Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments: Case Studies from Australia and New Zealand Schools 981997366X, 9789819973668

Citation preview

Julia E. Morris Wesley Imms   Editors

Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments Case Studies from Australia and New Zealand Schools

Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments

Julia E. Morris · Wesley Imms Editors

Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments Case Studies from Australia and New Zealand Schools

Editors Julia E. Morris School of Education Edith Cowan University Joondalup, WA, Australia

Wesley Imms University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia

ISBN 978-981-99-7366-8 ISBN 978-981-99-7367-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

Contents

1

2

3

4

What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore What Environments Have Impact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julia E. Morris and Wesley Imms

1

Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marian Mahat

11

Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments: A Journey of Discovery at MacKillop Catholic College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sharon County and Benjamin Cleveland Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic Encounters for Contemporary Education at Methodist Ladies’ College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benjamin Cleveland, Lisa Wilks-Beasy, and Christine Wintle

25

41

5

Transforming Practices in ILEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanne Blannin and Virginia Kung

6

Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wesley Imms and Rik Malone

75

Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind Frames and Student Deep Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marian Mahat and Maria Emery

91

7

8

59

The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Marian Mahat, Lisa Plenty, Jeremy Hawkes, Jason Golding, Ailsa Mackerras, and Louise Wallace-Richards

v

vi

Contents

9

The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement and Teacher Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Julia E. Morris, Wesley Imms, and Adam Dehring

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly Changing Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Wesley Imms, Julia E. Morris, and Karyn Gray 11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Natalie Sunner, Mick Martin, Wesley Imms, and Julia E. Morris 12 A Synthesis of Findings and Trends from Nine Teacher-Initiated Learning Environment Research Projects . . . . . . . 181 Wesley Imms and Julia E. Morris 13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects . . . . . . . 189 Julia E. Morris and Wesley Imms 14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Sinan Kerimofski 15 What Has Plans to Pedagogy Taught Us? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Wesley Imms and Julia E. Morris

Chapter 1

What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore What Environments Have Impact? Julia E. Morris and Wesley Imms

Abstract There is no doubt there is a growing awareness in schools that the types of spaces we teach in must affect the way students learn. There is also growing concern about the lack of evidence available to teachers to understand this type of spatial literacy. Finally, there is an understanding that the best solutions to educational problems come from teachers with an awareness of the broad range of issues in play. This is the gap that this book addresses. This book hopes to empower teachers and leaders to identify spatial issues within their school, to design methods to collect useable data, and to use that data to drive change relevant to their own students. The idea of an innovative learning environment is to help every child find a place at school that helps them to learn best and meets their personal needs; this book is about using research to achieve this goal.

In the past few decades, there has been considerable expenditure on innovative learning environments. Innovative learning environments are a response to the changing nature of schooling—they begin to address how the physical environment of a school meets (or doesn’t) the skills, knowledge, practices, beliefs and attitudes of learners. Imms (2018) identifies that over 16 billion dollars has been spent in Australia alone in order to produce school builds that are ‘fit for purpose’. However, Lippman (2010) rightly identifies there is a transactional relationship between physical learning environments and the learners, one shapes the other. Along with that, other factors like the teacher, other students and school culture all change how learners interact with the school environment. The term ‘innovative’ implies that there is a change from what is ‘traditional’ learning—in our field of research, the term innovative has come to mean an architectural response to education’s desire for more student-centred learning, where learners J. E. Morris (B) Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Morris · W. Imms The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_1

1

2

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

are active, develop autonomy, collaboration, critical thinking and other skills to help them thrive in contemporary society (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014; Lippman, 2010; Mahat et al., 2018; OECD, 2015). Importantly, an innovative learning environment does not mean learners develop these skills and practices at the expense of more traditional learning (i.e. the development of core knowledge). Murphy (2020) has found that students’ interaction with innovative learning environments improves their deep learning (i.e. develops the twenty-first century skills) but without losing superficial learning (i.e. recalling facts, rote learning) skills that are also important. While spending on innovative learning environments has increased, rethinking physical learning environments to meet student needs is not a new concept. The open-plan classroom agenda of the 1970s was an earlier example of how designers and educators have attempted to meet the difficult ambition of creating places for effective learning (Mahat et al., 2018). However, an environment that promotes effective learning can only be created if the physical space (the design) and the learning environment (the practices) work together; Mahat et al. (2018) argue that these two things need be in place for a learning environment to be considered innovative.

ILEs: Designs and Practices Innovative learning environments (ILEs) are based on the belief that good design of learning spaces can help teachers to teach better, and students learn in a wider variety of ways. For a number of years this was an assumption; in recent years, however, studies have shown: 1. a strong correlation between more innovative designs and increased student deep learning (Murphy, 2020), 2. greater incidence of Hattie’s (2012) high-impact teaching practices in innovative designs and 3. improved academic achievement in English, mathematics and science when teaching and learning happens in an ILE (Barrett et al., 2015; Byers et al., 2014). So, what are these designs? One characteristic of an ILE is that it has greater flexibility of learning spaces than traditional classrooms. They can be easily and quickly reconfigured to suit specific learning tasks. ILEs provide students with a range of furniture to assist different student needs or to suit different learning activities. A second characteristic is that ILEs make the most of all available and relevant technologies, students and teachers can and do connect to technology as is required by the activities being undertaken. Third, ILEs treat the whole environment as a place for learning, recognising that good learning happens both within and outside the classroom—in hallways, outdoors, in social areas. This is not an exhaustive list of the qualities of an ILE, but it does highlight some of the differences compared to more ’traditional’ classroom environments—where each individual child works at the same desk and chair, where technology is a focal point (and often a point for

1 What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore …

3

the teacher to work from), where outside the classroom walls is a designated social space and inside the classroom is where learning happens. Importantly, in terms of ‘whole-school’ developments, ILEs can (and should) mean having a range of learning space types available for students and teachers to use. This entails having spaces that are traditional classrooms through to large collaborative spaces within the school setting, spaces for lecture or teacher-centred approaches through to small group or individual retreat areas. By having this range of spaces available, the idea of flexibility central to ILEs also extends to teachers and students being able to purposefully select spaces that meet their teaching and learning needs for any activity. However, design alone cannot make a learning environment innovative. There are examples of new and ‘innovative’ builds where practices have not changed within them and the potential benefits of using space as a pedagogical tool are not harnessed. Consequently, as we move into ILEs we need to support teachers and students to develop good practices where they can build core knowledge and skills, but also build the twenty-first-century learning skills that are argued to better prepare students for future society and work (Mahat et al., 2018; OECD, 2015). To do this, ILEs are intended to provide an effective setting for students to engage in critical thinking, learn how to communicate with others and be more creative and critical in how they think and learn, whether that is in groups or independently. Both the design and practices combined constitute the learning environment— and they are both dynamic. It is only when design and practices work in tandem to support quality student learning and teaching that they can be called innovative.

ILE Development and Knowing Where to Start for Your School Many schools are moving towards ILEs; for example, they now represent approximately 25% of schools in Australia and New Zealand (Imms et al., 2017). We note that there appear to be three categories of ILE development: 1. big, full-build projects: these are the newly built, purpose-designed ILEs, 2. architect-designed retrofits: these are the significant makeovers to existing school sites to transform spaces into ILEs, and often sit side-by-side with more traditional spaces in the school, and 3. repurposed spaces: these are the more modest transformations, where existing buildings are left largely untouched (or totally untouched) and cheaper ways are found to make spaces more flexible and student-centred. Two examples of this would be changing the furniture within a classroom or knocking out part of a wall between two classrooms to make a bigger space. The reality is most school developments across Australia fall into the second or third categories. While whole-school new builds are becoming more frequent, and teachers might enjoy the opportunity to work with architects on the conceptualisation

4

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

and design of, the reality is most schools can only manage a retrofit of existing spaces with minimal contact with the architects, or perhaps the even more realistic re-purposing—teachers using limited design skills to undertake cost effective ways to change how existing classrooms can be made more flexible. But they all aspire to the good design and practices characteristics previously discussed. However, where should teachers and school leaders start in exploring innovative learning environments for their context? They may aspire for good designs and practices, but determining what works in terms of innovative design and practice will look different for each school. Evaluation takes time, and as the learning environment is made up of a complex set of variables, what works in one school may not work in another. There is also not enough evaluation to draw on in the current literature, with experts asking for more evidence of the benefits of ILEs (Morris et al., 2023). Importantly, there is not enough evidence specifically from teachers and leaders themselves. ILEs need to work for those who use them, and teacher voice has been largely missing from evaluation. It is only from gathering data from the people who use ILEs that we can understand the localised variables that make the space function well as a pedagogic tool. The Plans to Pedagogy project was designed to address these issues around developing and evaluating ILEs in schools.

