opportunity to earn world class standards of living” (Thurow, 2000, p:1). The ‘Smart State’ strategy in Queensland is one such example of governments coming to 2
Smith and Lynch 2004 terms with the Knowledge Economy and the resultant effects of globalisation (Beattie,1999). In contrast to the previous industrial economy, working in the ‘new economy’ puts a premium on familiarity with networked knowledge rather than with scarcity. In the Knowledge Economy, the more networks individual have, the higher the value of relationships. People steeped in the industrial-era model tend not to comprehend this new mode of operating (Barlow in Tunbridge, 1995), and to survive in their industry use ‘union muscle’ to maintain the status quo and thereby protect their employment. This mindset ultimately shortens their employment tenure as ‘employers’ turn to technology-based innovations for solutions (Ilon, 2000). The structure and character of families in the Knowledge Economy has changed from the nuclear family of the ‘home’ and the nurturing family assumed in much curriculum development in schools. There are new patterns of employment and underemployment, greater mobility and new concentrations of poverty in both rural and urban settings and a redefining of what constitutes work and employment; collectively creating uncertainty for families and family-life (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons, 2001; Edgar, 1999; Ilon, 2000). The characteristics of the average worker in western economies, for example, and the nature of work itself have changed enormously over the past few decades. Part-time, temporary and casual work, coupled with an upward trend in unemployment and the widening earning dispersion has become ‘the norm’ in the ‘job market’, while privatisation, deregulation and downsizing of public services, and more and more pressure on business to increase productivity has been characteristic of the workplace (Doyle, Kurth and Kerr, 2000, pp1-2). Commentators such as Ilon (2000), Thurow (2000), Starr (2001) argue that advances in various technologies have had and will continue to have an impact on the labour market. Thus, “technological advancement will certainly destroy many jobs, however at the same time it will create many new and as yet unknown employment opportunities, changing dramatically the balance of skill requirements” (OECD, 1996, p. 14). The skill elements referred to are ones that place great importance on the diffusion and use of information and knowledge as well as its creation. This skill-
3
Smith and Lynch 2004 base, it is argued, will allow incumbents to gather and utilise knowledge, where strategic ‘know-how’ and competence are developed interactively and shared within sub-groups and networks. Continual innovation and learning will be driven by a hierarchy of networks. (OECD, 1996). There are two dominant views of education and the role it should play, in a Knowledge Economy. One set of literature contends that a Knowledge Economy driven by technology has the potential to reverse trends in differential access to educational resources and/or confers on students an increased set of skills and opportunities. In this view, educators need only to ride the wave and recognise the increased opportunities when they appear (Binge, 1998; Groennings, 1997). The second view is that an increased linkage between education and the economy is an element of global capitalist hegemony that weakens non-market values of humanitarianism, equity and ecology. In this view, education ought to generate resistance to ‘marketisation’ (De Vaney, 1998; Chafy, 1997; Moran & Selfe, 1999). Nevertheless, both views assume that the most important role for educators to play is to respond to a Knowledge Economy (Ilon, 2000,p:1). Therein lies the challenge for teachers into the future and that which constitutes the thesis of this paper. In the section that follows, we outline teaching practice as it currently operates in schools, arguing such is a carry-over from the Industry Era of the Nineteenth Century and not appropriate for a Knowledge Economy context. The characteristics of current teaching practices According to Ryan (1998b), current teaching practice is characteristically a ‘teacher centred activity’ where content is transmitted to students in a passive learning process known universally around the world as ‘schooling’ (Ryan,1998b).
Schooling is
constructed throughout the world as compulsory formal education, centred within an institution known as a ‘school,’ where classes of students are made (cohorts) based upon age-related grades (Ryan, 1998 Hargreaves, 1998).
