APERA (Asia Pacific Educational Research Association) Conference Report 23-25 November 2010

Citation

Roberts, B.E. (2011), "APERA (Asia Pacific Educational Research Association) Conference Report 23-25 November 2010", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem.2011.06025caa.002

APERA (Asia Pacific Educational Research Association) Conference Report 23-25 November 2010

Article Type: APERA (Asia Pacific Educational Research Association) Conference Report 23-25 November 2010 From: International Journal of Educational Management, Volume 25, Issue 3

This conference was organised by the Malaysian Educational Research Association (MERA) with members of APERA, the Educational Research Association of Singapore (ERAS), the World Educational Research Association (WERA), and Malayan institutions especially Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. Colleagues from the European, American and Australian Educational Research Associations have collaborated too. The theme of this bi-annual conference was unusual, “The ecology of human growth and sustainable societal development: contributions from educational research and innovations”. Quite a mouthful and I wondered how this theme could relate to educational research. It was done by breaking the main theme down into five sub-themes, which formed the parallel sessions. Professor Tang Oon Seng, President of APERA congratulated the organising committee of the conference for the theme and championing educational research which is so important to the future of education. He passed on the Presidency to Professor Dato’ Dr Ibrahim Bajunid of Malaysia.

The first keynote address was by Professor Dr Eva Baker of WERA. Her talk may be summarised, “Happily we share our ability to learn. Our common goal should be to explore how to make learning both idiosyncratic and useful to society”. In a wide-ranging and personal talk Dr Baker talked about the focus of learning implying change. The essential goals for the future are matching the conflicting tensions of personal learning for specific goals with strong and resilient shared values. Dr Baker talked about cognitive readiness as preparation for the unknown. Actually what counts as evidence for learning has changed as technology and standards shift. The quote she finished with, and had used during the talk, was “the best way to predict the future is to invent it”.

Professor Dr Sari Lindblom Ylanne of the University of Helsinki and President of the European Association on Learning and Instruction presented the next keynote on “Student learning in higher education: approaches to learning teaching learning environments and study success”. Research on students’ approaches to learning, experiences of their teaching-learning environments and the effects of these on study success has one important role in enhancing the quality of the learning outcomes of students. The talk was very interesting as Professor Ylanne concentrated on the research done at the University of Helsinki across all departments. The three types of approaches to learning were used, “deep”, “surface”, and “organised”. Disciplinary differences in student approaches to learning were observed, e.g. veterinary was the most closed. Students doing the “deep” approach succeed in the first year, but students applying the “surface” approach received the lowest grades. The most successful learning combinations seem to be a combination of “deep” and “organised”. The characteristics of the three methods were mentioned – “deep” has an interest in the subject; “surface” has an interest in coping with the course requirements; “organised” displays self regulation with an intention to succeed well.

Professor Dato’ Dr Hussein Haji Ahmad senior research fellow, Institute of Principalship studies, University of Malaya, gave the address “Policy research culture and the institutionalization in the Malaysian educational bureaucracy: experience and implications”. This talk focussed on the critical dimension of educational transformation that has a strong significance in the context of policy development and the achievement of the national mission of education of any country. In Malaysia, the experiences emanating from the research culture in the form of programmes, projects and activities has pervaded since the 1960s and this background was outlined in the talk. The establishment of research units and sections in many of the professional and administrative divisions in the educational systems that manage macro-level policy studies has become part of the transformation process. However, the strong bearing on efforts to improve the educational system by policy research has often become the subject of controversy by policymakers and consumers.

Professor Dato’ Dr Aminah Ayob Vice Chancellor of Sultan Idris Education University led the next presentation, “The challenge to transform learning”. The challenge to transform learning in educational institutions in Malaysia is multi-faceted and multi-levelled. The lecture focussed on teacher challenge. It is a cliché to say that learning is at the heart of education yet it is always necessary to go back to it. Learning is central to the educational institution. Yet even though the world is ever more challenging the kind of learning taking place in the educational institutions in Malaysia is largely unchanged. Rote learning pervades, risk taking is avoided and “declarative knowledge” dominates, consigning “functional knowledge” a peripheral role. An example was given of the mathematical solution to a multiplication problem-the student could only solve the problem in one way because the student had not been taught an alternative method. The way teachers teach can be at three levels – where level three is a focus on student centred learning where teachers facilitate. It is critical how teachers see their role. In these levels 3 is “constructional theory” (NB in level 1 student at fault; level 2 teacher at fault). “Education is about conceptual change not just the acquisition of knowledge”. In the Malaysian teachers’ theories of teaching the teacher factor is the major challenge Malaysia needs to overcome to transform learning in its educational institutions (most teachers are at level 1). To transform learning therefore it is necessary to change the teachers!