The Plans to Pedagogy Strategy The Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project began in the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) at the University of Melbourne. Plans to Pedagogy works with schools across all the categories of ILE development—new builds, significant retrofits and repurposed spaces. It recognises that every school is different, and to meet that magic blend of good design and good practice, designers and teachers need to identify the ILE issues specific to their school. They need to reach an agreement on what types of learning they desire, and how the design of these spaces can help that to occur. P2P also recognises that teachers and leaders need to play a leading role in collecting evidence to help design, use and then inhabit their desired learning spaces. To achieve this, P2P brings together a ‘spatial learning team’ in a school with one or two researchers from our LEaRN group, and in some cases an industry partner, to work together. The spatial learning team is a core group of staff in the school, who share an interest in learning environments. Usually between 3 and 6 staff, they may include teachers or school leaders who want to be active in co-designing research and evaluation, collecting data, analysing data and reporting back to the school community. While each school has its own unique project (nine of which are presented in this book), there is a general overarching structure to the projects within P2P. Each project has three phases, which run over approximately three years (Blannin et al., 2020; Morris & Imms, 2022):

1 What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore …

5

1. Phase One is exploratory: This phase investigates current knowledge and practices, as well as determining what gaps/issues may exist. The researcher/s work with the spatial learning team to collect baseline data and develop a research design to address their issue in phase two; 2. Phase Two is interventionist: This phase focuses on the key spatial issue identified by the school. It seeks to implement interventions (such as physical changes to the space or person-based interventions such as professional learning) and collects data to inform phase three; 3. Phase Three adds evaluation: This phase often continues the phase two activities but adds an evaluation component to see if phase two activities have addressed the spatial issue identified by the school or if another iteration is required. In this phase the spatial learning team (with their LEaRN researcher/s) also disseminate their findings to the broader school, as well as to broader education and academic audiences. LEaRN hosted two workshops annually to support the spatial learning teams at each school; these workshops providing networking opportunities, schools presented on their project’s progress, and LEaRN researchers shared basic methods, analysis and dissemination approaches. The LEaRN researchers also committed to visiting the schools twice a year to support research activities within the school, such as reporting to whole school staff or planning the next phase of the project.

The Plans to Pedagogy Schools and Understanding the Context in Australia and New Zealand The schools across P2P were diverse; they included both regional and metropolitan locations, primary and secondary school contexts, government and private sectors, single-sex and co-educational schools, faith-based and secular schools. To provide some context to these case study settings, the following section provides a brief overview of schooling in Australia and New Zealand. Schooling in Australia and New Zealand is broadly made up of two primary sectors: (1) government/state schools which are publicly funded schools, and (2) privately funded schools. In Australia, private schools are then further broken down into Independent schools (which may be guided by either a religious or educational philosophy) or Catholic schools. In New Zealand, state schools are broken down into state schools that are secular, or state-integrated schools that are still primarily government funded but set within a specific philosophy or religion. In both countries, children fall into catchment areas/school zones, meaning they are guaranteed a place at a government/state school that is close to where they live irrespective of their socioeconomic background. Private schools require parents/ guardians to pay school fees in order for their child/children to attend. Both countries also have the choice to send children to single-sex or co-educational schools.

6

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

In Australia, the content of schooling is governed by a national curriculum, but each State and Territory can adapt/adopt the curriculum for their context. In New Zealand, it is possible to send children to an English-medium school (i.e. that teaches in English language) or a M¯aori-medium school (with a curriculum based on M¯aori philosophies). New Zealand has a national curriculum for each of these school types. Home education or distance schooling is another option for compulsory schooling in both countries. Both Australia and New Zealand have inclusive education policies where all students have the right to reasonable adjustments to support their inclusion in mainstream schools (Disability Standards for Education, 2005; Ministry of Social Development, 2016). However, parents and guardians in both countries can also elect for their child to attend special (segregated) education if they wish, either through a separate school (that may have health or specialist facilities on site) or through special education programme/learning-support centre support units within a mainstream school (Ministry of Education, n.d.; People with Disability Australia, n.d.). In both countries, education is arranged in four broad stages: 1. early childhood education: In Australia and New Zealand, this is not compulsory but an option for 0–3 years of age in Australia and for 0–5 years in New Zealand. 2. primary school education: In Australia, this starts at kindergarten/preparatory to Year 6 or 7 (approximately 4–11 years of age), and in New Zealand it starts at Year 1 to Year 8 (approximately 5–12 years), with a focus on a broad curriculum and core literacy/numeracy skills. 3. secondary school education: In Australia, secondary school is organised as Years 7 or 8 up to Year 12 (approximately 12–18 years of age) and in New Zealand it runs from Years 9–13 (approximately 13–17 years). In both countries there are increasing opportunities for specialisation towards the end of compulsory schooling. 4. tertiary education: Tertiary education is not compulsory in either country. It can be accessed by students 16 + years of age in both countries, with some opportunities to engage in courses (e.g. vocational training in business or trades) while still at school. In terms of the learning environment structure, ILEs exist at all levels of schooling, as do more traditional spaces. In early childhood spaces, the children have a higher ratio of educators to children in their class and often have access to both indoor and outdoor classrooms. In primary schooling, children are typically allocated into a class with one/two teachers, and they remain in this class (and classroom space) for a whole academic year. In secondary schooling it is more common for students to move classrooms/spaces depending on the subject they are studying, with teachers also moving classrooms/spaces according to their timetable. This is because the physical spaces become more specialised as students work on discrete subjects. Tertiary settings are also specialised, and students/lecturers move rooms/spaces according to the subject they are studying or teaching.

1 What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore …

7

The Gap to Address There is no doubt there is a growing awareness in schools that the types of spaces we teach in must affect the way that students learn. There is also growing concern about the lack of evidence available to teachers to understand this type of spatial literacy. Finally, there is an understanding that the best solutions to educational problems come from teachers with an awareness of the broad range of issues in play. This is the gap that this book addresses. As described in this chapter, while each P2P project is unique they follow a similar structure. Mahat’s chapter, ‘Co-designing teacher-led inquiry in school learning environments’ provides some more depth on the co-design method used across all of these projects. It explains the theory of co-design and why it might be useful for school-based research, giving some case study examples to contextualise this method. Next are a series of nine case study chapters, each detailing a P2P school’s project. The case studies presented in this book cover a range of topics and contexts, providing authentic examples of how research can be utilised to drive evidence-based discussions about teacher practices and student learning. MacKillop Catholic College in Queensland is a quickly expanding regional secondary college. They believe groups of teachers have been using its agile learning spaces well as pedagogic tools to develop an array of learning settings that meet students individualised needs. In P2P, they wanted to use evidence to guide future teaching strategies to extend their good use of ILEs across the whole school and see if data showed a common pedagogic approach that could be applied to develop self-directed and motivated learners. Methodist Ladies College in metropolitan Melbourne has high academic achievement, but like MacKillop, wanted to determine a set of pedagogic encounters that could be shared across the school to promote learning that would meet the key principles of the school’s learning statement—that is, to promote agency, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, strong relationships and opportunities for a diversity of achievement. This project had a strong focus on dissemination to ensure all teachers could adopt spatialised pedagogic thinking as part of their practice. Newmarket Primary School in inner-city Auckland had a significant new building added to an older school during their P2P project. They wanted to develop research capacity in their staff, with an added focus on developing collaborative teaching practices. They wanted to gather evidence about teacher practices across ‘old’ and ‘new’ spaces, and over time, see how they could develop practitioner-researchers who evaluate their teaching practices. Luther College in Melbourne was undergoing significant change to its buildings during P2P. Part of this change included a significant retrofit of its middle school building, and they wanted to support their teachers to transition into this new building and use it in a more student-centred manner. They engaged in professional learning and measured the effect of this professional learning on actual teaching practices as teachers transitioned into the new space.

8

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

Henschke Primary School in regional New South Wales recognised that flexible spaces and pedagogy could be challenging for teachers to adapt to. In a school where budgets restricted major infrastructure projects, they wanted to use the P2P project to understand the specific details of how furniture and different team-teaching pedagogies within a modestly developed flexible learning space influenced student deep learning. Radford College in Canberra used their P2P project to gather school-focused data on the impact student-centred spatial and furniture configurations had on teachers’ practice and students’ learning. Using a single-subject research design, they wanted to explore what links existed between teaching and learning principles against furniture configurations. Furniture was also the focus of the P2P project at Vasse Primary School, a regional school in the south of Western Australia. This P2P project partnered with a furniture company called Beparta, as they focused on flexible furniture as a mechanism to support a student-centred inquiry learning approach. They wanted to see what impact their teacher and student use of furniture had on student engagement, as well as teachers’ practices across both flexible and traditional furniture arrangements. Haeata Community Campus, a years 1–13 school in Christchurch, is a PPP (public–private partnership) build, where the architects and actual teaching staff never met. This meant decisions about the design of the spaces were done in isolation of intended teaching practices. Consequently, the staff wanted to understand how these more innovative spaces could help teachers lift student engagement by first mapping how their students were using the spaces across the school. Finally, Whitsunday Anglican School in regional Queensland was embarking on the first major school build project for many years, an updated library and STEM centre. For them, P2P was an opportunity to ‘bring the staff along’ on that journey to see if teachers would embrace deep learning as a driver of new pedagogies as they transitioned into the new building. At the conclusion of the school case studies, we explore some broader findings and principles from our work across Plans to Pedagogy as a whole. First, Imms and Morris outline the main findings from the case studies and examine some common themes about how ILEs are supporting quality teaching and learning. The culmination of each case study’s findings adds to the body of work around the design and inhabitation of flexible learning environments. Second, is a chapter called ‘The Lost Ones: Lessons learned about embedding research in schools’. There were other case studies that did not make it into this book—P2P projects that were not completed. In some cases, the schools withdrew from P2P, and in one case, the school was asked to leave. This chapter examines the reasons for ‘failed’ projects and helps to understand what contributes to successful collaborations. Third, Kerimofski examines what makes research successful from a leader’s perspective. As a successful Principal, Kerimofski explores the benefits and challenges of engaging in research projects. He outlines ways to navigate research processes from within the school system to ensure the best outcomes for a school community.