In the schooling model, students attend a state funded or privately operated school, usually established and operated by a religious order, for 180-200 days per year from age of six, predominantly use pencil and paper as the key learning tool, an allocated 4
Smith and Lynch 2004 text-book in secondary schools, and conduct themselves according to various long established traditions and models of operations drawn from the military [such as; parades, marching, lining-up, uniforms, and referring to adults by title or formal salutation] (Ryan, 1998; Logan and Watson, 1992 ). Current schooling practice had its origins in research conducted by a industrial era management expert named Frederick Winslow Taylor (Hood, 1999). According to Taylor, basic skills, uniformity and conformity were what a mass production form of education required. Taylor observed in 1900 that "the antithesis of our scheme, is asking the initiative (of the workers)...their workmanship, their best brains and their best work...our scheme does not ask any initiative in a man." (Kanigel, 1997). Taylor’s work is characterized in education by words such as; instruction, subjects, grades, modules, tasks, assignments, programs, tests, intelligence measurement, placement, specialization, etc- each now integral to the organisational language set of schools and school personnel. In a pedagogic sense, Taylor’s schooling model is based on ‘teacher centred’ activity, where systemically developed syllabi and associated curriculum guidelines provide teachers with defined content to ‘be covered’ during a given school year, through a series of ‘age related’ groupings. In this organisational model, students that demonstrate capacity with an ever increasing level of ‘education’ continue on to further study, while others will ‘drop-out’ and begin work (Presnsky, 2002; Wise, 2002). In a Knowledge Economy context ‘dropping out’ holds no scope, as jobs and work is tied to ones ability to use, generate and manipulate new and different kinds of knowledge which has the prerequisite need for ongoing education and training. Current teaching practice has the impact of Further, recentRecent advances in learning-based technologies (see for example Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, Means, 2000; OECD, 2002) provide understandings today that a ‘one-size-fits-all system’ fails to recognize the many different kinds of aptitudes, interests and experiences, and that therefore many students become bored and disinterested with the whole process. Schooling practices endeavour to compensate for the loss of intrinsic interest in the work itself by providing extrinsic
5
Smith and Lynch 2004 rewards (such as; marks, grades, prizes, scholarships), so keeping people going in things that don't interest them. "Most of the time, what keeps students going in school is not intrinsic motivation - motivation derived from the process of learning itself - but extrinsic motivation - motivation that comes from the real or perceived consequences associated with success or failure...over the course of their educational careers, students are increasingly exposed to extrinsic rewards for schoolwork" (Steinberg, 1997). Teaching in a Knowledge Economy context requires Commentators (such as Lynch and Smith 2002; Abbot and Ryan 1998; Hargreaves, 1997), argue the current teaching workforce, as a pool of expertise and authority (i.e. intellectual capital) in the various education systems, has not universally had the disposition, knowledge and skill to re-engineer education systems for the new historical epoch in the 2000s period, as defined in the previous discussion. There are prima facie grounds for the redesign of schooling and teaching practices for a Knowledge Economy (Ramsey,2000; Education Queensland,2000; Smith, 2000; Gardner, 1999; Foley, 1998). We contend the challenge for education systems and the education profession itself, is to redesign teaching so it fits the characteristics of a Knowledge Economy.
In the section that follows, a pedagogic philosophy known as Learning Management, is explored as a template for teacher activity in a Knowledge Economy context. Learning Management as a New Age Teaching and Learning Concept The term Learning management of course has little to do with ‘management’ as it is used in ‘managerial’ or ‘control’ or even ‘bureaucratic’ contexts. Instead, it is a phrase about a determination to achieve ‘learning’ outcomes. Importantly the ‘learning management’ concept drives every element of the new BLM, making the degree distinctive.
6
Smith and Lynch 2004 According to Bruce Archer (cited in Fletcher, 2000, p. 413), the phrase ‘reading, writing, rithmetic’ is a misquotation of an earlier aphorism: ‘reading and writing, reckoning and figuring, wroughting and wrighting’. While the derivation of ‘literacy’ and ‘numeracy’ is straight forward, the terms ‘wroughting and wrighting’ are less obvious. The terms mean the ‘creation’ and ‘the making of things’ respectively and Fletcher suggests that the most appropriate word to capture ‘wroughting and wrighting’ is ‘design’.
