Science Education in a Globalised Policy Field
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following reference: Doyle, Tanya Lee (2014) Transitions, aspirations and capitals: science education in a globalised policy field. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/40816/ The author has certified to JCU that they have made a reasonable effort to gain permission and acknowledge the owner of any third party copyright material included in this document. If you believe that this is not the case, please contact [email protected] and quote http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/40816/ Transitions, aspirations and capitals: Science education in a globalised policy field Thesis submitted by Tanya Lee DOYLE B. Sc. (JCU), Grad.B.Ed. (Hons-Class 1), JCU in July, 2014 In fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy In the School of Education at James Cook University Statement on the Contribution of Others I acknowledge the intellectual support of my advisory team, Professor Angela Hill, Associate Professor Leanne Dalley-Trim, Professor Sue McGinty and Dr Louisa Tomas Engel, who provided ongoing contributions to my research design, proposal writing, data analysis and also editorial assistance with this thesis. I have received financial assistance from the School of Education in accordance with the James Cook University Minimum Resources Policy. Grants from the James Cook University Faculty of Arts Education and Social Sciences’ Graduate Research Scheme enabled me to attend two national and international conferences. Additionally, I have received a scholarship in the form of an Australian Postgraduate Award. I have not sought or received any other contributions. The research presented and reported in this thesis was conducted within the guidelines for research ethics outlined in the National Statement on Ethical conduct in Human Research (2007). The proposed research methodology received ethics clearance from the James Cook University Ethics Review Committee (approval number H3866) and the project was approved by the Queensland Department of Education and Training (reference number 10/243984). ___________________________________ ___________________ Tanya Doyle Date i Acknowledgements First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge and thank the students and teachers who were willing to be interviewed for this study, as well as the school administrative staff who helped access the records necessary for data collection at each school site. Without their generosity, this study would not have been possible. I hope that as a result of this research, more can be done to support the work of teachers and administrators in Queensland’s state schools, with a view to supporting more students to realise their goals and aspirations. Next, I would like to acknowledge and thank my advisory team — Professor Angela Hill, Associate Professor Leanne Dalley-Trim, Professor Sue McGinty and Dr Louisa Tomas Engel — for their patience, support, encouragement, guidance and critical insight. I extend my sincere gratitude to you all. Without you, and all that you have offered, I would not have completed this study. In particular, I would like to thank and acknowledge Angela, as my primary advisor. The opportunity for me to conduct this work, and to complete this thesis, would not have been possible without you. I would also like to thank and acknowledge other colleagues who have supported and encouraged me along the way, including staff in the School of Education and in the School of Indigenous Australian Studies and the staff of the Teaching and Learning Development Unit, James Cook University, alongside the JCU FAESS post-graduate community. In particular, I would like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Fiona Navin and Dr. Andrea Lynch. I am truly grateful for your friendship and support. To my own family — Jason, Henry and Amelia — I could not have completed this work without your love, understanding and support. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the wider circle of family and friends who have supported me, encouraged me and, surprisingly, ii continued to invite me out to social events. I am grateful to you all for sticking with me through this endeavour. Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge the significant impact that my own high school Chemistry teacher had on my life. I began to study Chemistry in a Queensland State School in Year 11 in 1989. I asked my teacher for some help with some molarity calculations that I was finding particularly challenging. In response he stated that “Chemistry is not a subject for girls”, and he advised that “if I was such a smart girl, I should be able to figure it out for myself”. Despite now having completed a Bachelor of Science, and worked as a secondary school science teacher, his comment has stayed with me. In fact, I have been left wondering — for some years now — how could Chemistry be for some students and not others? If what my Chemistry teacher said is true, then who is Chemistry for? And, who gets to decide which students are in and which students are out? I am certain that encouragement was not at the heart of my teacher’s comment; nevertheless, encourage me it did. iii Abstract For over two decades, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in Australia has been described as being at ‘crisis point’ (Adams, Doig, & Rosier, 1991; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Goodrum & Rennie, 2007; Lyons, Cooksey, Panizzon, Parnell, & Pegg, 2006; Masters, 2006; Osborne, 2006; Teese & Polesel, 2003) with calls in the literature to re-imagine science education (Tytler, 2007) in order to address the crisis. Over the same time frame, Australia’s economy has transitioned to post-Fordism and consequently Australia, as a nation-state, seeks to galvanise its future economic security through an innovation-led economy (Bullen, Fahey, & Kenway, 2006; Kenway, Bullen, & Robb, 2004). It is through policy that such attempts at galvanisation are made, with ‘Innovation’ positioned as a force critical to Australia’s future economic prosperity. Simultaneously, at the Federal level, the Australian education policy moment is dominated by the articulation of an Education Revolution which seeks to widen the participation of non- traditional students in the Higher Education sector (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008; Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). This study focuses on Chemistry as an enabling science, and its role in navigating access to the innovation agenda. Chemistry serves as a pre-requisite subject for entry into many science, engineering, technology and allied health courses at universities throughout Queensland (Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre, 2010) and yet there is little reported literature that examines the ways in which subjects such as Chemistry, enable or constrain access to STEM courses. Consequently, the secondary school subject of Chemistry, defined here by the 2007 Queensland Studies Authority Syllabus, has been selected as a vehicle, or point of focus, for this study. Concomitantly, policy centrally positions education generally iv and education in the “enabling science” of Chemistry (Tytler, 2007, p. 7) more specifically, as key to the transformative development of an ‘Innovative’ Australian citizenry. It is argued in this thesis that despite the Federal political agenda to transform the Australian citizenry into ‘Innovators’, many students who attend secondary schools experiencing high levels of social and economic disadvantage continue to study in fields outside of the ‘enabling sciences’. This thesis seeks to re-frame the STEM crisis as one of demand rather than supply. On that account, this thesis also seeks to problematise the notion of Chemistry working as an ‘enabling science’. Instead, it presents an argument that as the purpose of STEM education has been transformed, so, too, has the role of Chemistry been transformed. Chemistry is now primarily conceived of, by the students and teachers at the school sites under study, as well as by universities in Queensland, as a commodity with strategic value, rather than as a discipline that provides foundational knowledge for further STEM study. This investigation was implemented using a critical sequential, mixed model design (Elliott, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011), and presents data analysed in three intersecting and reciprocating units of analysis, namely: policy production, policy articulation and policy reception (Blackmore, 2010). During the policy production phase of this project, qualitative data was generated through a critical policy analysis. In this phase, critical discourse analysis informed by Fairclough (2010) was employed to analyse an assemblage of policy documents drawn from both the Australian Federal and State (Queensland) government jurisdictions. The analysis found intersecting spheres of policy that underpin STEM education, with significant leverage derived from the sphere of economic productivity. Furthermore, the discursive categories of ‘security’, ‘risk’ ‘opportunity’ and ‘quality’ were found to be operationalised in the policy assemblage under study; working to leverage a multi-scalar continuum between ‘innovation’ and ‘security’, directing the v imperative for individuals and nation-states alike to embody Innovation, in order to secure their futures in ‘uncertain’ and ‘changing’ times. STEM education, then, constitutes part of the armoury rhetorically required by citizens to secure their own opportunities,