Abstract
Our first issue for 2024 includes three qualitative studies of the perspectives and experiences of teachers (both early career teachers and those in leadership roles) and of parents and finishes with a technical exploration of an alternative, peer matching approach to comparison of the performance of groups of students.
The first article, from Trent Brown, Melissa Barnes, and Ilana Finefter-Rosenbluh, explores the relationships between the socio-political influences of policies, teachers’ assessment literacy, and their assessment practices.
As part of a larger mixed-method study of assessment policy in Victorian junior secondary schools, 22 teachers participated in semi-structured interviews, with questions focusing on how the respondents felt their approaches to student assessment and reporting were influenced by their state’s policies in these areas. The current study uses a selection of eight interviews to illustrate key themes identified in the larger sample—that teachers’ assessment literacy is indeed shaped by government and institutional policies, the importance of interpreting and communicating assessment data and results to all involved parties, and how engaging students in feedback loops might help build assessment literacy for both groups.
The second article, by Rebecca Rosenberg, Kate De Bruin, and Michelle Ludecke, reports on a qualitative study of early career teachers’ perspectives of their preparedness for being inclusive educators. Eight teachers who entered their profession in 2020 or 2021 were interviewed about their understanding of and experience practicing as an inclusive educator; what was and was not covered in their initial teacher education; and strategies they employed when teaching students with diverse learning needs. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed that this group of beginning teachers perceived that their teacher education at university did not prepare them with sufficient knowledge of inclusive education terminology; practical and evidence-based skills for instruction and assessment; or extensive opportunity to work with people with disabilities in inclusive contexts, in order to become effective inclusive educators. While the findings are based on a small sample of early career teachers, the authors contend that the findings highlight crucial areas for improvement in initial teacher education.
In the next article, Tebeje Molla, Amin Zaini, Hossein Shokouhi, and Ruth Arber present an account of the perspectives of migrant families’ experiences of home-based learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 parents with migrant experiences—12 Persian-speaking and eight African heritage parents—with questions focused on their families’ experiences of home-schooling: the processes and routines of home-schooling, challenges faced in supporting their children’s learning, and availability of support from schools and other communities.
Thematic analysis of the data indicated that these families reported critical challenges associated with parental self-efficacy for assisting with their children’s learning, financial hardship, language and technological barriers, time constraints when juggling employment responsibilities and supporting their child’s learning activities, and disengagement and exhaustion.
The authors note that these insights into the experiences of families with migrant experiences can inform improvements to education delivery in both “normal” and unusual times.
The final article for this issue explores an alternative to the current (at the time of publication) system of reporting student performance in Australian national collections, in which all students with an Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander background are grouped together and then compared with students who do not have these cultural backgrounds.
Peter Anderson, Owen Forbes, Kerrie Mengersen, and Zane Diamond present a detailed analysis of publicly available National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data from 2010 to 2019 that examines patterns of relative performance in NAPLAN Writing, Reading, and Numeracy within each cohort of Indigenous students. Using a range of analytical techniques that are stepped out for the reader, the authors present their peer matching approach to examining trends in the performances of Indigenous students relative to their Indigenous peers across grades (3, 5, 7, and 9), states and territories, and remoteness categories. Key findings regarding higher and lower relative performance for student groups associated with remoteness and state/territory are discussed in terms of their use in future research, and improvements in policy setting and decision making.
Keep reading and learning!