Design is an artful arrangement of materials and
circumstances into a planned form, a goal-directed problem-solving activity. Thus, a ‘learning manager’ designs the pedagogical strategies that they advertise themselves as being able to perform, judged by the criteria of learner outcomes.
In short, learning management is the capacity to design pedagogic strategies that ensure learning outcomes in students or other kinds of clients (P-85). By extension, learning managers are found in most professional fields in what Lundvall and Borras (1999) call the ‘learning society’ because the capacity to learn is a generic skill for knowledge workers in knowledge industries.
THIS SECTION NEEDS TO CONNECT TO THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY SECTION AND CONTRAST THAT OF THE PREVIOUS SECTION.
In the section that follows, we overview the Bachelor of Learning Management, which embeds the concept of Learning Management as its central philosophy, as a strategy that enables future teachers to respond to a Knowledge Economy.
The Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM) Program
The Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM) is a pre-service professional learning degree, anchored in the four imperatives set out earlier, concepts drawn from the ‘New Economy’ and its successors and educational writing (Reigeluth, 1999; Grossman, 1990; 2001; Shulman, 1986; Topper, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; & Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000). It was developed in late 2000 by a Working Party comprised of the teaching profession and the university. At the time of writing, there are over 1000 students enrolled in the degree at sites in Mackay,
7
Smith and Lynch 2004 Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg and Noosa.
The first BLM graduates
completed in 2003.
The degree is a four year program as required by the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration, but can be completed in three years according to the term structure employed by Central Queensland University. Its futures orientation is revealed in the revisionist curriculum, consisting of four content elements: Futures; Networks and Partnerships; Pedagogy; and Essential Professional Knowledge. These four areas contribute the 32 courses necessary for completing the degree. Course titles signal the purposes of the degree and include Learning Management, Networks and Partnerships, e-Learning Manager, Entrepreneurial Professional and Portal Task, amongst others. The BLM contains a compulsory ‘internship,’ which commences for final year students on ‘day one’ of the school year (pre-internship), culminating in a continuous work experience (Internship). The internship is authorised by the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration so that, essentially, the student can undertake the full round of professional activities in the workplace. The internship enables the student learning manager to demonstrate the identity and workplace transition from ‘student’ to ‘Learning Manager’, that guarantees employability capability to employers, parents and children.
The program depends entirely on collaboration between professional partners with different but equal expertise, what we call a ‘business-to-business’ (‘B-2-B’) model. The agreed goal is to graduate ‘industry-ready’ ‘learning managers’ (teachers) who have a futures-disposition and a demonstrated capability to achieve learning outcomes in students and who are equipped to play a leadership role in taking the education sector 5-10 years into the future.
The collaborative model is a fundamental issue. Apart from the warm feeling invoked by terms such as ‘partnership’, the futures-orientation and disposition that the BLM seeks to produce in its graduates, is also aimed at increasing the capability of the education system to deliver the goals set out in policies such as 2010, ETRF and [Cathed]. A major requirement of the partnership arrangement then is not only 8
Smith and Lynch 2004 collaboration and joint decision-making, but a commitment to the vision and outcomes of the BLM on the part of lecturers, teachers, casual lecturing staff, schools and systems. What used to be called ‘fieldwork supervision’ is undertaken by schoolbased ‘learning managers’ who are bound to complete an induction program about ‘learning management’ before taking up the mentoring and ‘expert’ role. In keeping with the B-2-B model, the induction sessions are organised and presented by collaborative teams drawn from the different interests in the BLM. Each BLM student has an assigned ‘in-school Learning Manager’ who provides a range of services to students while in schools, such as; ‘just-in-time’ learning to contextualize and strengthen ‘on-campus work’, as well as individualised attention through coaching and mentoring. The Learning Manager is assisted by a team of classroom practitioners who act as ‘in-class supervisors’ for specific skill development.
