Lynch and Smith A New Approach to Teacher Education, in the Context of a Knowledgebased Economy David Lynch Richard Smith 2004 This paper is about the Bachelor of Learning Management logic and its realisation at the Noosa campus of CQU. 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, entails a different kind of curriculum and a decidedly different work-place in which prospective teachers (‘learning managers’) can develop a futures capability. To develop these ideas, the paper explores how such presuppositions are played out in the Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM) program at Noosa, when the design process is part of a collaborative project with teachers, students teachers and school authorities. The paper begins with a discussion of the emerging Knowledge Economy. This analysis identifies the impact of rapid and deep social change on teaching, schooling and by association, teacher education. Teaching practices as they appear in today’s schools are discussed next and it is argued that the professional practice of teaching has not kept pace with historical change. This is followed by a brief discussion of the Learning Management concept. Finally, these discussions are brought to bear on the BLM at Noosa as an exemplar of a response to these conditions. The Emergence of A Knowledge Economy The term Knowledge Economy was coined by the Organization 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 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). 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
1
Lynch and Smith such example of governments coming to terms with the Knowledge Economy and the resultant effects of globalisation (Beattie,1999). 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-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). In a Knowledge Economy there are two dominant views of education and the role it should play. 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 confers on students an increased set of skills and opportunities. In this view, education is a driver and the recipient of the knowledge economy and the opportunities this position bestows respectively (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 nonmarket 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). The characteristics of current teaching practices Having made these introductory points about social change, it is appropriate to relate them to present teaching practices. According to commentators, such as Lynch and Smith (2002) and Ryan (1998), current teaching practice is characteristically ‘teacher centred’ activity where content is transmitted to students in a passive learning process known universally around the world as ‘schooling’. Schooling exists throughout the world as compulsory formal education, centred within an institution known as a ‘school,’ where groups of students (cohorts) are made based on age-related grades (Ryan, 1998; Hargreaves, 1998). In the schooling model, students attend a state funded or privately operated school for 180200 days per year from age of six. They predominantly use pencil and paper as the key learning tool, 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; and in secondary schools, are tied to prescribed text-books (Ryan, 1998; Logan and Watson, 1992 ). Present schooling practices have their origins in the need to subdue the urban poor and later in research conducted by the industrial era management expert Frederick Winslow Taylor (Hood, 1999). Of fundamental importance, according to Taylor’s conception of the industrialised world, a school system based around basic skills, uniformity and conformity were what a mass production industrial society 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). 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
2
Lynch and Smith defined content to ‘be covered’ during a given school year. The psychology developed in the same era related these concepts to forms of development stages so that curriculum could be linked to a series of ‘age related’ groupings in the kindergarten, elementary and secondary phases of schooling. In this organisational model based on the metaphor of ladder, students who demonstrate capacity with an ever increasing level of ‘education’ at each rung continue to further study, while others traditionally ‘drop-out’ to begin work or are tracked into vocational curriculum streams (Presnsky, 2002; Wise, 2002). Recent advances in learning-based technologies (see for example Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, Means, 2000; OECD, 2002) argue that a ‘one-size-fits-all system’ fails to accommodate different kinds of aptitudes, interests and experiences in learners. In today’s world, many students become bored and disinterested with the lockstep process of schooling, inappropriate subject matter and repetitive pedagogical techniques. Schooling practices endeavour to compensate for the loss of intrinsic interest in the work itself. "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). There is then prima facie evidence at least that schooling as it is conventionally arranged is fast becoming historically outmoded and, as a corollary, that the present teacher workforce and its administrative support lack the intellectual capital to re-engineer education systems for a Knowledge Economy and beyond (Lynch and Smith 2002; Ramsey, 2000; Education Queensland, 2000; Smith, 2000; Gardner, 1999; Foley, 1998 Abbot and Ryan 1998; Hargreaves, 1997), Our argument then is that teaching itself needs to be redesigned to fit the characteristics of a Knowledge Economy and its transition into the following era. Learning Management as Teaching and Learning Concept for the Future 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 design-based construct aimed at identifying the repertoire of knowledge and skills necessary for achieving ‘learning’ outcomes in students. The ‘learning management’ concept drives every element of the new Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM) program, making it distinctive. Thus, the major BLM claim for prominence in teacher education is its emphasis on pedagogical strategies rather than curriculum development. The aspiration is to graduate students who understand and can implement the ‘design of pedagogical strategies’ motivated by a commitment to ‘change’ the present practices of schools. Now, this