Skip to main content
Log in

Science education: innovation in rural and remote Queensland schools

  • Published:
Educational Research for Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Outside its heavily-populated south-eastern corner, Queensland is a huge administrative area with many small, remote communities that can be separated by hundreds of kilometres of dirt road, or, in other areas, not accessible by road. In this study, parents, students and teachers in nine schools from rural and regional Queensland were interviewed about their perceptions of school science. Teachers, parents and students defined remoteness by reference to their social ties, as well as the social capital and resources they drew on to teach science meaning that not only did different groups differ in their interpretations of remoteness; different teachers in similar circumstances also responded differently. Science teachers’ responses to remoteness were related to their perceptions of school-community communication and their perceptions of their freedom to innovate. Teachers who felt that remoteness gave them more freedom and recognised opportunities to utilise their environment created innovative and relevant science programmes. Teachers who felt their remoteness gave them less freedom felt isolated from the community were less likely to innovate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker R., Ambrose B. (1985) The small rural school and in-service provision in science. Research in Rural Education 3, 31–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns B., Century J., Hiles E., Minner D., Moore G. (2003) Science education reform in rural America: A snapshot. National Science Foundation, MA, Newton

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen W., Monk D. (1992) Differences between rural and nonrural secondary science teachers: Evidence from the longitudinal study of American youth. Journal of Research in Rural Education 8, 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey R. (1960) The rural–urban continuum: Real but relatively unimportant. American Journal of Sociology 66, 60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans T. (2003) Beating around the bush: Reflections on the theme. Journal of Research in Rural Education 18, 170–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin B., Glascock C. (1998) The relationship between Grade configuration and student performance in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education 14, 149–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes M., Halverson P., Brockmueller B. (2002) Technology facilitation in the rural school: an analysis of options. Journal of Research in Rural Education 17, 162–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins A. (1994) A background to rural education schooling in Australia. Journal of Research in Rural Education 10, 48–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Khattri N., Riley K., Kane M. (1997) Students at risk in poor, rural areas: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Rural Education 13, 79–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D., Faragher, R., Lenoy, M., Sellwood, J., Archer, L., & Anderson, N. (2006). What makes a good teacher? They have respect for our culture. In T. Lyons, (Ed.), Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: The SiMERR National survey case studies (pp. 123–147). Armidale: National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England.

  • Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: The SiMERR National survey. Armidale: National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England.

  • Moriarty B., Danaher P., Danaher G. (2003) Situating and interrogating contemporary Australian rural education research. Journal of Research in Rural Education 18, 133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, H., Stafford, J., & Holdsworth, R. (2000). Rural and remote school education: A survey for the human rights and equal opportunities commission. Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpin T., Iredale R., Ngui M., Harrison B., Fox C. (2002) Evaluation of the human rights and equal opportunity commission national inquiry into rural and remote education. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Wollongong

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker W. (1983) Conceptualizing “Rural” for research in education: A sociological perspective. Rural Education 1, 71–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lake, D. Science education: innovation in rural and remote Queensland schools. Educ Res Policy Prac 7, 123–136 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-007-9038-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-007-9038-6

Keywords

Navigation