There is a major difficulty with this model and indeed with all teacher education (nursing, social work etc) models that rely on fieldwork. Rather than merely imitating what schools and teachers do, teacher education, like art, depends on the world it mocks for its performances, resources and its performance sites. If the BLM is to be a driving force for educational and social change, it must be transgressive in principle: affected by ‘real-life’ practice and performance, but affecting the education and training markets, social trends in education and training and the individual performances of teachers and students.
In short, there must be a ‘process’, sui
generis, to reach preferred states such as ‘the future’. For the BLM partners, the mechanism for change is that the work force involved with the BLM, and new graduates, will transform practices more widely in places like schools that are themselves evolving. In brief the ‘process’ in the BLM takes three forms. Firstly the tradition university lecture/ workshop regime has evolved to series of ‘underpinnings’. At our Noosa Hub, for example, underpinnings comprise facilitated colloquiums, virtual conferences, online learning segments, e-resources banks, and various multi-media presentations (accessed by students real-time ‘on-campus’, at home or wherever computer access is available), mimicking the profile of the Knowledge Economy. Importantly lecturers 9
Smith and Lynch 2004 have evolved to managers of BLM student learnings, recognising the individual and modelling the paradigm that underpins the philosophy of learning management. Secondly students are appointed to an accredited ‘teaching school’ (there is a parallel to the ‘teaching hospital’ used by medical schools) from week 1 of their BLM program where they complete a series of embedded learning tasks (known as Portal Tasks) and associated ‘just-in-time’ learning sessions. This ‘appointment’ embeds the student’ in the work of a learning manager where performance, in terms of achieving learning outcomes, is focal.
Thirdly, a pedagogic framework, known as the 8 Learning Management Questions, scaffolds student learning1. These questions provide a design sequence that compels the student and mentor teachers (‘learning managers’) to focus on learning outcomes for their allocated class, establishing a framework through which to do it. Once graduated, the same questions act as a mechanism so the ‘novice learning manager’ can transition in their school-based workplace from an industrial age deliverer of ‘content’ (teacher), where a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach predominates, to a new age ‘learning manager, where they acts as a ‘managers of student centred learning’, mirroring their teacher preparation philosophies. The 8 Learning Management Questions (8LMQs) direct students and their mentors to diagnose the learner(s); analyse the situation; judge the availability of resources and plan accordingly; design strategies to achieve learner outcomes; implement strategies; evaluate their effectiveness; and use feedback to re-design another cycle.
This
process is analogous to scientific methods that use continuous experimentation to reach desired outcomes. The product of answering the 8LMQs is termed a Learning Management Plan. The 8LMQs are grouped into three strategies. Questions 1-3 orientate the student to their learners in a process broadly referred to as ‘profiling’. LMQs 4-8 are about ‘designing learning experiences’. In this phase, the student begins to develop a series of learning experiences, known as a Learning Journey or a Unit of Work, using the ‘answers’ to LMQs 1-3 as the contextual profile. Questions 7 and 8 are about 1
This is the scheme developed by David Lynch at the Noosa Hub.
10
Smith and Lynch 2004 ascertaining student achievement. The compilation of the 8 LMQs becomes the student learning manager’s plan of action and a teaching/ learning cycle is commenced. For students in the BLM program, the capacity to design pedagogic strategies that achieve learning outcomes in students or other clients is the primary aim. While BEd on-campus work has traditionally articulated many theories and strategies that are associated with effective pedagogy, each has rested on the false assumption that coursework is automatically translated by student teachers into actionable sequences during fieldwork (Korthagen, 2001; Smith, 2000; Tom, 1997). To paraphrase Stephenson (2000: 10), the BLM processes are aimed at the autonomous development of the neophyte learning manager, with the university supporting the student’s development in the context of the employer’s business, whether it is the government, catholic, independent or VET sectors and irrespective of the P-85 location.
The employers’ benefits are both immediate through the
availability of ‘another set of hands’ and a transgressive outlook and long-term through the creation of a collective capacity to manage change within a changing environment.