stipulative definition of learning management raises an important scholarly issue. It is frequently argued that the ‘learning management’ concept is a “managerial” or technocratic approach to teaching and indeed education. In addition, critics see it as enforcing a lock-step approach to teaching when in reality teaching is a multifaceted, complex, complicated, unfathomable, diverse activity that brooks no quick fixes. To counter this criticism it is necessary to remind readers that the learning management concept was derived from architectural design (an artful arrangement of resources for definite ends) and from the ideas of ‘wrighting’ and ‘wroughting’ (Bruce Archer cited in Fletcher, 2000, p. 413). The two terms were once associated with ‘reading, writing’ and ‘arithmetic’ and are best rendered as ‘design with intent’. The business management literature does not incorporate these concepts and was never an input into the idea of learning management. Learning management has more affinities in the mind of its developer with the connotations of managing illness in medical discourse than with business managerialism. In short, learning management refers to a learning manager’s capacity to design pedagogic strategies that ensure learning outcomes in students or other kinds of clients. Moreover, if pilots and medical professionals for example require specific expertise to do the tasks they undertake in order to be acknowledged as ‘experts’ in flying an aircraft and undertaking medical practice respectively, then experts in achieving learning outcomes need comparable expert knowledge and skills. Teachers tend to be ‘bricoleurs’ who creatively make up their day-to-day work in ways analogous to poets rather than professionals whose work is codified
3
Lynch and Smith by a common language and a body of essential professional knowledge. Yet, in a ‘learning society’ (Lundvall and Borras, 1999), while the capacity to learn is a requisite generic skill for knowledge workers in knowledge industries and the fact of continuous education (P-85) is acknowledged, preparation for the school teaching profession and later professional development continues to be based on the subjective judgements of individuals so that there are potentially as many pedagogies as there are teachers. Learning management seeks to narrow the scope and range of this variation in the interests of more expert learning manager workforce. The Bachelor of Learning Management (BLM) Program Accordingly, the BLM is a four year pre-service professional learning degree that can be completed in three years, anchored in concepts drawn from the ‘New Economy’ and its successors and educational writing, namely Futures; Networks and Partnerships; Pedagogy; and Essential Professional Knowledge (Hargreaves, 2003; Marzano, Gaddy, Dean, 2000; Topper, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; & Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000; Reigeluth, 1999; Grossman, 1990; 2001; Shulman, 1986). Course titles signal the purposes of the degree and include Learning Management, Futures, Networks and Partnerships, e-Learning Manager, Entrepreneurial Professional, Essential Professional 1 Knowledge (the core is Dimensions of Learning ) and Portal Task, amongst others. There are over 1000 students enrolled in the degree at sites in Mackay, Rockhampton, Emerald, Gladstone, Bundaberg and Noosa. The first BLM graduates entered the workforce in 2003, following a compulsory ‘internship’. The program logic 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 futuresdisposition 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 professional feelings invoked by terms such as ‘partnership’ between teacher educators and school folk (the ‘cucumber sandwiches and tea’ syndrome), 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 Education Queensland’s QSE 2010 and ETRF and the Catholic Education Commission’s policy documents. A major requirement of the partnership arrangement then is not only collaboration and joint decisionmaking, 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’ in CQU’s previous BEd program is undertaken by school-based ‘learning managers’ who are bound to complete an induction program about ‘learning management’ and the rationale of the BLM 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. There are ongoing trials in which the BLM teaching is tendered to schools and school clusters, in order to make better use of the expertise in schools and to leverage the significant amount of ‘supervision’ funds paid to individual teachers by the university on a yearly basis. 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 inputs provided by people who are not themselves part of the on-campus coterie of staff. That is, teacher education resists the mere 1
See McREL at http://www.mcrel.com/
4
Lynch and Smith imitation of what schools and teachers do, yet, like art, it depends on the world it mocks for its performances, resources and its performance sites. The BLM then aims to be a driving force for educational and social change, and therefore must be transgressive in principle. The B-2B relationship is premised on both the importance of ‘real-life’ practice and performance for neophyte learning managers, but the program seeks to affect conceptions of teacher education generally, social trends in education and training and the individual performances of teachers in schools and their organizations and of course BLM students. In short, there must be a ‘process’, sui generis, to reach preferred states such as ‘the future’, expressed as a new way of aligning curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in schools as an effect of teacher/learning manager practices in a partnership context. The pay-off for BLM partners (including the university), is that the mechanism for change is tied to the respective workforces that must transform practices in ways that conventional teacher education supervision simply did not require. The BLM is about ‘learning management’; learning management has a technical meaning and a strategic intent; and it follows that staff teaching the program and the professional experience sites must also be undertaking the BLM rather than their personal predilections. To reiterate, partnership in this model is not a vague pleasant feeling but an operational necessity if the model is to be successful.
