NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ADDRESS

Inquiry-based science education in Australia: A national curriculum

2 July 2008
Professor Julie Campbell FAA
Secretary (Education and Public Awareness), Australian Academy of Science

Julie Campbell mentioning the embedded indigenous perspectives of the curriculum unit Plants in action

Ken Randall: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Press Club and today's National Australia Bank address, we're very pleased today to welcome Professor Julie Campbell. She's appearing today in her role as Secretary for Science Education and Public Awareness for the Academy of Science, to which she was elected in 2000. But Julie Campbell is also Senior Principal Research Fellow at the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, director of the Centre for Research in Vascular Biology at the University of Queensland and director of the Wesley Research Institute at the Wesley Hospital.

She's had 30 years of major research experience and a whole string of awards and today she wants to talk to you about inquiry-based science education in Australia and the possibility of a national curriculum. Please welcome Professor Julie Campbell. [Applause]

Julie Campbell: Thank you very much. President of the National Press Club, Mr Ken Randall, your excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. The technological world is changing at an incredible rate and Australia's economy demands high quality science education to cope with this change. Not only do we need specialist scientists who will keep us at the forefront of scientific development, many emerging jobs will demand high level skills in scientific thinking. For decades, it has been the case that developed nations like the USA and Australia exported their manufacturing service and service industries to capitalise on lower labour co.cost labour, but they kept the advantage of having research and development at home. However, Asian nations, such as China and India are training scientists and engineers at an astounding rate. Australia is falling behind in this area and we should not become complacent that we will continue to be at the forefront of science and technology.

A 2006 Department of Education report entitled Audit of Science, Engineering, Technology Skills, documented that Australia will have a shortfall of 19,000 scientists and 51,000 engineers and engineering trades people by 2013 - only five years away now. It's a sad fact that we are importing considerable numbers of scientists, doctors and engineers, as we are not training enough of our own. We need to invest seriously in science education. There is a major decline in the number of students electing to study science, technology and mathematics, both in senior secondary years of school and at university. In order for Australian students to be motivated to train in these professions, research indicates that they need to have a solid background in science education before age 14. And most importantly, they have to have been excited by science. It's becoming difficult not only to engage students in science, but to recruit teachers in this field. In secondary school we have a growing shortage of qualified science teachers, that has led the Rudd Government to offer HECS relief as an incentive for people to become science teachers. In Western Australia, in particular, good science teachers are finding more highly paid jobs in the mining industry.

In primary school there is very little time spent on science teaching, due to the heavy emphasis on literacy and numeracy. In fact, in a 2007 survey of 160 primary schools across Australia commissioned by the Australian Primary Principals Association, 12 per cent of teachers said they spent no time teaching science. On average, only 45 minutes per week were spent teaching science, the third lowest amount except for the teaching of languages other than English, which is 28 minutes per week and technology which is 14 minutes per week. Also, there is very little money spent on the teaching of science in primary school. The amount spent on this in a year, amounts to enough to buy each child only one ice cream. So why do primary school teachers not teach science? One reason is the lack of resources. Another is that they feel the basics of literacy and numeracy are more relevant to the children's education and that's a reasonable thing I believe. But also many primary school teachers are not confident about teaching science, due to the fact that their own knowledge of science and effective science teaching is limited. So what should be done about it?

The President of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Kurt Lambeck recently said; the Academy is concerned about education at all levels. If Australia gets education right, then everything else will succeed. If we get it wrong, then nothing else matters. So the Australian Academy of Science proposes two things. Firstly, we need to make the teaching - to make the teaching and learning of science much more appealing than it is at present and by that I mean exciting and appealing for teachers, not just for students. We need a new approach. Traditional methods of teaching science in the secondary school have been very resistant to change and need to be upgraded and made more relevant. In the primary school area, teachers need support that will develop their confidence as well as programs that require few resources and combine the teaching of science with the teaching of literacy. Secondly, if we are to enhance science teaching, it needs to be a national approach. In Australia, where people more often move frequently throughout the country and where electronic communications have broken the tyranny of distance, it makes no sense for us to be wasting resources developing a new approach, eight different ways at the same time, just because this is the way things have been done for the past 100 years.