1 What Are Innovative Learning Environments and How Can You Explore …

9

The final chapter by Imms explores what has been learned from engaging in the Plans to Pedagogy project. It emphasises the importance of school-based projects to gather local knowledge on ILE design and use. It explores the reasons why evaluation within schools is powerful, and how it contributes to the bigger field of learning environments research. It suggests ways forward for those who want to implement similar approaches in their own contexts. In summary, this book hopes to empower teachers and leaders to identify spatial issues within their school, to design methods to collect useable data, and to use that data to drive change relevant to their own students. The idea of an innovative learning environment is to help every child find a place at school that helps them to learn best and meets their personal needs. This book is about using research to achieve this goal.

References Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever classrooms. University of Salford. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (special issue), 10(3), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.887 Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ ct/29.1.02 Department of Education. (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005. https://www.education. gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Imms, W. (2018). Aligning pedagogy and space: An Australian evidence-based approach. In S. Borri (Ed.), The classroom has broken (pp. 91–108). INDIRE. http://www.indire.it/wp-content/ uploads/2019/02/Laula-si-%C3%A8-rotta-EPUB.pdf Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. J. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning envrionments in Australasian schools: ILETC survey 1. http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/ reports/ Lippman, P. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? OECD. Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne. http://www.iletc.com.au/pub lications/reports Ministry of Education (n.d.). Specialist schools. https://parents.education.govt.nz/learning-support/ secondary-school-learning-support/special-schools/ Ministry of Social Development. (2016). New Zealand disability strategy 2016–2026. https://www. odi.govt.nz/assets/New-Zealand-Disability-Strategy-files/pdf-nz-disability-strategy-2016.pdf Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2022). Designing and using innovative learning spaces: What teachers have to say. IUL Research, 3(6), 7–25. Morris, J. E., Imms, W., & Bradbeer, C. (2023). Gaps and priorities in future learning spaces research: A cross-sector Delphi response. LEaRN University of Melbourne. Murphy, D. J. (2020). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290169

10

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

OECD. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. . http://www.oecd.org/ education/schooling-redesigned-9789264245914-en.htm People with Disability Australia. (n.d.). Inclusive education vs special (segregated) education. Our Royal Commission. https://ourroyalcommission.com.au/jargon-buster/inclusive-educationvs-special-segregated-education/

Chapter 2

Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning Environments Marian Mahat

Abstract Co-design teacher-led action research is an approach to educational practice and professional development of teachers through action-oriented, evidencebased research. In this approach, teachers conduct their own collaborative research in real classrooms and school settings, focusing on local practices. There has been a gradual shift from researcher-centred approaches to a more teacher-centred and design-centred approach that use collaborative methods to support and guide teachers when participating in evidence-based decision-making. This chapter provides an overview of the development of co-design, teacher-led action research. Through examples provided by three case studies, the chapter advances a framework of teacher-led action research based on co-design principles. Keywords Action research · Co-design · School learning environments · Evidence-based · Teacher-led · Professional learning

Introduction Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educators to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice (Slavin, 2006). Action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical selfreflection that an educator employs daily in their classroom. It is generally less formal than other types of research, makes change manageable, helps educators focus on one aspect of their practice they would like to improve, and most importantly, is contextualised. Action research produces “practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2009, p. 2).

M. Mahat (B) The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_2

11

12

M. Mahat

In its simplest form, action research consists of planning a change; taking action to enact the change; observing the process and consequences of the change; reflecting on the process and consequences; and making improvements. When combined with collaboration in professional communities and settings, this form of teacher-led action research exemplifies experiences and ideas that promote “a willingness to wonder, to ask questions, and to seek to understand by collaborating with others” and is “rooted in the understandings gained in the past as these are embodied in the culture’s practices and artifacts and, at the same time, situated in the specific present of particular classrooms and oriented to the construction of new understandings” (Wells, 1999, p. 121). Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) exemplifies the concept of co-design teacher-led action research using university–school partnerships (Blannin et al., 2020). The P2P project aims to improve the quality of teaching with a view to evaluation and improvement (Campbell & McNamara, 2009) of teaching practices in innovative learning environments. These learning environments consist of physical and virtual environments, as well as formal and informal learning spaces in which students learn that offer a range of teaching and learning modalities (Mahat & Imms, 2021). Through the expertise of academic experts in a process of co-design, university academics support educators in schools to develop research skills (Dimmock, 2012; Swaffield & MacBeath, 2006) such as different data collection methods, innovative methods of evaluation, audits or critical incident analysis (MacBeath, 2002; Schratz & Löffler-Anzböck, 2004), as well as identifying useful resources, tools and the sharing of insights and experience of other schools’ approaches to inquiry (Swaffield & MacBeath, 2006). The dynamics of co-design move educators between divergent, expansive thinking exercises and convergent, solution-oriented modes of thinking that often elicit strong emotions among educators (Mahat et al., 2017). Co-design focuses on human values which requires collaboration of individuals with varying experiences, which enable different pedagogical approaches to emerge from the collective knowledge of educators and academics and from multiple perspectives. Drawn from case study examples of P2P schools, this chapter provides three examples that exemplify co-design teacher-led action research in schools, in the specific context of improving pedagogies in school learning environments.

Co-design Teacher-Led Action Research: An Overview The concepts of action research were first established by Lewin (1948) to enhance researchers’ capacity over the production of theoretical knowledge. Action research was later described by Cohen and Manion (1994) as a social practice, and it was adopted when “specific knowledge is required for a specific problem in a specific situation, or when a new approach is to be grafted on to an existing system” (p. 194). Stenhouse (1975) brought the concept of action research into the educational field. He argued that “it is not enough that teachers’ work should be studied; they need to

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

13

study it themselves” (p. 142). More recent descriptions of action research in education have referred to it as a systemic study of school and classroom situations to understand and improve teaching and learning practices (Johnson, 2012). In educational action research, teachers are often provided with the opportunities to conduct research on their own classroom situations, instead of only being the subjects of research. According to Mills (2011), the aims of action research in education are to provide a better understanding of quality teaching and learning process through studying the classroom situation, contributing to a better learning experience for students. Previous research has identified the benefits action research could bring to teachers, including bridging the gap between theory and practice (Johnson, 2012), supporting teacher development of new practices and knowledge (Hensen, 1996), facilitating teacher empowerment by allowing them to make decisions about their schools and classrooms (Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Hensen, 1996), and encouraging professional growth and development (Hine, 2013; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993). In an investigation of teacher participation in the Teacher Research Programme, Brookmyer (2007) found that among 114 teachers who had conducted action research studies from 1985 to 2005, the majority responded that action research was an important information base for reflective practice, as well as a foundation for professional development. It also provided valuable knowledge for classroom practice and a context for transformation. Action research can be applied in various ways within the education domain. Different types and names of action research have been found in the literature, such as action science, action learning, teacher-led action research, practitioner-led action research and participatory action research (Campbell & Groundwater-Smith, 2010; James et al., 2012). Despite different terminology, the primary focus of these terms is still to conduct a critical analysis of classroom practice and to examine the impacts of teacher action on student learning (Coghlan & Miller, 2014; Hine & Lavery, 2014). Teacher-led action research recognises the value in the voice and judgement of teachers and the importance of their expertise in understanding student learning (Dadds, 2014; Kincheloe, 2003). Bleicher (2014) pointed out that the active learning role that teachers play in changing their knowledge bases, beliefs and practice should be given full attention and priority when conducting action research. Specifically, teacher-led action research encourages teachers to “lead with literature, to lead from data, to lead through sharing, and to lead by example” (Wolkenhauer et al., 2017, p. 127). Teacher-led action research has been regarded as a powerful form of evidencebased, job-embedded professional development (Benson-O’Connor et al., 2020; Merrill & Daugherty, 2010), through which teachers are able to exert a positive impact on student learning and contribute to the ongoing development of the education profession not only by using research findings to inform their own practices and professional development, but also by sharing these findings with their colleagues, policymakers and the public (Lee et al., 2014). Despite the advantages of teacher-led action research, some concerns have also been raised in the literature. For instance, Glanz (2003) found that many teachers often fail to see how research can be beneficial to their work, particularly when