The respective interests of the three parties in this partnership is
protected by the student learner’s commitment to the purposes, directions and content of the learning; by the university’s specialist facilities and access to accreditation; and by the employer providing opportunities to learn through work with access to resources and help. Indeed, at all of the 5 BLM sites, the major employers provide significant resources as part of the BLM partnership2 This is not ‘teacher education’ but an intervention in the present and future capability of the education and training workforce.
To these ends, we are especially vigilant about student learning managers overly relying on their own experiences at school to ‘fill in the gaps’ rather than having a learning management agenda to follow (Korthagen, 2001; Smith, 2000; Tom, 1997). In practice, the school-based (teacher) learning managers have a particular mission to
The Noosa Hub (Pomona delivery site) is a state high school and through a Memorandum of Understanding between Education Queensland and CQU significant resources are provided to support the delivery of the BLM program there. 2
11
Smith and Lynch 2004 fulfil, namely the inculcation of pedagogic scaffolds, such as the 8LMQs, that bridges the ‘theory- practice’ divide and that articulates remarkable pedagogic activity for the learning manager novice. At the very heart of the BLM approach to teacher education are ‘Portal Tasks’ that are embedded in each year level.
Portal Tasks are the conceptual and practical
mechanism through which ‘theory’ is connected to ‘practice’, and ‘content’ to demonstrable student outcomes, by means of creative tasks and assessment. An analogy may be seen in the World Wide Web where a portal is a web site (e.g., the search engines Yahoo or Google) acting as a “doorway” to useful pages, and possible news or other services. To bring the analogy back to the university model Portal Tasks require and encourage collaborative [net]works between university staff, school-based administrative staff and classroom teachers. This imperative means that the former ‘distant’ relationship of the university towards ‘prac schools’ cannot be sustained. New, equally responsible arrangements have been hammered out to implement the BLM and to sustain it across different employers and levels of schooling. For most BLM students, portal tasks are undertaken in schools or training institutions but could include other sites as well. The Portal Tasks culminate in a 50 day internship. In this way, the theory and its application are both a body of thought and a lived experience. These two aspects are inseparable. Any excessive slipping one way or the other, to the side of analytic learning theory or to the side of practical experience, is a deviation from the domain of ‘learning management’. A Portal Task is defined for student teachers as a ‘problem-based learn by doing task’ and its composition is the product of a university / school collaboration. A Portal Task has four distinct components: (1) a series of agreed developmental outcomes, (2) a task descriptors which details the scope and sequence of the Portal Task, (3) a performance criteria which articulates performance across a series of developmental levels, and which is used to assess the student learning manager and (4) a schedule of agreed times for staging the Portal Task. A Portal Task begins life in discussions held between the university Education Faculty and the ‘in-school’ mentor known as the (student’s) Learning Manager. From
12
Smith and Lynch 2004 these collaborations a ‘task’, typical of daily teacher activity (commensurate to the student’s developmental level), yet articulated as ‘achieving learning outcomes in students’, is developed and embedded in the in-school learning manager’s daily teaching program. This is an important innovation as it ensures class time is not lost through misaligned university requirements and importantly that the host class mutually benefits from the experience. The outcome for student learning managers is a rich embedded task which gives them insight and skilling commensurate to effective pedagogic practice. Once the Portal Task is developed and agreed to, the University Faculty begins to plan its ‘on-campus’ work for students. This planning is constituted as a ‘backward mapping exercise’, where the Portal Task informs a series of lectures, workshops and tutorials. The student’s participation in the Portal Task, planned by them using a Learning Management Plan based on the 8 LMQs, makes their engagement to university underpinnings explicit and evident in the context of a ‘real’ learning site, and so the theory / practice divide is closed. Conclusion Teacher education needs to be re-engineered to meet the profile of an emerging knowledge-based economy and with it the new life and work prospects that face incumbent students in schools today. The BLM provides a realistic response to the rapidly changing needs of school students in an era of accelerated and diverse knowledge acquisition, assimilation and application. Recognising that teacher education is no longer a ‘university problem’ but rather an education industry responsibility, the BLM and its associated delivery mechanisms have developed collaborative arrangements amongst faculty and the local teaching profession to redesign and implement an effective, flexible and adaptive teacher education program.
