In 2018 NAPLAN (National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy) reached a 10-year milestone. Introduced in 2008 by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), NAPLAN assesses student literacy and numeracy in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. As a key education reform in Australia, NAPLAN has provoked critical debate across public, political and academic fora. This study synthesises themes emerging from a quantitative systematic review of NAPLAN-related literature to identify the main discourses that have emerged in response to this large-scale standardised assessment programme. The dominant discourses coalesce around 'datafication', 'social justice', 'affect and emotion', and 'accountability and performativity'. The stakes are high in these discursive struggles around NAPLAN as large-scale standardised testing is reconstituting the purposes of education, the professionalism and professional identities of educators, and affecting parents and students' engagement in schooling.

Figure 1 Replicating the multiverse on young children: Characterizing smartphone use predicting parenting, moderated by technoference. Note: Effect size values for each smartphone use variable predicting parenting. Separate panels for each independent variable. Yaxis represents effect size estimates (log-odds scaled for ease of interpretation), with horizontal line denoting zero and blue indicators denoting significant effect. X-axis shows values with no modifier in the model (N), values for smartphone use X family conflict interaction (C), and values for smartphone use X family displacement interaction (D) at low (L), medium (M) and high (H) levels. Effect sizes for parental attachment are shown in top rows, and effect sizes for warmth are shown in bottom rows

We interrogated a students as partners (SaP), co-curricular program that focuses on supporting student learning. To center power and equity in SaP, the program was grounded in social design-based experiment methodology. We considered the manifestation of power and equity beyond higher education, to that of broader socio-political contexts. Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) was used to garner a richer understanding of student-staff experiences of the program. Through CAE, power emerged as central to our collective experiences, and a recognition that power asymmetry in students as partners programs is complex and multi-layered. We found that to address power imbalances in these programs requires considered strategies and intentional designs. Further, CAE, in and of itself, can be a powerful way to foster self-awareness, mutual trust, respect, and the acknowledgement of others in student-staff partnerships. We conclude by recommending the importance of deliberate design for equity and power towards consequential learning and transformational change.

Background: Psychological variables contribute to pain- and injury-related outcomes. We examined the hypothesis that anatomical spread and intensity of persistent pain relate to anxiety-related variables: generalised anxiety, fear of pain and pain catastrophising. Methods: An online survey was used to gather data from 413 women with persistent pain (low back pain, n = 139; fibromyalgia syndrome, n = 95; neck pain, n = 55; whiplash, n = 41; rheumatoid arthritis, n = 37; migraine, n = 46). The spread and intensity of pain were assessed using the McGill pain chart and a Numerical Rating Scale. A Bayesian Structural Equation Model assessed if the intensity and spread of pain increased with anxiety-related variables. Men were also surveyed (n = 80), but the sample size was only sufficient for analysing if their data were consistent with the model for women. Results: Across subgroups of women, one standard deviation increase in catastrophising, generalised anxiety and fear corresponded to 27%, 7% and −1% additional pain areas and a 1.1, 0 and –0.1 change in pain intensity (on 0–10 scale), respectively. Overall, our clinical significance criterion – a 30% shift in pain variable in relation to one standard deviation increase in psychological variable – was not met. However, in subgroups it was met for pain spread (low back pain, neck pain and migraine) and pain intensity (migraine and neck pain) in relation to pain catastrophising. The model generally had low goodness-of-fit to men. Conclusion: These data support a meaningful relationship between some anxiety-related variables and pain in women for some conditions. Since the model did not consistently fit the men, we may conclude that the relationships are moderated by sex. Clinician attention to psychological variables as potential contributing factors can be justified; however, research is needed to understand the relationship and whether psychological treatment can reduce pain.