14

M. Mahat

they lack the necessary knowledge and training. Similarly, McDonough (2006) found that teachers tend to perceive performing research as an expert’s responsibility, and teachers reported that they lack familiarity with relevant research skills, such as identifying a researchable question and selecting and implementing appropriate methods (Burns, 2010). These findings highlight the challenges for teachers to conduct teacher-led action research alone. In response to these, another type of action research has been gaining increasing research attention, known as collaborative action research or co-design action research (Frankham & Howes, 2006). It was defined by Ross et al. (1999) as “a systematic inquiry into teaching practice that is conducted by a team of teachers and university researchers working as equal partners” (p. 256). Co-design action research encourages collaboration among teachers. More importantly, it promotes collaboration between teachers and researchers when conducting action research (Avgitidou, 2009). According to Whitehead and McNiff (2006), a collaborative relationship in research is described as “a democratic partnership, in which all participated in a dialogue of equals” (p. 21). Different from the teacher-led action research, collaborative action bridges the traditional gap between research and practice for both teachers and researchers (Bruce et al., 2011), rather than relying on either of them. Capobianco (2007) identified key characteristics of collaborative or co-design action research, which include identifying mutually defined research questions by the teacher and the researcher, involving collaborative process in investigating the solution, developing research competencies for teachers, sharing reflections during the research process and collective knowledge building of teaching and learning based on the research results. The collaborative nature of co-designed action research also helps to build a partnership between schools and universities. This partnership enables practising teachers with long-term opportunities to engage in research experience, which can “strengthen the content knowledge, pedagogy, research, and leadership capabilities of teachers” (Merrill & Daugherty, 2010, p. 21). For instance, Myers and Dillard (2013) conducted a year-long study of group action research projects which was undertaken by practising teachers and supervised by university faculty. Results suggested that teachers and researchers valued the opportunities to collaborate, and teachers felt more empowered to improve their teaching practices and more confident participating in the decision-making process for curriculum and instruction.

Co-designing in Practice: Case Study Examples Driven by the needs of each participating school, the P2P research programme had a duration of three years. The programme works with a small ‘spatial learning team’ of highly motivated teachers within each school. Each spatial learning team works under the direct supervision of an academic expert assigned to the school. The academic experts act as facilitators, research experts and critical friends throughout the threeyear programme (Blannin et al., 2020).

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

15

While each school has developed a unique research programme relevant to their own specific contexts, all of the participants engage in several core learning and development events that sought to improve the teachers’ research and spatial learning capacities: two research workshops at the University of Melbourne and two school visits by the academic experts annually. These workshops focused on developing specific research skills and data analysis and engaged participants in a range of research tools developed by the academics. During the school visits, the academic expert and teachers co-designed the action research, provided feedback and reflections as well as reviewed the data collected. These visits are the focus of the case study examples illustrated in this section. The three example case studies illustrate co-design teacher-led action research in practice. These examples showcase the dialogic approach and democratic lens to action research that considers educators’ diverse voices and agency in improving pedagogical practices within the context of school learning environments. All case study examples involved a design-thinking workshop activity that let educators cocreate knowledge in a social environment. The workshops were facilitated by the academic expert, and in some cases, were attended by other teachers not directly involved in the study. This process of co-creation of knowledge emerges from the interaction and construction of multiple perspectives (Paavola et al., 2004), and new knowledge is socially validated through the interaction of multiple stakeholders (Kangas, 2010).

Case Study 1—Co-designing Spatial Configurations School 1 is a K-6 primary school in a major regional town in New South Wales, Australia. Each year level generally has three classes, with additional classes occasionally created in response to the high demand for placements. In 2017, their Year 3 cohort (which had been four individual classes) moved into an open plan learning environment (existing classrooms with a wall removed) with four class teachers, plus teacher support for literacy and numeracy. A year later, the school relocated their library to accommodate Year 4, where the same model was followed. The remainder of the school operates in a one class/one teacher model. In 2017, the school commenced a master plan, and received funding to begin phase 1 of a school rebuild in 2021. This case study example involved a Year 5 teacher. Two other teachers and the Assistant Principal not participating in the action research were also involved in the workshop. One research question, co-constructed with the spatial learning team, provided the scope of this action research: To what extent do spatial configurations that promote student-centred practices improve student deep learning? The Archipelago of Possibilities workshop activity was used to explore what teachers hold dear in their teaching practices. The workshop was designed to surface what teachers consider most important in a successful teaching practice, and what they believe stops them from pursuing these practices (McEntee et al., 2016). This workshop uses travel as a metaphor to guide participants in reflecting on their practice,

16

M. Mahat

identifying factors for success, examining what is holding them back from achieving their ideal practice, and developing steps to create a future ideal teaching and learning space (Mahat & Imms, 2020a). The workshop begins with the assumption that teaching in an innovative learning environment should support a growth mindset, formative feedback, self-reflection, modelling, and be a safe place to make mistakes. The workshop asks teachers what they value and believe about their teaching practice that best supports student learning based on their own personal reflection on values and beliefs and personal responsibility. The process begins by educators ‘travelling’ to an imaginary island where ideal learning and teaching happens. The island represents the place educators want to take their practice but have not been to yet. They discover what they hold dear and what they would like to let go about their current teaching practice. They then spend a week on the island. Using a ‘travel passport’, they build their ideal experience, choosing up to five activities they wish to do on the island. The activities consist of individual activities such as ‘trying out local delicacies’ and ‘reflection temple’ or collaborative activities such as ‘jam sessions’ and the ‘great outdoors’. The chosen activities reflect the things educators value, or they would like to see in their future practice. Using art and craft materials, they then create a souvenir that reminds them of the experiences they had. Finally, they decide on the most adequate mode of transportation to take them there. They can fly, sail, swim or get towed, representing where they are right now and where they want to be in their teaching practice. After each workshop activity, teachers shared their insights of lived experiences and professional expertise of pedagogical practices that they would like to leave behind or bring with them. With the facilitation of the academic expert, two interventions were co-designed with the teacher conducting action research. Based on the co-construction of ideas throughout the workshop, the teacher was able to pinpoint a single practice that they would like to implement in their learning environment. The first intervention involved developing new learning zones (using new and old furniture and reconfigured spaces) based on learning setting principles (Fisher, 2005). Three learning zones were co-designed using a range of furniture: a ‘sharing’ zone—where the teacher delivered information to students collectively; a ‘creating’ zone—an area where students engage in active learning and either work individually or collaboratively on a task; and a ‘feedback’ zone—a station where the teacher provides feedback with students, either one-on-one or in a small group. It is important to note that the spatial configurations were designed in a single cell traditional classroom. Once the learning zones were implemented, the second intervention involved developing a shared language about the teaching and learning principles of each zone. A number of principles were pre-constructed with the spatial learning team and the teacher involved in the study; however, the final principles were co-created between the teacher and the students. The principles include the roles and responsibilities for both students and the teacher in each zone. A range of data collection methods, including peer observations and teacher and student surveys, were planned to provide evidence for the implementation of the new spatial configurations. The Assistant

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

17

Principal provided touch points during the semester for the teacher to provide feedback and reflect on the intervention, using the academic expert as a critical friend. At the end of the semester, the academic expert, the teacher and Assistant Principal reviewed the data collected to reflect on the practice and improvements to student learning. During a professional learning day, the findings of the action research were disseminated broadly throughout the school community, sharing insights with the other teachers who were involved in the workshop but not in the action research. These engendered discussions that led to improvements being made more broadly across the school.

Case Study 2—Co-designing Student-Centred Co-teaching Practices School 2 is a co-educational secondary college of approximately 915 students serving a large regional city in New South Wales, Australia. Weekly boarding for 100 students is provided. The school is an amalgamation of three separate schools. The school’s buildings are predominantly housed in traditional classrooms. There are four large learning spaces that involved co-teaching by two teachers, as is the case in this example. At the time of study, the school was working on a new master plan. This reinvigoration of the school site could consist of refurbishments or the construction of new purpose-built buildings. This case study example focused on two teachers in a team-taught Year 12 class. As with the other case study examples, a single research question provided the scope for the action research, developed in conjunction with the spatial learning team: To what extent can student-centred teacher practices in innovative learning environments enhance students’ deep learning? The Innovative Learning Environments and Student Learning workshop (Mahat & Imms, 2020b) was used in this case study example. Working individually and in groups, participants describe their conceptions of student deep learning and create a model of a learning environment that enhances a learning characteristic of a twenty-first-century student. With an emphasis on the visual and tacit learning that comes from modelling experiences, this workshop helps teachers develop student-improvement focused practices associated with twentyfirst century student learning, and enhance knowledge of the impact, challenges and opportunities related to innovative school learning environments. The workshop involved two other teachers and the Assistant Principal not involved in the action research. The workshop began by asking teachers to individually explore their own conceptions of ‘student deep learning’: What is it? How is it developed? When is it enacted? They were asked to visualise their ideas of deep learning in the form of illustrations, mind maps, storyboards, etc. As a group, they were then asked to reflect on a learning characteristic reminiscent of a twenty-first-century student. Using Lego and art and craft materials, they co-created a model of their learning environment that would enhance this learning characteristic. Teachers labelled the