Professor Jo Anne Reid of Charles Sturt University spoke on “Sustainability and educational research: working with teachers for curriculum relevance and intergenerational justice”. In Australia education as a government service serves as a key to many communities. Professor Reid gave an account of educational research studies over the past decade that have focussed on educational practices that work with schools, teachers, and students in order to strengthen the social and environmental fabric. In the presentation she focussed on two educational research projects based upon the Murray Darling Basin. One project was on literacy and the environment and the second on teacher education for rural/regional sustainability. The area was chosen because the impact of what occurs 6,000km away has an effect on those far distant. The gap between indigenous and non indigenous populations was clear especially in the unpreparedness of teachers attending rural schools – one eight year old child shouting to the departing student teacher “see you when you don’t come back”. The questions arise – how do teachers contribute to the rural/regional stability? What attributes do they need to have? What responsibilities does teacher education need to have to foster an eco-responsible teaching force?

The new President of APERA spoke next – Professor Dato’ Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid who is also the President of MERA. The lecture was on “Mapping holistic educational policies and effective educational practices of lifelong learning: Identifying the cost of influences and critically assessing their roles in transforming education in Malaysia”. Professor Bajunid started by stating that there are many good ideas circulating in Malaysia and that many of them are from people with no formal qualifications. What is missing in formal education that causes young people to question it? Reference was made to Gardner’s different levels of the mind and the future. The fourth mind respects other cultures and grows and uses more of the intelligences that we have. The fifth mind of the future is the “ethical mind”. “We cannot know everything about anything” was a favourite quote during the talk. The most difficult change we need to consider is to change the mindset. The feudal and colonial minds exist even now. The bureaucratic mind is faceless and nameless and has no accountability. The technocratic mind is capable of freezing society. We inherit all of these minds in our cultures. We need to take accountability ourselves and then we can be free. Universities say learning is about 18-24 year olds but older people have created so much in later life. In 1996 EU declared the year of lifelong learning. UNESCO is also dedicated to life-long learning but it is fragmented. Malaysia has links with many different cultures, which helps to create a one-world society. Dr Bajunid asked who the teachers of life-long learning were? How did they acquire their skills? How can you plan for it? We do not know the limits of our own learning. We cannot replicate one country’s best things and transfer them to another culture without deep understanding. The internet is the demarcation line between the old and the new cultures and we need to understand the obsolescence created and the new knowledge-there are “digital natives” in Malaysia who have achieved equality. To move to the next level of society we need to liberate the trapped minds of educators who operate in a silo. The pillars of society to be looked for are:

• •

  employment/redeployment;

• •

  active citizenship;

• •

  personal development/self esteem; and

• •

  social inclusion.

We need to relate lifelong learning to the quality of life.

A further keynote speaker was Emeritus Professor Dato’ Dr Isahak Haron Director of the Centre for the study of Pedagogy, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. His theme was “Multilevel and multi track modular approach to primary education in Malaysia”. The paper reviewed literacy, poor mastery of numeracy and low levels of proficiency in English among primary school pupils. The Ministry of Education has recently implemented a policy to improve the teaching of reading and writing through a scheme called LINUS. The Ministry is also taking steps to improve the teaching of English to increase pupils’ proficiency in English. The paper proposed a modular multi-level and multi-track flexible system to meet the needs of pupils of different readiness and abilities with the aim of ensuring that pupils may achieve the “national standards” in the basic areas of education. It also proposed a more flexible approach in the teachings of social studies, science, art and music, Islamic and moral education.

There were a large number of parallel sessions in the conference of which I attended a number. One, which may be of interest to readers, was that set up as a WERA symposium fronted by Professor Andrew Pollard of the University of London. He described the work done as written up in the final report of the UK strategic forum for research in education SFRE. Basically Professor Pollard stated that there was a lot of good research in the UK but it is not coherent, rather badly connected. SFRE wanted to establish a self-assessment comparison within the UK. The aims were threefold-to maintain an overview, to facilitate networking and to make recommendations. After two years of deliberations recommendations included – to improve the effectiveness of strategic decisions, UK stakeholders should review provision in the different research sectors, public aspirations re the relevance of research should be better aligned, those responsible should be more accessible, and barriers should be removed to gain greater impact. There was a proposal to establish a UK education research information service. Commentaries on the talk were given by Susan Street and Y.C. Cheng.

Brian E. Roberts