The Bachelor of Learning Management strengthens and builds on the university school link by giving prominence to the acquisition of positive, first-hand educational experiences for student teachers working under the carefully supervised guidance of experienced, practising professional educators in schools. The initiatives exemplified in the BLM demonstrates one way in which to reforge the partnerships between schools, teachers and teacher education programs within universities, and position the 13
Smith and Lynch 2004 teacher of tomorrow for work in a context of technological innovation, ongoing change and resultant uncertainty.
14
Smith and Lynch 2004 Reference List ABBOTT, J. and RYAN, T. (1998), “Making the Case: Understanding the Disconnects that Explain Why Good Schools Will Never be Good Enough to Meet the Learning Needs of Children in the 21st Century”, House of Commons Parliamentary Monitor, May. ANTA. (1999), ‘A new look at the labour market’, August, Brisbane, ANTA. Bauman, Z. (1997), “Universities: Old, New and Different”, in Anthony Smith and Frank Webster (Eds.) The Postmodern University? Contested visions of Higher education in Society. Buckingham: Society For Research into Higher Education & Open University press, pp. 18-26. BARLOW, J.(1995) cited in Tunbridge, N., (1995). “The Cyberspace Cowboy”, Australian Personal Computer. September. Bentley, T. (1998), ‘Learning Beyond the Classroom: educating for a changing world’, pp. 38, Routledge, London. BEATTIE, P. (1999), “ A Brighter Future for Our Kids in the Smart State”, Luncheon on Education, Brisbane Institute, Brisbane, December 14. Beattie, M. (1997), “Fostering reflective practice in teacher education: inquiry as a framework for the construction of a professional knowledge in teaching”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 25, No 2, pp. 111-128. Beck, Clive., & Kosnik, Clare. (2002), “Professors and the Practicum: Involvement of University Faculty in Preservice Practicum Supervision”. Journal of Teacher Education. Vol 53, No 1, pp. 6-. BINGE, J. (1998) “Communication and intelligence: distance education and culture, Futures”, 30(8), pp. 843-849. Business Week (1999) Class is where the computer is, 11 January, p. 133. Campbell, Jay, R., Kelly, Dana, L., Mullis, Ina, V.S.; Martin, Michael O., & Sainsbury, Marion. (2001), “The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001”, International Study Centre, Lynch School of Education, Boston. Available Casey, B. & Howson, P. (1993), “Educating Preservice Students Based on a ProblemCentred Approach to Teaching”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 44, No 5, pp. 361-369. CHAFY, R. (1997) “Science and Technology Education in China: Skills for Modernization in the Absence of Criticism”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 17(1), pp. 37-46. Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2000), “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: a
15
Smith and Lynch 2004 Review of State Policy Evidence”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, January 2000, Vol 8, No 1. Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000), “Self-regulation of Academic Learning in Middle-level Schools’, The Elementary School Journal, May, Vol 100, No 50, pp. 473-490. DE VANEY, A. (1998) “Can and Need Educational Technology Become a Postmodern Enterprise?”, Theory into Practice, 37(1), pp. 72-80. DONKIN, R. (1998), “Year of the Knowledge Worker”, Financial Times, January 9. DOYLE,L., KURTH, B., AND KERR,E. (2000), Knowledge Work and the Rise of the Office Economy, National Training Authority Report, Brisbane. EDGAR, D. (1999), “Learning to Live with Complexity: Social Trends and Their Impact on Queensland Education”, Discussion Paper for 2010 Queensland State Education, Education Queensland Printer, Brisbane EDUCATION QUEENSLAND (2000), 2010: Queensland State Education, Education Queensland Printer, Brisbane. Freeman, C. and L. Soete: 1997, The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Third edition (Pinter). Fletcher, (2000), The Art of Looking Sideways, New York, Phaidon. