The August discussion was held on 13th August, 4.30pm-6pm. Panel Discussion: Teaching and Teacher Agency amid policy prescriptions of ‘explicit teaching’. The abstract and presenter bios of the panel discussion is outlined below.
Discussion: Teaching and Teacher Agency amid policy prescriptions of ‘explicit teaching’ –
Currently, in Australia and New Zealand there are large policy changes occurring in government prescription of explicit teaching. Allied with this has been an increasingly strident critique of teacher education institutions and their purported lack of focus on ‘evidence-based’ teaching and learning approaches. The debate leading to these policies has been particularly pointed in the ‘reading wars’, but has extended to mathematics and science, and to teaching and learning generally. Justifications for these interventions have involved appeals to ‘evidence-based practice’, the need for teaching to be ‘explicit’, the ‘science of learning’ which currently seems to centre around John Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) based on research into working and long-term memory. Research evidence supporting these approaches often centre around the creation of a binary between explicit teaching and ‘inquiry’ or ‘problem solving’, whereas it has been argued that: “Most teachers know that good teaching is a subtle and shifting blend of explanation and exploration. Sometimes it’s good to let kids struggle and argue; sometimes it isn’t. The craft of teaching is, in part, knowing when and how to let a discussion run and when to cut it short because unproductive.” (Claxton, 2022, para 7). Why is CLT and the associate direct instruction receiving increasing attention by politicians, policy makers, education departments, and some highly visible think tanks (e.g. https://www.cis.org.au/research/education/)? In Victoria the pedagogical prescription of the newly released Victorian Teaching and Learning Model (VTLM 2.0) is in stark contrast to the previous model with a 5E structure that advocated the vision for learning and wellbeing, practice principles, HITS and HIWS.
This Research Discussion session will focus on the implications of this policy prescription mainly for the disciplines of mathematics and science. We begin by considering the situation in Victoria but are wanting to include the landscape Australia-wide and in NZ. Discussion will be structured around several short provocations to ‘set the scene’ and promote discussion.
Panel members will be:
- Carly Sawatzki (Deakin University) for Maths Education
- Russell Tytler (Deakin University) for Science Education
- Cathy Buntting (Waikato University) for the situation in NZ
Discussion points will include:
What are the implications for teacher education in mathematics and science?
Dr Cathy Buntting is a senior lecturer in science education at The University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand, and Director of the award-winning Science Learning Hub funded by the New Zealand government. Her research focuses on innovative approaches to science and STEM education, with a particular interest in teacher knowledge and adaptive expertise, as well as curriculum ergonomics. Cathy was a member of the 2023 writing team for science for the New Zealand curriculum refresh.
Dr Carly Sawatzki is a teacher educator and educational researcher at Deakin University. She wants every student to get an excellent education so they can live their best life. She supports teachers of mathematics to teach differently, by helping them to connect students’ classroom learning with the real world. Carly is internationally recognised for her thought leadership on young people’s financial capability [financial literacy / financial numeracy] and her critical insights into issues of ethics and equity in education. To find out more, go to www.carlysawatzki.com
Russell Tytler is Deakin Distinguished Professor of Science Education at Deakin University. He researches student reasoning and learning through the multimodal languages of science, socio scientific issues and reasoning, school-community partnerships, and STEM curriculum policy and practice. He is widely published and has led a range of research projects, including current STEM projects investigating a guided inquiry pedagogy for interdisciplinary mathematics and science, and representing contemporary science R&D in schools to support an informed Climate Change Education. He is a member of the Science Expert Group for PISA 2015 and 2025.
References
Claxton, G. (2022). Cognitive load theory: Just brain gym for traditionalists?See https://www.guyclaxton.net/post/cognitive-load-theory-just-brain-gym-for-traditionalists
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Is the VTLM2.0 compatible with quality teaching and learning in mathematics and science?
Should mathematics and science teacher education researchers take a position on these policy shifts?
Posted Aug 10, 2026
Online