The good news is, that in collaboration with, and with funding from, the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, DEEWR, and with a Steering Committee and national reference group of education experts from all states and territories, the Australian Academy of Science has already developed a successful model for an inquiry-based national science curriculum for primary schools and is in the process of developing a follow-up program for junior and middle high schools. The time of adolescence, when many students lose focus. Both programs actively engage students in learning, provide an opportunity to learn the processes and skills of investigating. Provide students with authentic experiences of science and help students develop an understanding of scientific evidence and the nature of science. Both programs move away from teacher delivery of knowledge and pay more attention to a hands-on approach and discussion, open questioning and higher order thinking. The program for primary school that we have developed is called PrimaryConnections, linking science with literacy. As the teaching of literacy is deeply embedded within it, including recording of observations, labelling diagrams, tables of results, storyboards, accounts of interviews and posters.

Implicit and explicit is also the teaching of numeracy as measurement, calculations and graph drawing are an integral part. The program was initiated in 2004, with a proof of concept stage, then first trailed in 2005 with over 120 trail teachers, in 56 schools, from all states and territories. Some of the principals and teachers from those schools are here today as well as representatives from state and federal departments and the Catholic and independent sectors. PrimaryConnections builds on student's natural curiosity and nurtures their sense of wonder and develops their passion for exploring how the world works. That is, it encourages an investigative approach and connects science to their lives. It is based on a sound teaching and learning model, the five Es, which are; engage, explore, explain, elaborate and evaluate, in that order. It provides easy to follow curriculum units, covering topics such as insects and worms in a unit called Schoolyard Safari. Plants, micro-organisms, water, natural and processed materials, energy and movement, space, planets and weather, in units with such engaging titles as, Spinning in Space, Plants in Action, On the Move, Waterworks, Marvellous Micro-Organisms and What's it made of?

But most importantly, PrimaryConnections trains professional learning facilitators and curriculum leaders, who in turn train the teachers. Professional learning facilitators work with their state sector coordinator to provide workshops and information sessions for individual schools, clusters of schools and district and state conferences. Curriculum leaders work within their school to support uptake and also assist nearby schools requesting support. The PrimaryConnections project has now trained approximately 400 professional learning facilitators and 700 curriculum leaders. Almost 95,000 curriculum units have been sold at a cost price of $13.75 to each state, private and Catholic schools, with the program being distributed to over 2500 schools across the nation. Since university educators who trained future students must also be aware of the program, representatives from every Australian university offering a course in primary science education attended a two day workshop at the Academy's Shine Dome in Canberra last year. This workshop was funded by the Department of Education. Thus PrimaryConnections has now gained significant momentum. It has built a profile in all states and territories and local ownership is building. This is at different rates in different sectors and states, as to be expected.

Large numbers of teachers, schools and pre-service institutions have committed time, effort and resources in support of implementation, including naming PrimaryConnections in strategic priorities and allocating sufficient budget resources. For example, in my own state of Queensland, Education Queensland has committed $1.4 million to the uptake of PrimaryConnections in 2007/2008. This is half its statewide science education strategy budget. There is a forward commitment for this level of funding to the end of the 2009 school year, making $4.2 million in total over the three years January 2007 to December 2009. The Western Australian Department of Education and Training has spent over $250,000 on PrimaryConnections, professional learning and curriculum resources in the 2007 calendar year and has distributed statewide the first eight PrimaryConnections books to all public primary schools in the state. As part of its PrimaryConnections into Schools Program during term four 2007.

Of course of particular relevance to the national success of the project is addressing the needs of all jurisdictions including the largest education jurisdictions, that's New South Wales and Victoria, the needs of those in geographically isolated areas, particularly the Northern Territory and Western Australia and the needs of stakeholder groups such as the Indigenous population where student achievement levels generally lag seriously behind the non-Indigenous counterparts.

To address the latter need, PrimaryConnections units are being prepared that incorporate an Indigenous perspective. This intercultural approach embraces diversity and acknowledges different ways of knowing. The Indigenous perspectives are based on national research findings and were developed in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Groups, cultural consultants and Indigenous and education and linguistic experts. They aim to accelerate science and literacy learning outcomes for Indigenous students and increase non-Indigenous students and teachers' awareness and understanding of Indigenous perspectives. Most importantly, the Australian Academy of Science is developing a website to support teachers with development of contextual Indigenous perspectives through collaboration with the local Indigenous people as it is recognised that traditions and learning differ between Indigenous groups around the nation. In Western Australia we have recently completed a trial in seven schools with a curriculum unit that has an embedded Indigenous perspective called Plants in Action. I have a copy of this here if anyone wishes to see it later.