18

M. Mahat

physical elements of the learning environment with pink sticky notes and then used the green sticky notes to describe corresponding experiential opportunities it presents. Physical elements included features such as walls, tables, chairs, people, whiteboard, furniture, technology, lighting, etc., while experiential elements included learning characteristics, such as experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting, which would result in knowledge transformation because of the experiential change (Mahat et al., 2017). Finally, they co-created an action plan to implement a student-centred teaching practice in their learning environment within the schools’ broader Effective Learning Framework. An intervention using student-centred teaching practice was coconstructed focusing on two models of co-teaching: One teach-One drift and Alternative teaching (Friend & Bursuck, 2009). The action plan included timelines, resources required and desired outcomes for the implementation of the intervention in the upcoming semester. A range of data collection methods, including both peer and video observations and teacher and student surveys, were planned to provide evidence for the implementation of the intervention. At the end of the semester, the academic expert and teachers reviewed the data collected to reflect on the practice and improvements to student learning. The two teachers developed a video that showcased some of the learnings and insights throughout the semester. The video was presented to the broader school community at the end of the year, garnering further insights for improvements.

Case Study 3—Co-designing Learning Settings School 3 is an independent Anglican Pre-Kindergarten to Year 12 co-educational day school, located in the inner north of a metropolitan city in Australia. The school is situated on one site, with a breakdown of spaces for their Early Learning Centre (ELC), Junior School K-4, Year 5–6 and Secondary College Year 7–12. The school has an enrolment of over 2000 students, with considerable recent growth in the past 5 years. The school buildings are a combination of original single cell classrooms, with Junior School buildings based on the Reggio Emilia philosophy, as well as a series of more contemporary additions constructed at various points over time to facilitate periods of growth. This case study example illustrates teacher-led action research of four teachers in the Secondary College. In this case study example, a single research question provided the scope for teachers’ action research based on discussions with the spatial learning team: To what extent can learning settings engender collaborative pedagogies that improve student learning? The Don’t Just Stuff It workshop was used to help teachers develop the interventions for their action research. The workshop focuses on how to use learning experiences to define learning spaces and the furniture within them (Council of Educational Facility Planners International [CEFPI], 2010). The aim is to design the physical settings that can facilitate a variety of learning experiences by using furniture—an essential element of interior design in schools.

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

19

This workshop used a series of questions to provoke discussion and assist educators to identify the functional, pedagogical and psychological requirements of specific learning experiences. Teachers explored and reflected on their previous knowledge collaboratively when responding to these prompt questions. Their responses to the questions informed the foundation of the design brief for each learning setting they considered. Working in groups, educators co-designed a learning setting for specific learning experiences. In this case study example, there were three groups of teachers, one from the junior campus (not involved in this component of the study) and two from the senior campus. Each working group used a learning experience, such as problem-based learning and inquiry-based learning, they would like to implement in their learning environment to visualise their design with paper cut-outs of furniture and people positioned with Blu-Tak on a background board. There were opportunities to share insights and discuss implications for teaching practices. Following the workshop, interventions were co-designed with the four secondary teachers specific to their context. Teachers developed and explored strategies for collaborative teaching that were implemented and evaluated in collaboration with their co-teachers using the spatial configurations they developed in the workshop. For instance, the Year 10 teachers defined specific co-teaching pedagogies using the spatial configurations to increase student agency, peer learning and critical thinking. A range of data collection methods, including peer and video observations and teacher and student surveys, were planned to provide evidence for the implementation of the intervention. A community of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991) was also established so that data could be fed back to engender further discussions and reflections, as well as recommendations for improvements. At the end of the data collection period, the academic expert met with the teachers to discuss the data and to reflect on the intervention and improvements to student learning. The community of practice developed a ‘Playbook’ that showcased some of the learnings and insights throughout the semester, which was presented to the wider school community at the end of the year.

A Framework for Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research Effective professional development for teachers should include experiences that involve the creation of opportunities for teachers to engage as learners, build pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge, and co-construct and enact new visions of practice in context (Linn et al., 1999; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Radinsky et al., 2001). Collaborative teacher-led action research is a cyclical process that fosters an ongoing dialogue about teaching practices and student learning. This cyclical process can be presented as a set of design-thinking principles of ‘Discover, Reflect, Ideate and Evolve’ to co-design innovation with teachers, illustrated in Fig. 2.1. More often than not, teachers’ reflections on their instructional decisions

20

M. Mahat

Fig. 2.1 Co-design framework for teacher-led action research

and student learning occur in isolation from professional peers or other supports (Little et al., 2003). These principles purposefully incorporate the critical processes of reflection and collegial communication directly into the development experience (Gamoran et al., 2003; Hord, 1997; King & Newmann, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000), acknowledging the effectiveness of situating teacher learning in the school context. First, teachers discover by inquiring into or exploring the topic or focus area in detail. In the case study examples, this could be about what they hold dear and what they would like to let go about their current teaching practice (case study 1), conceptions of student deep learning (case study 2) and learning experiences (case study 3). In these case studies, teachers delve into the topic of discussion with the aim of discovering and co-constructing new knowledge. Secondly, teachers reflect by thinking deeply or carefully about the topic or focus area—their ideal experiences (case study 1), learning characteristic reminiscent of a twenty-first century student (case study 2), and the functional, pedagogical and psychological requirements of specific learning experiences (case study 3). Teachers then ideate by imagining or conceiving new ideas. Ideation is often aimed at problem-solving. In the case study examples, the process of ideation manifested in the creation of a souvenir that teachers wish to remind them of the experiences they had (case study 1), a model learning environment (case study 2), and learning settings (case study 3). Finally, teachers evolve by changing their perspectives about their teaching practice. Through growing their mindsets or expanding their repertoire of teaching strategies, teachers begin to experience professional growth—both individually and as a teacher-led professional community. It is important to note that in all three case study schools, the broader school community also evolved. All case study schools were engaged in the dissemination of research findings. Further, the growth of the school community also occurred through professional learning of all teachers (case study 1), innovative ways of scaling up of successful and practicable strategies via a video (case study 2) and the publication of the ‘Playbook’ (case study 3). This framework used in all the three case study examples is situated in the school context and utilised the power of teacher-to-teacher collaboration, together with an

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

21

academic facilitator, to co-create interventions and data collection methods in relation to teaching practices in the context of school learning environments. Various structures have been used to support teachers’ professional growth in collaborative settings, including communities of practice, peer observations and critical friends. These structures encompass a collaborative and inquiry-based approach that can lead to a pedagogy of investigation (Ball & Cohen, 1999) in a “professional community” (Little, 2003, p. 913). This form of a collaborative approach to teacher-led action research has been found to lead to effective, long-term teacher development (Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 2003; Palincsar et al., 1998). Additionally, the framework also encouraged the transformation of professional learning and dissemination opportunities for the whole-school community relevant to their school contexts (Blannin et al., 2020; Mewborn, 2003; Wilson & Berne, 1999).

Conclusion and Implications Although teachers have the ability and drive to initiate change, complex layers of support are required to achieve this goal (Nelson & Slavit, 2008). Support comes in different forms. Of note are the other educators and critical friends that can help facilitate these teacher-led processes. Co-design teacher-led action research encourages collaboration among teachers, and between teachers and researchers. The challenge is to engage in the continual critical dialogue and ensure that these voices are ‘heard’, and insights are reflected in individual and whole-school improvements. Co-design teacher-led action research demonstrates respect and professionalism in teachers’ interactions with their own skills, knowledge and practices, as well as with the skills, knowledge and practices of others. This collaborative process goes a long way for the transformation of sustainable educational practices that best support our students.

References Avgitidou, S. (2009). Participation, roles and processes in a collaborative action research project: A reflexive account of the facilitator. Educational Action Research, 17(4), 585–600. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 1–32). Jossey-Bass. Benson-O’Connor, C., Carr, J., Farrar, L., LeMasters, J., McDaniel, C. L., & Hunzicker, J. (2020). Action research in STEM: Teacher-led projects from primary to middle school. School-University Partnerships, 12(4), 142–152. Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. CEPS Journal, 10(3), 99–116. Bleicher, R. (2014). A collaborative action research approach to professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 802–821. Brookmyer, J. (2007). Findings from a survey of the CRESS teacher research program. Windows on Our Classroom, 12, 123–133.