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: and How it is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Foley, K. (1998), “The initial transition - from k-12 to post-secondary education: Bridging the Gap through Experiential Learning”, Challenge Paper prepared for the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Giddens, A. (1999), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press, New York. GIBBONS. M., LIMOGES,C. ,NOTWOTNY. H., SCHWARTZMAN,S.,SCOTT, P. and TROW,M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage. Gardner, H. (1985), The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Paladin, London. Gardner, H (1996), “Probing More Deeply into the Theory of Multiple Intelligences”, NASSP Bulletin. Vol 80, No 583, pp. 1-7. Gardner, H. (1999), The Disciplined Mind: What all Students Should Understand, New York, Simon and Schuster, New York. GIBBONS, M. (1994) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge
16
Smith and Lynch 2004 Production. University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RF, located at http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/summer/papers/Michael.Gibbons.html Goodlad, J. (1994), ‘Educational Renewal’, Josey-Bass, San Francisco. Graham, J. (1999), “Improvement through inspection? Quality Assessment and the Role of Ofsted in the Regulation of Teacher Education in England”, AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, Vol 2, No 2, pp. 2941. GROENNINGS, S. (1997), “The Fulbright Program in the Global Knowledge Economy: The Nation's Neglected Comparative Advantage”, Journal of Studies in International Education, 1 (1), pp. 95-105. Grossman, Joy M. (1990, 2001), Tell them who I am: a Book to Help People Understand Children with Attention Deficit Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Social Welfare, Milwaukee, Wis. Hammonds, K. H. (2001), “Ford's Drive for Balance” . Fast Company, May. http://www.fastcompany.com/lead/lead_feature/ford_balancingact.html HARGREAVES, D. (1997) In Defence of Research for Evidence Based Teaching: A Rejoiner to Martyn Hammersley, British Education Research Journal, 23, pp405-419. HARGREAVES, D. (1998), The Argument in Creative Professional: The Role of Teachers in the Knowledge Society, London, Demos, pp13-26 HOOD, D. (1999), Address to The Pacific Vision Conference, New Zealand Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs Conference, Auckland, July 28,1999 , located at www.21learn.org ILON, L. (2000), “Knowledge ,Labour and Education”, Compare, Oxford, October 2000. KANIGEL, R. (1997) , The One Best Way, Viking Penguin: New York. Kelly, K. (1998) New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for Connected World. New York: Viking. Kirby, Peter (Editor). (2000), ‘Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria’, Final Report, DEET, State Government of Victoria. Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Haberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., Welti, M. (Editors). (2001), ‘Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving Among Science, Technology and Society’, Birkhauser, Verlag, Basel, pp. 7. KORTHAGEN, F. (2001), Teacher Education: A Problematic Enterprise, Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp1-19.
17
Smith and Lynch 2004
LOGAN, G. and WATSON, T.,(1992), Soldiers of Service , AEBIS Publishing, Brisbane. Looney, M. & Lyman, P. (2000), “Portals in higher education: What are they, and what is their potential”, Educause, July/August. Lamb, S. & Ball, K. (1999), “Curriculum and Careers: the Education and Labour Market Consequences of Year 12 Subject Choice”, Research Report Number 12, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne. Long, M., Carpenter, P. & Hayden, M. (1999), “Participation in Education and Training 1980-1994”, Research Report Number 13, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne. Lundvall, B-A., Borras, A. (1999) The Globalising Learning Economy. Report based on contributions from seven pilot projects under the TSER programme. Luxembourg: Official Publication of the European Communities. LYNCH,D,. and SMITH, R. ,(2002), “Australian Schooling: What Future?”, Unicorn On-Line Refereed Articles, No:17, Australian College of Educators, located at http://www.austcolled.com.au/resourcespage.html, Martin, Michael O., Mullis, Ina V. S., Gonzalez, Eugenio, J., Smith, Teresa A., & Kelly, Dana L. (1999), ‘School Contexts for Learning and Instruction. The International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1995’, International Study Centre, Lynch