Independent research has found that supporting Indigenous students to share what they already knew about plants really tapped into their natural affiliation with the land and made them feel important and valued. Consequently they were so engaged that they became involved in all sorts of learning especially literacy. To quote some of the teachers who were involved in the pilot. Indigenous perspectives in the context of science breaks down the barriers. It bridges the us and them dichotomy. Another; I can see so much benefit for the students. Indigenous students are more engaged in the learning. It enables them to have a voice. They are participating more. They are putting up their hands asking questions; even the shyer students came forward and talked about what they knew about plants. One of the Indigenous students whose attendance record is normally extremely erratic was at school every Thursday for science during the pilot. And another; the pilot was about student X overcoming the failure syndrome and spending a lot more time in the classroom because of his success in science. And the final quote, all the students were more motivated for writing and literacy in general. Indeed, many of the teachers described it as helping them to develop - the students to develop a relationship with learning, and literacy by stealth.

As the students were so engaged in the science, they did not realise they were doing literacy. I should point out that at every stage of the development of PrimaryConnections is monitored by continuing research and evaluation. The evidence is that in all sectors PrimaryConnections is really making a difference. The Australian Academy of Science is nearing the end of a developmental stage for its primary science education program with 19 curriculum units each taking about a term to teach by the end of this year. And as I indicated earlier, has started on junior and middle secondary school area. We call the junior and middle secondary school Macquarie Base Science Education program Science by Doing, as it incorporates hands-on experimental inquiry with emphasis on exploring before explaining. It's been developed in consultation with the CSIRO and the Australian Science Teachers Association and like PrimaryConnections it has a steering committee and a national reference group with representatives from education sectors around the nation. Science by Doing began with a scoping phase in 2006 and then received a grant of $1.5 million mid last year for a 12 month pilot program in which two curriculum units Rock, Paper Scissors(*), which is an introduction to matter and Moving Together(*) which is on human body systems. These were developed and trialled by 65 teachers within 11 curriculum clusters. These clusters of teachers which are six teachers per clusters, two at each of three schools within a district, are the strength of the program.

Each cluster meets regularly and is provided with web-based professional learning resources such as audio, video and interactive components to support the teachers to change teaching and learning approaches. The pilot has web-based curriculum units in an attempt to effectively engage secondary students. The question is now, where to from here? The Federal Government is in the process of establishing a national curriculum board headed by Professor Barry McGaw. The interim board had its first interactive meeting last Friday, in Melbourne, which I attended. The board's brief is to develop a national curriculum for kindergarten to Year 12 in English, history, mathematics and science. Since PrimaryConnections has been aligned with the national statements of learning throughout its development and its outcomes have been mapped against all state and territory syllabuses and is already deeply embedded in most of these syllabuses, we believe that it can be readily incorporated into a national curriculum.

Science by Doing can similarly be readily aligned in this way. As I've already indicated, the Australian Government has been in partnership with the Australian Academy of Science by providing funds for the academy's science education initiatives. However, the current funding for both programs finishes in the next few months and we were getting very worried about their future. However, I am very pleased to be able to report that just this morning the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, the honourable Julia Gillard, announced a grant of $4.4 million for the continuation and expansion of PrimaryConnections over the next. [Applause] ..two years. Also announced is the development of Science by Doing, that it will be resourced with a $2 million grant over the next two years. [Applause] This is wonderful news indeed and a total relief to all of us at the Australian Academy of Science who have put so much work into these programs. There are, of course, other initiatives, state and federal, that aim to develop a science culture in schools. To mention just three of the national programs.

Firstly the CSIRO has creativity in science and technology or CREST program that engages students who are interested in open-ended investigations and technology projects. It's open to both primary and secondary students and develops skills and processes so that the students can pursue a topic of interest to them. Our sister academy, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, ATSE, like us, is concerned about the steadily declining rates of participation of students in secondary school science courses. This year it launched its science and technology education leverage relevance or stellar(*) program This program builds on the traditional teaching of chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology through real world themes, and in games -and aims to engage the brightest and best students in science and engineering. Finally, through the initiative of the chief scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, who's here today, the Scientist in Schools project has been established which is managed by CSIRO Education. The project creates and supports long-term professional partnerships between scientists and teachers and by scientists they mean engineers, mathematicians, IT professionals, applied scientists, and medical practitioners amongst others. It began only 12 months ago and already there are about 750 such scientist teacher partnerships across both primary and secondary schools. Support for the continuation of this program was also announced along with the new funding for PrimaryConnections and Science by Doing today. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that if we get science education in schools right, that Australia's future supply of scientists, doctors and engineers will come from within the nation and not have to be imported.