22

M. Mahat

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Bruce, C. D., Flynn, T., & Stagg-Peterson, S. (2011). Examining what we mean by collaboration in collaborative action research: A cross-case analysis. Educational Action Research, 19(4), 433–452. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research-what’s in it for teachers and institutions? International House Journal of Education and Development, 29, 3–6. Campbell, A., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (Eds.). (2010). Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions. Routledge. Campbell, A., & McNamara, O. (2009). Mapping the field of practitioner research, inquiry and professional learning in educational contexts: A review. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions (pp. 10–25). Routledge. Capobianco, B. M. (2007). Science teachers’ attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 1–32. CEFPI. (2010). Learning furniture: A ‘Don’t Just Stuff It’ guide. Association for Learning Environments. Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. SAGE. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). Routledge. Dadds, M. (2014). Continuing professional development: Nurturing the expert within. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 9–16. Dimmock, C. A. J. (2012). Leadership, capacity building, and school improvement: Concepts, themes, and impact. Routledge. Fisher, K. (2005). Linking pedagogy and space. Department of Education and Training. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009). Including students with special needs. Allyn & Bacon. Frankham, J., & Howes, A. (2006). Talk as action in ‘collaborative action research’: Making and taking apart teacher/researcher relationships. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 617– 632. Fueyo, V., & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336–344. Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. Teachers College Press. Glanz, G. (2003). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to school improvement (2nd ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012. Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 53–66). Macmillan. Hine, G. S. C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151–163. Hine, G. S. C., & Lavery, S. (2014). Action research: Informing professional practice within schools. Issues in Educational Research, 24(2), 162–173. Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/10.html James, A., Slater, T., & Buckman, A. (2012). Action research for business, nonprofit and public administration: A tool for complex times. Sage. Johnson, A. P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). Pearson. Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 1–15. Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge Falmer.

2 Co-designing Teacher-Led Action Research in School Learning …

23

King, B. M., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576–580. Koshy, V. (2009). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide. Sage. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lee, J. S., Sachs, D., & Wheeler, L. (2014). The crossroads of teacher leadership and action research. The Clearing House, 87(5), 218–223. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Harper. Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs.’ Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84. Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 184–192. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press. MacBeath, J. (2002). The self-evaluation file: Good ideas and practical tools for teachers, pupils and school leaders. Learning Files Scotland. Mahat, M., Grocott, L., & Imms, W. (2017). “In the real world...”: Teachers’ perceptions of ILEs. ILETC phase 1 teacher workshops. The University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/ 216292 Mahat. M., & Imms, W. (2020a). Archipelago of possibilities: Facilitator guide. The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/124323 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2020b). Innovative learning environments and student learning: Facilitator guide. The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/11343.241884 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2021). Establishing a reliable measure of perceptions of teacher and student use of learning environments. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(1), 145–164. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00382-z McDonough, K. (2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 33–47. McEntee, K., Brandalise, I., Goncalves, R. D., Riendeau, S., Thao, K., & Grocott, L. (2016). Priming teachers to reflect on intrinsic motivations for change: Pilot project report. The University of Melbourne. Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2010). STEM education and leadership: A mathematics and science partnership approach. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 21–34. Mewborn, D. (2003). Teaching, teachers’ knowledge, and their professional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 45–52). NCTM. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Pearson. Myers, N., & Dillard, B. R. (2013). An action research project’s impact on teachers’ leadership attitudes and perceptions. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 69–74. Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99–116. Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schooling through professional development. Corwin. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GIsML community say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

24

M. Mahat

Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430. Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of collaborative action research on the knowledge of five Canadian teacher-researchers. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 255–274. Schratz, M., & Löffler-Anzböck, U. (2004). The darker side of democracy: a visual approach to democratising teaching and learning. In J. MacBeath & L. Moos (Eds.), Democratic learning: the challenge to school effectiveness. Routledge Falmer. Slavin, R. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann. Swaffield, S., & MacBeath, J. (2006). Embedding learning how to learn in school policy: The challenge for leadership. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 201–215. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research: Living theory. Sage. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173–209. Wolkenhauer, R., Hill, A. P., Dana, N. F., & Stukey, M. (2017). Exploring the connections between action research and teacher leadership: A reflection on teacher-leader research for confronting new challenges. The New Educator, 13(2), 117–136.

Chapter 3

Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments: A Journey of Discovery at MacKillop Catholic College Sharon County and Benjamin Cleveland

Abstract MacKillop Catholic College was founded in 2016 with an emerging vision for contemporary education. This vision was developed by the College’s leaders through site visits and conversations with educators at other schools in Australia and New Zealand who shared an interest in creating student-centred pedagogic environments. The applied research conducted through the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project supported the college to further explore the intersections between students’ agency, pedagogies, and the physical environment. The research tracked the development of a desired culture of collective efficacy and mutuality between teachers and students and sought to identify spatialised pedagogic routines that could be shared and employed across the school. Supported by conversations about affordance theory and selfdetermination theory, teachers were encouraged to use recently constructed learning spaces as pedagogic tools to develop a variety of learning settings to better meet the needs of their students. A small group of teachers were able to work with colleagues to manipulate operable walls, furniture, and other interior elements to develop a variety of purposeful learning settings and generate associated pedagogic routines that became well understood by students, aiding their agency in learning. Yet, after an encouraging initial period of development, localised pedagogic and spatial practice innovations within the school were not widely adopted by other teachers, nor readily transferred to other parts of the school, suggesting that the adoption of innovative pedagogies and spatial practices within a school requires more than access to novel ideas and exemplar models—especially in a school with rapidly growing enrolments, a regular influx of new teachers, and an almost continuous building programme, as required to develop the school into a Preparatory to Year 12 college over its initial decade of operation.

S. County MacKillop Catholic College, Mount Peter, QLD, Australia B. Cleveland (B) University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_3

25

26

S. County and B. Cleveland

Keywords Spatalised pedagogic rountines · Innovative learning environments · Student agency · Affordance theory · Self-determination theory · Spatial teaching practice

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? This chapter offers a narrative account of one school’s journey towards developing a locally innovative socio-spatial environment for teaching and learning. The chapter recounts key events along the school’s journey, from its inception in 2012, to its opening in 2016, and through its first 5 years of operation to 2021. It highlights the research undertaken through the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project, which helped identify opportunities and constraints associated with developing, sharing, and translating ‘new’ pedagogic routines in innovative learning environments. The chapter explores the capacities of willing teachers to imagine and implement more agentic and future-focussed socio-spatial settings for teaching and learning, along with a range of challenges associated with trying to develop progressive teaching approaches in a school with rapidly growing enrolments, a regular influx of new teachers, and an almost continuous building programme, required to develop the school into a Preparatory to Year 12 college over its initial decade of operation.

The Journey Begins MacKillop Catholic College opened in 2016 in a southern growth corridor of the City of Cairns, in far-north Queensland, Australia—a relatively remote regional city of just over 155,000 people. The school is beautifully situated, surrounded by lush mountainous World Heritage protected rainforest. Historically, land use in the area was rural, but a new housing development is transforming the locality, which is expected to be home to 40,000 people by 2040. As the first piece of social infrastructure in the area, the college and its governing body, Catholic Education Diocese of Cairns, were keen to offer the growing local population a community-facing school that aligned with contemporary thinking about pedagogical practice and learning space design. To commence the school’s development, an educational brief and masterplan was developed in 2012. This followed the acquisition of a greenfield site that was previously a sugar cane farm (see Fig. 3.1). To make the new school a reality, the development team, including leaders from Catholic Education Services, the Capital Facilities Team, diocesan education leaders, and local architects investigated school design trends in Australia and New Zealand, seeking to bring new ideas about contemporary education and school design to the City of Cairns, the Catholic diocese, and the region.

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

27

Fig. 3.1 The greenfield site for MacKillop Catholic College, Cairns, Australia

In early 2015 a founding principal was appointed to lead the school and Stage 1 capital works began with funding from the Queensland Independent Schools Block Grant Authority. With a mandate to develop a contemporary school, the new principal prioritised research into innovative learning environments, attended conferences, and made connections with other contemporary schools in Australia and New Zealand, seeking to understand their journeys towards developing innovative educational practices and learning environments. People at the schools visited spoke about the benefits and challenges of designing innovative facilities and transitioning teachers’ pedagogies into unfamiliar environments, where they were required to adapt past practices to take advantage of the affordances of new spaces. They also spoke about building the capacity of school leaders, teachers, students, and parents around a common vision, and the need to generate confidence in that vision through collective efficacy (Donohoo, 2017; Hattie, 2015).1 With completion of the first stage of capital works, the college opened in early 2016 for the new school year with 89 students from Preparatory to Year 3. Informed by what they had learned from other schools, the foundation staff selected furniture and equipment to complement the generally more open and interconnected spaces that had been designed by the college’s architects. With limited time to prepare prior to the first day of classes, the foundation teachers intuitively ‘felt their way’ into the new spaces with their students during the initial months of operation. Amidst the excitement of commencing the new school, teachers explored the pedagogical possibilities of the new environments, which were unfamiliar to many. For most teachers and students, the new spaces were 1

According to Hattie (2015), ‘collective teacher efficacy’ is the collective belief of teachers in their ability to positively affect students and is strongly correlated with student achievement.