A Case Study: Central Queensland University Noosa 2
The Noosa teacher education campus at Pomona , provides an exemplar of the arrangements described here. First, the BLM program is offered in an Education Queensland school (Cooroora Secondary College), where the university and Education Queensland have a formal understanding about shared costs and facilities. The partnership is based on shared ‘business’ understandings and a set of expectations about what the program will provide in both pre-service and later professional learning. Local Education Queensland schools, principals and district office personnel are part of all planning teams and policy development processes. The Noosa Council and state and federal politicians are part of the collaborative model. Second, based on these formal arrangements, the conventional university lecture/ workshop regime comprises facilitated colloquiums, virtual conferences, on-line learning segments, eresources banks, and various multi-media presentations that can be accessed by students real-time ‘on-campus’, at home or wherever computer access is available, mimicking the profile of the Knowledge Economy. The conceptual underpinnings delivered by university and school-based staff who see themselves as managers of BLM student learning, recognising and modelling the paradigm that underlies the philosophy of learning management. Third, BLM students are appointed to an accredited ‘teaching school’, a parallel to the ‘teaching hospital’ used by medical schools, from week 1 of their BLM program. In these sites, students 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 the focus. Fourth, a pedagogic framework, known as the 8 Learning Management Questions, scaffolds 3 student learning . These questions provide a design sequence that compels the student and mentor teachers (‘learning managers’) to focus on learning outcomes for their allocated class and then establishing a pedagogical framework through which to do it. In recent months, the 8 Learning Management Questions have been themselves underpinned with the Dimensions of Learning framework to provide expert, research-based pedagogical principles. BLM graduates will have a systematic pedagogical framework and a common language about curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to implement their teacher preparation philosophies.
The Noosa Campus is collocated in 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. 3 This is the scheme developed by David Lynch at the Noosa Campus. 22
5
Lynch and Smith Fifth, the eight Learning Management Questions and the five Dimensions of Learning are grouped into three strategies. Students are oriented to their learners in a process broadly referred to as ‘profiling’. In addition, close attention is paid to the means for ‘designing learning experiences’. Student develop a ‘Learning Journey’ or Unit of Work, using the ‘answers’ to the questions and drawing on the DOL framework to understand and deal with the context. Questions 7 and 8 in the question list deal with the demonstration of student learning and taken as a whole, the eight questions and their DOL correlates become the student learning manager’s plan of action indicating how a teaching and learning cycle is conceived, planned, implemented and evaluated. The partnership with schools ensures that learning managers and supervisors in schools are fully appraised of what students plan as the planning happens so that there is mutual input and support for the plan of action. This is an important element of the BLM Noosa exemplar. 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 assumption that such coursework is automatically translated by student teachers into actionable sequences during fieldwork (Korthagen, 2001; Smith, 2000; Tom, 1997). Furthermore, it is also premised on the notion that teachers will support the many theories and strategies that are taught on campus. These assumptions are clearly false in far too many cases and the Noosa model consciously attempts to short-circuit the grounds for such misinterpretations. 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 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. Seventh, the ‘Portal Tasks’ that are embedded in each year level are at the heart of the BLM. 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. Portal Tasks require and encourage collaborative networks 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 in the Noosa model 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. A Portal Task is defined for student teachers as a ‘problembased learn-by-doing task’ and its composition is the product of a university and school collaboration. It is not difficult to see why collaboration is required and that ‘partnership’ is indeed the sine qua non of the portal task and the BLM. First, staff and student have to agree on the outcomes that produce ‘pedagogical strategies’ and the task descriptors that define the scope and sequence of the Portal Task. Similarly, there must be collaboration on the performance criteria that integrate the courses held in that term which is used to assess the student learning manager and there has to be agreement about the times for staging the Portal Task. All of this is distant from the model whereby students are allocated to teachers and classrooms by a campus-based person and the student teacher is expected to produce whatever is in the ‘practice teaching booklet’, regardless of what the teacher might have planned. In summary then, the Portal Tasks are discussed and planned in advance by Education faculty and the student’s in-school Learning Manager. The Portal Tasks are articulated with the in-school learning manager’s daily teaching program and ensures that class time is not lost through misaligned university requirements and importantly that the host class benefits from the experience. In preparing the task though, the student learning manager is to plan so that the task fulfils the BLM paradigm, a means for new insight and skilling commensurate with the ‘learning management’ pedagogic practices the BLM espouses. Undertaking such tasks in real-life settings according to a a Learning Management Plan based on the 8 LMQs and DOL . provides student learning managers with a means to bridge the immanent theory / practice divide.