But I stress, it has to begin at grassroots levels. Not once students get to university, it's too late then. But to engage, stimulate and excite students in the wonders of the world around them right from kindergarten then throughout their entire schooling. Not only will this encourage students to consider making science, medicine, engineering or technology their career, but just as importantly it will make them, as citizens, more knowledgeable of issues in health, medical research, climate change, the environment, water management and food production to name but a few. This in turn will help the Australian community to make more informed judgements on contemporary issues that affect them. I believe that the inquiry- based science education program that the Academy is advocating from an early age will also provide a thirst for knowledge that will continue throughout life. As a professional research scientist for over 35 years I have never lost the wonderment of the world around me. I am constantly astounded by the very existence of the universe and the chemistry, physics and mathematics that describe its composition and govern its movements.

As a biologist, I am particularly enamoured by the living cell, it's physiology, biochemistry and genetic control and by its ability to multiply, aggregate into groups, then differentiate to form tissues, organs and complete plants and animals including human beings, with a capacity for logical though, compassion and the concept of self. I believe that this wonderment should be available to all Australians. Thank you very much.

Ken Randall: Thank you very much Professor Campbell. As usual we have a period of questions from our media members; starting today with Simon Grose.

Question: Simon Grose from Science media and The Canberra Times. You talked about curricula and, and programs to interest school children in science, but you haven't talked about the need for someone up the front of the class to deliver those, those, whatever changes are made. We have a shortage of science teachers. I think our science teacher shortage is probably worse than the whole teacher shortage. It's an ageing cohort; ageing faster than the population. Does the academy have any views on how to address this issue?

Julie Campbell: Well, recruitment of teachers of course is, is a State issue, and not anything to do with the academy. But, I think that what should be done is teachers should be paid according to the important job that they do. So I think that teachers should be paid more. I think this would attract the brightest and the best into the teaching profession. And I think they need to be supported more. What the academy is doing is trying to give the teachers the resources to teach the inquiry-based programs that we've developed. But, I think we need to encourage more teachers to enter the profession by making it more attractive - and that is, I think one of the, one of the ways of doing that is by paying them more. Of course they have, they have in their hands the future of Australia. I mean our children are the future, and they are really directing the way children are developing; and we need to pay them accordingly.

Ken Randall: The next question is from Leo Shanahan.

Question: Leo Shanahan from The Age newspaper. Professor Campbell, you spoke a great deal about the porosity of science education in Australia. This begs the question, what are we concentrating too much on in classrooms?

Julie Campbell: [Laughs]. Well, again, I'm a medical researcher not a educationalist, and I really can't answer that one. I just think, there's so much to learn. I mean, knowledge in this world is just accelerating at such a huge rate. It is very, very hard to find a curriculum that is going to incorporate everything that we all need to know. And that's I guess one of the strengths of PrimaryConnections, because we are not just teaching science - as I have pointed out - it's teaching literacy and it's teaching numeracy. So I guess we have to try to incorporate different topics within the one topic as much as possible so that we're not duplicating.

Ken Randall: Alex Simons.

Question: Professor Campbell, Alex Simons from the Fin Review. If I could just pick on, pick up on that point on teachers - you talked in, in the beginning of your speech about how science teachers are getting snapped up in WA, and that really, if you look at that fact, you know, that even if teachers get paid a bit more, it's unlikely those salaries would ever get up to what you could get in the mines in WA. So if you were talking to someone who said, you know, look, I'm thinking about studying science or getting into teaching, but I've got this offer to go work in Western Australia, what are the kind of things you might tell them to get them to stay in science teaching?

Julie Campbell: I would say that there is more to a profession than the financial reward, and that teaching is very rewarding to oneself, and that they should consider that. And also I would tell them that, with the new curriculum, the national curriculum, and with what we're trying to do, that we're trying to provide more resources to make it easier for teachers so that they get the type of training and development that they require to be able to do their job.

Ken Randall: John Millard.