28

S. County and B. Cleveland

quite different from the traditional classrooms they had experienced elsewhere. The Stage 1 learning spaces offered connections between rooms and outdoor covered ‘avenues’, which provided opportunities for outdoor learning activities (see Figs. 3.2 and 3.3) in addition to indoor activities.

Fig. 3.2 General purpose learning building with covered outdoor avenue connecting pairs of adjoining classrooms

Fig. 3.3 Glazed bi-folding doors offering connections between classrooms and covered outdoor avenues

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

29

With a small initial cohort of students, the cohesive group of foundation teachers was encouraged by the principal to take some risks, experiment with the spaces, and explore opportunities to teach in more dynamic and innovative ways. The first year of occupation was one of socio-spatial and pedagogical discovery. As described by a member of the school’s leadership team at the time (2016), the creation of ‘shared learning environments’ was expected to support the creation of ‘organic, real-world, social spaces to facilitate community building, engagement, and learning discovery’. It should be noted that the ‘shared learning environments’ at the college offered the opportunity for collaborative teaching involving two or three teachers, additional learning assistants, and 45–65 students.

Initial Post Occupancy Evaluation and Design Iteration Mid-way through the college’s first year of operation, the Catholic Education Diocese of Cairns commissioned the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) at the University of Melbourne to undertake an evaluation of the pedagogical effectiveness of the school’s new facilities prior to the next stage of capital works (Stage 2) being designed (Soccio & Cleveland, 2016). This process gathered feedback from teachers and students about their experiences of teaching and learning in the new spaces. The evaluation found that the learning spaces aligned well with the school’s educational vision and was highly regarded by both teachers and students. Further, it was reported that the college’s leadership team was supportive of an ‘inspirational group of teachers’ who were working hard to build a collaborative culture and an authentic student-centred learning experience. Features of the buildings that were identified for improvement were generally more technical than pedagogical. Suggested improvements included reducing natural light in the buildings through removing skylights, louvred windows, and glazed bifolding doors, which had left occupants with limited options to control natural light levels and glare. It was also suggested that the ‘avenues’ should become enclosed and air conditioned to offer a more thermally comfortable environments for activities, particularly during the hot and humid tropical summer. The need for more differentiated furniture was also noted. It was suggested that quiet individual learning pods/settings were needed, especially for use by neurodiverse students with sensory needs. Further, the evaluation highlighted the need for teachers to work closely with students who were transitioning from more traditional schools to support their participation in learning within the new spaces, which offered greater geographic freedom than many students had been accustomed to using. Finally, the report forecast that the leadership team would need to provide ongoing moral purpose and organisational support for teachers if they were to plan and teach collaboratively as the school expanded, including the addition of a secondary school component.

30

S. County and B. Cleveland

Building Teachers’ Capacity to Utilise the Learning Environment as a Pedagogic Tool: Our Challenge In 2017, the College became aware of LEaRN’s Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project at the University of Melbourne and joined as a member school in 2018. Tracking the development of a shared culture of collective efficacy and mutuality between teachers and students became the overarching objective of the research at the college, along with a desire to identify spatialised pedagogic routines that could be shared and employed across the rapidly growing school. A focus on teachers’ pedagogic use of the environment was informed by LEaRN’s earlier research (e.g. Byers et al., 2014; Cleveland, 2016) and by the work of scholars including Saltmarsh et al. (2014), who suggested that “pedagogy as a structured activity influenced use of open-plan spaces and the material resources within” (p. 3), and Deed and Lesko (2015), who investigated how teachers adapt to innovative learning environments (ILEs) and concluded that: … the nature of open schools and classrooms means that it is difficult to achieve a mature system with coherent pedagogical practice, a shared culture and mutuality between teacher and student learning. Rather, there is a continual process of negotiation as teachers react and adapt to the affordances of open learning environments. Hybrid pedagogy tends to result from the friction between routine and possible practice within open space, increasing the intensity of teaching practice (p. 217).

Through a consultative process involving school leaders, teachers, and academics from the University of Melbourne, three research questions were prioritised: 1. How can the affordances of primary school spaces be better used and/or improved to develop effective and stabilised teaching and learning (pedagogic) routines? 2. How can knowledge generated about the effective use of affordances for teaching and learning be identified, distilled, shared, and translated across the school— including primary and secondary school contexts, as well as integrated into the processes of designing new facilities? 3. How can new staff and students be effectively on-boarded into a community of practice devoted to collaborative/shared teaching in ILE’s? With this ambitious research agenda, a small group of staff and their P2P academic from the University of Melbourne established a P2P team and encouraged others at the school to become involved. This group provided a forum for reflection, goal setting, planning, communication, and professional learning to support ‘agile learning’ across all year levels at the school—including the incoming cohort of Year 7 secondary students in 2020. The P2P team members included a representative from school leadership, primary and secondary school teachers, the school counsellor representing diverse learners and wellbeing, and the college’s community and engagement leader. As virtually all teachers at the school had no prior experience working in any form of ILE, a key challenge was to develop shared understandings about how best to use the school’s new facilities to promote student wellbeing and learning growth for all.

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

31

The school also wished to share their pedagogic development with the wider school community (especially parents), with the objective of aiding understanding and appreciation of the pedagogies being developed. Pedagogic developments were also expected to feed into the college’s School Annual Improvement Plan (SAIP) and an ongoing ‘design, build, occupy, inhabit’ cycle, supporting continual improvement in the design and use of the college’s learning spaces over the next 10–15 years—with an emphasis on the translation of practice from primary to secondary school.

Theoretical Orientation Recognising that a learning space becomes an innovative learning environment when innovative space design is combined with innovative teaching and learning practices (Imms et al., 2017), two theoretical constructs were chosen to help inform the research agenda and direct attention towards both design and practice aspects of the learning environment: affordance theory (Gibson, 1979) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Affordance Theory Gibson’s (1979) theory of ‘affordances’ speaks of the relationships between the environment and the user, and the action possibilities that may result. People’s perceptions are fundamental to affordances (Young & Cleveland, 2022). As a relational concept, an affordance only exists in the relationship between a user and an aspect of the environment that supports a desired action possibility. As suggested by Gibson, people must first perceive an affordance in their environment for an action possibility to occur. For example, a teacher might perceive a whiteboard surface to be writable using a whiteboard marker, but not a glass window, even though the window may also afford writing. Gibson also proposed that affordances may be inherent in the environment regardless of whether they are perceived by people or not. He described these as latent affordances. Researchers have observed that the social settings in which people reside, along with their prior experiences, may influence their ability and intentions towards using the affordances of their environment (Gaver, 1991; Kyttä, 2004; Norman, 1999). This means that people tend to perceive affordances in keeping with their cultural experiences—including within school settings (Young et al., 2019). Following a study of affordance theory in schools, Young et al. (2019) devised the following definition of learning environment affordances. They suggested that “learning environment affordances are qualities of the environment (space, objects and people) which enable perceived teaching and learning activities and behaviours” (p. 697). This definition was adopted by the P2P team at the college for the purposes of the research and was shared with the school’s teachers.

32

S. County and B. Cleveland

Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory is a theory of human motivation. It suggests that individuals’ self-determination may evolve over time through the development of cognitive and social capabilities in response to their surrounding environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this context, Ryan and Deci (2000, 2017) suggested that humans have three basic psychological needs: the need for autonomy (in education settings this is often associated with student agency and behaviour directed towards intended goals); competence (linked to the need for one’s efforts to be effective); and relatedness (associated with the need for social connection). The cognitive capabilities that underpin self-determined learning may include the ability to sustain attention, plan and set goals, express choice, make decisions, problem-solve, self-manage, self-advocate, and be self-aware (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Ryan et al. (1997), the fulfilment of the three basic psychological needs described above leads to internalised or intrinsic motivation. In a school setting, intrinsic motivation may enable a person to be self-determined in their actions and learning. Conversely, extrinsic motivation refers to actions and learning that are motivated by others, such as teachers or peers, i.e., behaviours that are reliant on external control. Self-determination theory was applied at the college to explore the autonomy, competence, and relatedness of both students and staff, and to seek insights into their agency in both learning and teaching, as influenced by the socio-spatial pedagogical culture at the school.

Research Design: How Did We Do It? Supported by conversations about affordance theory and self-determination theory, teachers were initially encouraged to use the college’s new learning spaces as pedagogic tools to develop a variety of learning settings to better meet the needs of their students. In doing so, they were encouraged to identify spatialised pedagogic routines that could be shared and employed across the school as enrolments grew and the secondary component developed. The methodology and methods employed to instigate and track this process are outlined below.

Methodology Adopting a socio-material research perspective (Fenwick et al., 2011), the project sought to make connections between the social actions of teachers and students and the materiality of the learning environments they inhabited. A Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology adapted from Cohen et al. (2007) was employed

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

33

to track efforts by the school’s leaders and teachers to develop their socio-spatial practices. This involved the following: 1. Issue identification: form understandings of the social setting in its current state and create a vision for the future of the setting. 2. Intervention design: consider how the social setting could be improved to match the vision and subsequently design interventions. 3. Intervention action: implement interventions. 4. Observation: form understandings of the social setting during the process of changing the social setting—potentially revealing hidden dependencies and assumptions made by social actors. 5. Evaluation: evaluate the social setting in its changed form. 6. Reflection: reflect on the changes observed. 7. Repeat the above as required. The initial aim was to work with teachers to identify productive relationships between (a) the affordances of various aspects of the learning environment and (b) effective pedagogic routines. The methods used are outlined below.