School of Education, Boston. Available http://timss.bc.edu/ MILANI, C. and DEHLAVI, A. (1996), Global Transformations and Coping Strategies: a Research Agenda for the MOST Program, United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural organisation, Paris. MORAN, C. & SELFE, C. L. (1999) Teaching English across the Technology/Wealth Gap, English Journal, 88(6), p. 48. NOWOTNY, H., SCOTT, P., GIBBONS, M. (2002), Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity. O’Brien, P. & Burnett, P. C. (2000), ‘Counselling Children using a Multiple Intelligences Framework’, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol 28, No 3, pp. 353-371. OECD (1996), The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD, Paris. OECD Education Committee. (1999), ‘Thematic Review of the Transition from Initial Education to Working Life’, Interim Comparative Report, OECD. OECD. (2000), ‘Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000’, OECD. Available http://www.pisa.oecd.org/knowledge/home/intro.htm
18
Smith and Lynch 2004 OECD (2002) Understanding the Brain: Towards a New Learning Science. Paris: OECD Publications. Pfeffer, J. (1998) “Danger: Toxic Company”. Fast Company, November 19, p. 152. PRENSKY, M. (2002), “Evolving instruction? Seven challenges On The Horizon”, The Strategic Planning Resource for Education Professionals, Emerald, Vol. 10 No. 2 Page: p2l Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Queensland Government (2002) Reforms for the Future Education and Training. A White Paper. Brisbane. Ramsey, G. (2000), ‘Quality matters - Revitalising teaching: critical times, critical choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education’, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999) “What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In Instructional Design Theories and Models”, Volume II: a New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, NJ.: London, Lawrence Erlbaum, 5-29. ROSCHELLE, J., PEA, R., HOADLEY, C., GORDIN,D.,and MEANS,B. (2000), “Changing How and What Children Learn in a School with Computer-based Technologies”, The Future of Children, Los Altos, Vol 10., Issue 2, pp76-110. RYAN, T. (1998 ), “What Changes in Technology and the Economy May Mean for Education Systems” Paper presented at International Conference ‘Media and Education’, Poznan, Poland, April 1998, located at http://www.21learrn.org Scherer, M. (1999), ‘The Understanding Pathway: a conversation with Howard Gardner’, Educational Leadership, Vol 57, No 3, pp. 13-17. Seltzer, K., Bentley, T. (1999) The Creative Age: Knowledge and Skills for the New Economy. London: DEMOS. SMITH, R. (2000), “The Future of Teacher Education: Principles and Prospects”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 28, Number 1. STARR, T. (2001), “Leading the Education Function into the Future”, Benefits Quarterly, Brookfield, Fourth Quarter, 2001. STEINBERG, L. (1997) , Beyond the Classroom, New York: Simon and Schuster. STEPHENSON , J. (1999), “Corporate Capability: Implications for the Style and Direction of Work-based Learning”, Public Lecture at University of Technology Sydney, located at www1.11e.mdx.ac.uk/iclml.asp
19
Smith and Lynch 2004 THUROW, L. (2000), “Globalisation: the Product of a Knowledge-Based Economy”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, July 2000. TOM, A.,(1997) Redesigning Teacher Education, University of New York Press, New York. Topper, A. G. (2000), ‘Teachers' Beliefs About Technology, Teaching, Learning, and their Role in Shaping Plans for Classroom Technology Use’, GVSU School of Education, U.S.A. Available
[email protected] Walters, J. (1992), ‘Application of Multiple Intelligences Research in Alternative Assessment’, Proceedings of the 2nd National Research Symposium on Limited English. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., and Martin, J. E. (2000), ‘Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction’. Exceptional Children, Vol 66, No 4, pp. 439-453. WISE, D. (2002), “When the Art of Teaching Meets the Science of Learning”, Second International Online Conference, Technology College Trust, 13-26 October and 24 November – 7 December, 2002, located at http:www.cybertext.net.au/tct2002/disc_papers/learning/printable/wise%20%20printable.htm
20
Smith and Lynch 2004
21
Smith and Lynch 2004
22