Question: Thank you Ken. John Millard, ArtSound FM. Professor Campbell, you spoke about the advantages of a national curriculum, and nobody can argue against that, but some of the most innovative science courses have been produced at a [indistinct] local level. For instance, the Web of Life course, that, sponsored by the academy in the Seventies, was largely a Victorian initiative. And here in the ACT, many fine science courses have come out at a school level, where you can have individual school properly accredited programs, education programs. How can you ensure, how can you ensure us that this national curriculum will not stifle that sort of innovation?

Julie Campbell: Well what the National Curriculum Board does is really out of our control, and that's, that's for them to determine. But, I believe that they will try to get the best out of all different programs and incorporate them into their national program. Certainly we, in the academy, in developing our inquiry-based science education programs have done precisely that. We have not just done it in isolation. We have looked at all the different programs and taken what we considered to be the best of each of them and made it into one.

Ken Randall: Laurie Wilson.

Question: Hello Professor Campbell, Laurie Wilson, I'm a freelance journalist and Director of the National Press Club. You gave us a very interesting and insightful example in terms of Indigenous Australians and teaching. I'm wondering if you could perhaps talk more generally about both the need and the way you go about it, what you've got in mind, the need to combine literacy training and science training. I mean, I was intrigued by this notion.

Julie Campbell: Well combining - well, literacy is embedded within our program because you can't really do science without being, without being literate. And therefore every stage of the, what is being taught in the schools involves the students needing literacy. And, they need to, they need to label diagrams, they need to, they need to write reports. They have to do these, these, this as part of their program in science. So, as I said, it's literacy by stealth, and the students often don't even know they're learning literacy, but they are.

So I think it's, it's just totally embedded within the whole program, and that was intentional.

Question: If I can just pick you up there, you seem to be suggesting something a little more formal than that - maybe I'm misreading it - but you seemed to be suggesting that really these things need to be not just created by stealth but almost developed in parallel.

Julie Campbell: It's an integral part of the program, and it is just embedded in it. It's not sort of something that's sort of set aside. It is just totally embedded within it.

Ken Randall: Tony Melville.

Question: Thanks very much. Sort of following up on the question about the learning by stealth. The idea of learning by stealth is already happening in a lot of ways through television, and we often hear here at the Press Club, speakers talking about science not, not getting through to the community, and it needing more education. But we have programs like CSI and Myth Busters and Doctor Karl and all the Beyond programs that are, that kids watch and are inspired by. Why isn't that inspiring them to become scientists? Why isn't that sort of science teaching by stealth working? I think it is in CSI. I hear that a lot of people want to become forensic scientists, but, that's another thing.

And also the question of being demand driven. There's been a lot of talk about the green jobs that are on the horizon. Will we see a naturally occurring lift in the level of science education from the green jobs revolution? Julie Campbell: In relation to the first question - part of our inquiry-based science education program is so that the population can really judge what they see on television and hear on the news for themselves in, is that realistic? Is what they're saying in the forensic side actually, actually true? So they have this basic knowledge. So, you're saying that's education by stealth, but it's entertainment, it's not education. But, I think what we're equipping the students to do is to be able to judge what's real, what's not, and to, and to criticise what they see on television in the news. So, but you're right in a way in that that's engaging them. And why is it engaging them? Because it's entertaining them. Our programs are both engaging and entertaining in the same way I think as those programs are, but, but the students are doing it themselves.

So, I think we're using some of the techniques, but doing it in, doing it better. In relation to the second question, I don't know, but I think the more we know about the world around us, the more, more we can judge, we'll be able to judge what's right and what isn't.

Ken Randall: Back to Simon Grose.

Question: When you talk about inquiry-based programs and making education entertaining, you remind me of a gentleman, a young man I interviewed a couple of years ago who'd just - he's in his early Twenties - he'd just graduated with very high, high honours in IT and mathematics from ANU and he'd got a really cool job in, with Google in San Francisco. And, he was, he was, his parents were Indian; he was born in Singapore; he came to Canberra very early in his life. He did primary school, secondary school, and, and his tertiary education at the ANU. And he was scathing about the education he received. His parents paid for tutors through is primary school, and through secondary school, and he paid for tutors through his university. He said that the teaching should be pedagogic, the old style, learn your tables, totally at variance to the inquiry-based, let's make it foxy, let's get them interested approach.

I wondered if you have any views on that kind of challenge to this idea of making it interesting, and sucking people in.

Julie Campbell: Well, we all need to learn some things by rote. That's for sure. There's no question. I mean, I think, I remember reciting my times table over and over again in primary school. I remember learning the periodic table off by heart. I can still do quite a lot of it.