6
Lynch and Smith
Conclusion 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 shifting 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 partnership. This is not ‘teacher education’ as much as an intervention in the present and future capability of the education and training workforce. Once that conclusion is reached, the vision and the imagining of what is possible changes to meet a different set of objectives. This is where the BLM is headed, at least in our imaginations.
7
Lynch and Smith 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 st Children in the 21 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. 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. BEATTIE, P. (1999), “ A Brighter Future for Our Kids in the Smart State”, Luncheon on Education, Brisbane Institute, Brisbane, December 14. 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. 6-12 BENTLEY, T. (1998), ‘Learning Beyond the Classroom: educating for a changing world’, pp. 38, Routledge, London. 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. 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, L. (2000), “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: a 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
8
Lynch and Smith 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. GARDENER, 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. GIDDENS, A. (1999), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press, New York. GIBBONS, M. (1994) Innovation and the Developing System of Knowledge Production. University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RF, located at http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/summer/papers/Michael.Gibbons.html GIBBONS. M., LIMOGES,C. ,NOTWOTNY. H., SCHWARTZMAN,S., SCOTT, P. and TROW,M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage. 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”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, Vol 2, No 2, pp. 29-41. 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, J., (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. HAMONDS, K. H. (2001), “Ford's Drive for Balance” . Fast Company, May. http://www.fastcompany.com/lead/lead_feature/ford_balancingact.html
HARGREAVES, A. (2003) Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity (Professional Learning). Place: Publisher. HARGREAVES, D. (1997) In Defence of Research for Evidence Based Teaching: A Rejoiner to Martyn Hammersley, British Education Research Journal, 23, pp405419. HARGREAVES, D. (1998), The Argument in Creative Professional: The Role of Teachers in the Knowledge Society, London, Demos, pp13-26
9
Lynch and Smith 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, P.,(Editor). (2000), ‘Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria’, Final Report, DEET, State Government of Victoria. KLEIN, J., 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. 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. 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. 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 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, M.,., MULLIS, I.., GONZALEZ, E., SMITH, T.., & KELLY, D, (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/ MARZANO, R. J., GADDY, B.B., DEAN, C. (2000) What Works In Classroom Instruction. Aurora, CO: McREL. http://www.mcrel.org 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.
10
Lynch and Smith 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. 353371. 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 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 SAINSBURY, M. (2001), “The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001”, International Study Centre, Lynch School of Education, Boston. Available SCHERER, M. (1999), ‘The Understanding Pathway: a conversation with Howard Gardner’, Educational Leadership, Vol 57, No 3, pp. 13-17. SELTZER, K. and 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.
11
Lynch and Smith 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 TOM, A.,(1997) Redesigning Teacher Education, University of New York Press, New York. TOPPER, A., (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] 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. WALTERS, J. (1992), ‘Application of Multiple Intelligences Research in nd Alternative Assessment’, Proceedings of the 2 National Research Symposium on Limited English.
WEHMEYER, M., PALMER, S., 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
12