Question: [Indistinct]

Julie Campbell: But I think the problem is that in this day and age with knowledge accelerating at such a ridiculous rate, we have to teach people, teach children how, in many ways, how to learn, not just teach them by rote, but to teach them how to learn while they're at school and wh. when they leave school, because we can never teach them everything that's known in the world. But we can teach them how to be able to teach themselves that later on. So that I think education's quite a different thing, now, from what it was when we were at school.

Ken Randall: John? Oh, sorry, Alex Symons(*).

Question: That's okay. Just another question, a two parter in a way. If we continue along the same path we have and the shortages we have and the lack of knowledge we have, what would be the worst case scenario? And then relating to that in a way, what do you think's a business, you know, who uses a lot of innovative people that have done science and looked at science could do to get an engagement and interest in science, with the idea of getting more teachers, but also more knowledge overall. Julie Campbell: What will happen to Australia if we don't change what we're doing now, well, we're going to have a terrible lack of scientists and engineers. We will not, certainly not be the clever country. We will be left behind the rest of the world. Economically, it would be disastrous. We'll have to import all our professional people. It's just a horrible thing to contemplate. We have to do something about it now. It's becoming quite desperate. In relation to what can industry do, well, I guess it can maybe support schools, support individual schools with equipment, it can send its experts into schools to talk to kids about the importance of what they do, and to stimulate them in relation to whatever product they're making and to talk about the importance of the economy, and the manufacturing industries.

So I think everyone can play a role in some way. So many. I talked about the scientists in schools program. I mean, the students love it. I know I've been - I've gone to schools and talked to schools about science, and I'm amazed just how engaged the children are. I even went to a kindergarten, or five year old. I suppose they're preps. I call them koalas. Five year olds. And I was there for an hour and a half. The teacher could not believe that these students were engaged for an hour and a half. I took a lot of props with me that I got from drug companies like a plastic brain, which was anatomically totally correct, and a whole lot of plastic bones, like shoulders and knees and hands and things, and also blood vessels. And we talked about these, and we talked about where they are on the body, and what they do, and why do you eat food, and what happens to the food, and how you get energy, and what happens when you breathe in air, and what do you breathe in, what does it do when it gets into your bloodstream and goes to your cells, and what you breathe out, and then, what happens to it? How the trees utilise it. I mean, and these kids, an hour and a half, were just fascinated. I mean, everyone can play a part. That's a scientist playing a part. But I think so many people can play a part. Industry can play a part by again engaging students in the real world and letting them know their place in it.

Ken Randall: John Millard(*).

Question: Thank you, Ken. Professor Campbell, you spoke about the intangible rewards of science teaching. But it doesn't seem to either recruit or retain science teachers who disappear overseas for twice the money in Hong Kong or middle east, or whatever might be. When I was a science teacher, some time ago, and I'm an ex-one, people used to talk about dedication. Whenever people talk about dedication to me, they usually want me to do more work for less money. [Laughter] How much do you think it's important to foster decent rewards for teachers in general science, teachers in particular; and how much do you think the academy should be doing something about it at government level?

Julie Campbell: Well, I think the academy can only lobby, like so many other organisations can. Remember, it's the state that determines - that employs the teachers and pays the teachers, so it's a state-wide thing. But I think it is very important to reward the teachers for their very important job. And you talk about, okay, people say to you, dedication, and that really means doing more for less money. But the dedicated teachers are the ones we really, really want, just like dedicated everything we really want.

And we.

Question: But we haven't got them yet.

Julie Campbell: I think we do. I think that's very unfair. [Laughter] I think most teachers are very dedicated, and are there because they love the job and they see the importance of what they're doing, and we thank you very much [laughs]. [Applause]

Ken Randall: Maurice Ryan(*).

Question: Professor Campbell, I just follow up slightly on Tony Melville's question, you know, he was talking about exciting the interest of tomorrow's scientists of young men and women. And I just wanted to sort of explore with you about some role models. I mean, when the last science role model I can remember is Julius Sumner Miller, you know, and that rather quirky television program.

Julie Campbell: You're older than you look. [Laughter]

Question: I am. But I'm just wondering, you know, like, you know, I'm not sure that the academy has a marketing department, but we need to connect better with the youth. And I mean, in this business here, we've been able to get e. interest of young men and women to be chefs while in the Jamie Oliver series. And if they follow the Gordon Ramsay series, there's going to be a few words that they've learnt. But nonetheless, they do identify with role models, and I'm just wondering what importance the academy and the science community generally should place on that and maybe, can you identify a couple.

Julie Campbell: Oh, look, I couldn't agree more. We need some icons, and I believe that we do have them. I mean, we just had, as an Australian of the year, we had Ian Frazer. I mean, it's wonderful that scientists have, in the last few years, so many scientists and medical researchers have become Australian of the Year. A number of them. And Tim Flannery, Ian Frazer, Fiona Wood, Fiona. just so many. And so I think we do have our icons. We just have to make them more in touch, I guess, with the population. And I don't know. We need some television series with some really sexy scientists.

Question: Big Brother.

[Laughter]

Ken Randall: Laurie Wilson.

Question: Laurie Wilson again. Look, I was thinking of asking you to recite the periodic table, but.

Julie Campbell: 1, H1. 2, He4. 3, Li7. 4, Be9. 5, B11. 6C12. 7, N14. [Laughter] I can go on.

Question: And I thought better of it. But then again. [laughs] Instead, I thought I'd begin by congratulating you on convincing the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, that she should announce the continuation of funding for PrimaryConnections in science by doing, just so you could tell the world, today, here at the National Press Club.

Julie Campbell: I don't think it was me who convinced her.

Question: [Laughs] But I would - I did want to pick up on I think what this reflects, and it seems to me that what these programs do is offer teachers the resources, better resources to do their job. And I also picked up on your comment, before, about the need for improved salaries. And I think there'd be very few people who would think that that's not a very legitimate point to make. But of course while it's not necessarily widely recognised, I think it is understood that once people feel they are being fairly remunerated - and that's another issue, what that amounts to - once they feel that, what unlocks or encourages motivation, and certainly in terms of the work that I've done in the management area, unlocks productivity, is access to better resources.

Julie Campbell: Indeed.

Question: Now, do you think that's widely recognised, though, in terms of the people, if you like, that run our education systems? Or is it, just, well, yes. We'll give a bit more money here to run this program - because it seems to me, that's a critical factor. And I mean, I don't know - look around this room, but I suspect that I'd find very few people who would disagree with that notion.

Julie Campbell: Well as you know, I'm not an educator. I'm a medical research scientist. So I really don't have any great insight into that. But I mean, of course, I've got children. I've got three children of my own, and two step children. So I - you know, what they went through school, and what the resources were, and I agree. I think that resources to teachers, so they can teach better, are very important. And I don't know quite what the answer to that is.

Certainly, our inquiry-based education - science education programs are - have - need resources, but they're not really expensive resources. You don't really need to have expensive laboratory equipment to run the sort of things that we're talking about. But the teachers need resources to be able to teach better. There's nothing - that's absolutely for sure. And they have to be - have access to professional development throughout their whole careers, not just you train them once, and think that they can do it forever. They need to be updated. And I'm sure that that should be - time should be set aside for teachers to be able to do this. Certainly, in Finland, which apparently gets the highest education scores throughout the world, a lot of time is left aside for teachers to be updated all the time. And that's a resource. It's a learning resource. And I think that should be, certainly, the case with us. Ken Randall: Tony Melville.

Question: Thanks. Just a couple of questions. You touched, in your speech, on the HECS issue. I just wanted you to elaborate a bit more. And, you know, to what extent making concessional HECS for people studying science would help improve the numbers studying science at the senior levels.

And also, just in terms of the media questions before, the - do you see more of a role for the national broadcaster, which we're looking at now, in doing more in the science? I note that the NewsRadio recently dropped there - are about to drop their astronomy program, because supposedly, because there are not enough people interested in it. But the national broadcaster's got a national role. Should it be doing more?

Julie Campbell: In relation to HECS, well, again, having three children and two step children, I know what their HECS debts are like, and it's pretty horrific, and they start their careers really off the back foot. And I think that this is one way to try to get children more involved in science, and in science teaching. That's one way. There's probably lots of - many other ways to do it. But it - that's just one, a financial incentive. In relation to the ABC and science programs, oh, all the more. I mean, how many of us just really watch science and environmental programs? I mean, that's virtually all I watch. I know, maybe, I'm not typical, but that's what's interesting. And I - it would be a terrible shame if the ABC, if these programs are dropped; because there's a great number of us out there who find that to be their entertainment across disciplines.

So I think there should be more. And as we mentioned before, maybe we need some more sexy scientists to really push it.

Ken Randall: John Millard, I'm not putting you in that category, but.

Question: Ken, you say the nicest of things. The enthusiasm for science is almost innate. If you go to the National Science and Technology Centre, Questacon, here in Canberra, the founding director of which, Mike, Dr Mike Gurr [sic], Gore, and his wife Joyce are here in the audience. You can see the enthusiasm in pre-schoolers, primary school kids, secondary school kids, and it almost seems innate that it's already there. How much do you think that science education in schools is repressing that perhaps innate automatic enthusiasm for science, properly presented; and do you think this should be a question that the - that you and the academy and I think the national curriculum should be addressing?

Julie Campbell: We are indeed addressing that question already. And I couldn't agree more. As I mentioned, my visit to these koalas or. prep kids, at the age of five, I mean, the excitement and the enthusiasm was amazing. And I've been to schools, other schools in grade three and four and seen that there as well. Just as exciting. Excited by science, by the wonderment of the world.

I think what happens is in the latter parts of primary school and early high school, kids, wh. when the hormones start surging, they tend to lose a bit of focus in a lot of things, and those of us who - those of you who have children will, I'm sure, can confirm that. That's the time that we really have to maintain the wonderment that the children have naturally, and that our inquiry based science education programs have encouraged and felicitated - facilitated through primary school. But we can't stop there. And that's why science, by doing this follow on program in junior and middle high school, is so important. If we just stopped at the end of primary school, we will have undone all the good that we've done. It has to continue. The children have to be c. have to have a continuation in this excitement and this engagement so they don't go off on tangents in their early years of high school and worship other gods that we consider to be meaningless. You know, the so-called celebrity gods, they take an interest in these, whereas I think if the wonderment is still there for them, they'll be less likely to do that.

Ken Randall: Let's go back to Leo Shanahan.

Question: Professor Campbell, you spoke a great deal about the problems Australia has in attracting scientists and engineers, especially compared to India and China now. But India and China don't have access to half the resources to education that we do a great deal of the time, especially not the kind of funky new programs you're speaking about today.

Julie Campbell: Well, they do. India has an inquiry-based science education program.

Question: Right. What - so what, but what is really at the root cause of this disinterest in the west in science, because you said that this is also happening in America.

Julie Campbell: I think probably the distractions of, the distractions that we've already talked about. The kids have, are not being given the opportunity to be excited by science. Why is that happening in other countries? Well, as I said, India does have an inquiry-based science education program in primary school. I think it's a mass of numbers as well. I think these developing countries see the need for people to become engineers, doctors, and scientists, and so they're being pushed.

In Australia I think we're just becoming complacent; that we've always been ahead technologically, and a lot of students put science in the too hard basket when they can go and do another course that's a lot easier. And I think we have to encourage them to do the, to do the hard yards, to get these interesting occupations.

Ken Randall: Professor, let me ask you the last question of the day, and it might run a bit contrary to some of the strands we've had earlier. Last year during the election campaign the idea of a computer for most kids in the last years of secondary schools went over very well, and nobody seemed to object to the concept. In implementation, it seems that there's quite a degree of resistance from both the education systems and teachers. Do they feel threatened by new technology? Is that part of the problem of getting new concepts into the teaching of science?

Julie Campbell: Ooh [laughs]. Well the, the computer for every child is really for senior high school, and wouldn't be affecting the courses so much that we're, that we're developing.

But I think that is it. I mean, I know that my children, although they're in their mid-twenties now, even when they were 10 years old they knew a lot more about computers than I did. And I think that teachers do feel a little threatened; that the students know so much more about it than they do. I think, it's not just that, I think there's a lot of technological problems in getting a computer for every child in school and hooking it up to the web, and the expense of doing that is really quite, you know, quite a lot. And I don't know whether that's been really well thought out yet, in who's going to be paying for all the setting up costs, not just the computers, but hooking them up to the web and, et cetera. So, I think it's a wonderful idea and really would, I really am all for every, every student having a computer because that's the way these days that they learn, and we have to keep up with the times. But, it's got to, there's got to be follow-through.

Ken Randall: Thank you very much. [Applause] Thank you very much Professor Campbell. We'd like you to have a memento of today's appearance.

Julie Campbell actually admitted before today's event that she'd never done anything like this before. I asked her - I've asked her how much timeshe spent on public speaking, and this is it. It was good training Julie; thank you very much.

Julie Campbell: Thank you. [Applause]