Methods Preliminary data collection in 2018 involved workshops with teachers to gain insights into the varied ways learning environments were being used pedagogically across the school. Participating teachers mapped the pedagogic encounters being experienced by students in their classes, documenting the different teaching and learning settings afforded within the spaces. Using structured task sheets, teachers were invited to draw illustrative ‘network diagrams’ to represent various forms of social interaction between teachers and students, as well as students and students. Inspired by Barabasi (2002), Fig. 3.4 shows some example network diagrams that were provided to teachers to stimulate their thinking. This exercise helped teachers make connections between individual pedagogic encounters, learning intentions, and patterns of pedagogic activity, helping to strengthen their understanding of the affordances of their environments and what roles these could play in supporting teaching and learning. Led by staff at the school, this exercise was repeated annually (2019–2021). On these occasions, teachers were asked to map one lesson to assist with reflection on teaching and learning practices and subsequently plan future pedagogies as individuals and teams. Teacher teams reflected on the value of each encounter, including how they connected to learning intentions, and analysed opportunities for student-centred learning and agency. Workshops were also held with teachers in 2019 and 2020 to develop awareness of self-determination theory and the 8 Aboriginal Ways of Learning (NSW DoE,

34

S. County and B. Cleveland

Fig. 3.4 Example network diagrams representing various forms of social interaction between teachers and students, as well as students and students. Used with permission (Cleveland, 2022)

2022).2 At the heart of these workshops was the underlying principle that each student is unique and is likely to demonstrate increased levels of engagement and wellbeing when supported in their agency. Teachers also surveyed students about how they learn most effectively and documented a case study of one student in their class, recording observations of their preferred learning practices. All students completed annual surveys, providing feedback on their wellbeing, perceived levels of agency, and the impact of varied pedagogical encounters on their ability to learn and achieve their personal best. Aligning the information mapped by teachers with student feedback over 3 years provided insights into the value of the pedagogic opportunities and routines emerging in the school. Distilling these space and practice relationships into communicable outputs was pursued with the objective to share favoured spatialised pedagogic routines between teachers via the creation of a shared language. The development of intuitive communication strategies was desired to enable sharing between teachers, including those already employed and those expected to join the school in the future.

2

8 Aboriginal Ways of Learning (NSW DoE, 2022): Story sharing: approaching learning through narrative; learning maps: explicitly mapping/ visualising processes; non-verbal: applying intra-personal and kinaesthetic skills to thinking and learning; symbols and images: using images and metaphors to understand concepts and content; land links: place-based learning, linking content to local land and place; nonlinear: producing innovations and understanding by thinking laterally or combining systems; deconstruct/reconstruct: modelling and scaffolding, working from whole to parts (watch then do); community links: centring local viewpoints, applying learning for community benefit.

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

35

Research Findings: What Have We Learned? Tracking Spatialised Pedagogic Practice Development Over Time Over 3 years, the work of the P2P team (2018–2021) raised awareness of the need to align practice and space and offered the school’s teachers opportunities to explore the affordances for teaching and learning of the college’s ‘shared learning spaces’. In keeping with the methods outlined above, the following professional learning activities/workshops were offered to teachers: • • • • •

new staff orientation workshops in the first week of the school year pedagogic encounter and routine mapping workshops pedagogical practice/theory workshops observations of innovative learning environments in other schools observations of other classes at the college.

A Plans to Pedagogy Toolkit was also created to provide staff with research publications and professional learning support in the areas of innovative learning environments, co-teaching models, pedagogical encounters, learning environment affordances, self-determination theory, student agency, the 8 Aboriginal Ways of Learning, and student case studies (as produced by teachers at the school). School leaders and teachers worked collaboratively in workshops, sharing reflections and experiences, and identifying issues that often-challenged staff in their practice. Providing informal learning opportunities and peer support for teachers challenged by innovative teaching and learning practices was quickly recognised as important. Community awareness of emerging pedagogic practice was raised through twilight open nights, school tours, and visits to learning spaces as part of enrolment interviews. Pedagogic encounter and routine mapping provided co-teaching teams the opportunity to analyse the role that each teacher and learning assistant played in the learning environment, helping to highlight the varied encounters being afforded to learners. Analysis supported Davies and Gannon’s (2009) notion that pedagogical encounters involve more than just the interaction/relationship between teacher and student. When completing network diagrams and routine maps, teachers frequently identified environmental affordances, including people, spaces, and objects, that participated in the pedagogic encounters documented. When reflecting on the pedagogic network diagrams exercise, one teacher noted in 2018: Prep is uniquely run at our school. There are three classes with 20 students in each … The prep space is divided in two separate halves with an avenue dividing the four rooms into two classrooms on each side … One room contains very few desks and chairs. It has two grandstands, ottomans, a large round rug, home corner and some easily accessible play equipment. This room, known as the “campfire”, is where the Prep cohort meets … During

36

S. County and B. Cleveland the day, literacy and numeracy is run simultaneously, but students move to two separate areas. On one side of the avenue students work on similar programs with the dividing wall open but are differentiated through extension or additional explicit teaching. They are generally more independent and can complete tasks individually. [A more structured lesson is provided for students requiring additional support on the other side of the avenue.]

To collate teachers’ mapping of pedagogic encounters and routines over time, a spreadsheet was created. This demonstrated some teachers gradual release of responsibility for learning to their students, as they devoted less time to explicit teaching and more time to shared and independent/agentic/inquiry-based learning activities. It was found that this group of teachers shared a common approach to the development of pedagogic encounters and recognised the significance of pedagogies aligned to Pearson and Gallagher’s model for the gradual release of responsibility from teacher to student (Pearson et al., 2019).

Sharing and Translating Pedagogic Practices Across the College The nine principles of learning environment design and use proposed by Cleveland et al. (2018)3 provided a framework for teacher teams to further analyse their current practice and reflect on their capacity to differentiate and personalise learning experiences, inclusive of whole class, small group, and independent activities. Over time, the pedagogic encounters recorded across the school suggested that explicit and shared learning phases of lessons were similar across year levels. However, the adoption of independent/agentic/inquiry-based pedagogies was less consistent. One variant that appeared to influence a greater release of responsibility from teachers to students was the number of students within the class/group: whole class, half class, or small group instruction—as influenced by the co-teaching models adopted by different teams. Greater student agency was often seen when teachers worked together, playing different roles; some offering small group instruction, while others oversaw larger groups of students pursuing self-directed activities. Furthermore, recognising students’ geographical engagement (Cleveland, 2016)—ways in which students organise themselves and their environment to support learning activities—was also

3

Learning environments in both primary and secondary schools should offer the following: (1) A dynamic social and physical environment; (2) Variety and choice, with respect to both settings and activities; (3) The capacity to differentiate and personalise learning experiences; (4) Ready access to multiple learning settings; (5) Engaging and meaningful teaching and learning experiences; (6) Options to socially organise students in varied ways; (7) Good acoustics, especially in more open spaces; (8) Good sightlines, to enable the consistent observation and monitoring of students’ activities; (9) A design that recognises the physical, organisational, temporal, and cultural histories of the school/sector and allows for pedagogical development over time, without alienating teachers from their past experiences.

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

37

found to promote their autonomy, competence, and relatedness (i.e., agency), and opportunities for them to achieve their personal best. The college’s ongoing construction programme disrupted pedagogical development. As enrolments grew, existing facilities quickly became crowded until new facilities became available. This resulted in less opportunity for students to engage in agentic behaviour and more teacher-led instruction ensued. Although teachers worked hard to translate desired pedagogies from the primary to secondary school when the first group of Year 7 students arrived in 2020, disruption to pedagogical development was further exacerbated with delivery of the first stage of secondary school facilities. This involved the construction of a design, arts, technology, and science (DATS) building, which disrupted students’ geographical engagement and agency due to the spaces in the new building being largely cellular and not as well connected as general purpose learning spaces in other parts of the school. General purpose secondary facilities would be completed in later years. Another challenge to desired pedagogical development was an unexpected influx of students with additional needs. This spoke positively of the school’s reputation for catering well to students with special educational needs, but also put pressure on staff (teachers and learning assistants) to cater to more students requiring additional support—including many with neurodiverse conditions who found busy and dynamic learning environments distracting and/or overstimulating. In turn, this dissuaded teachers from adopting pedagogies that enabled students’ self-directedness and led them to create more controlled environments for learning.

Conclusions: What Are the Key Takeaways? The journey to develop localised pedagogic and spatial practice innovations within the college is set to continue. For most staff, co-teaching has demanded cultural practices different from those experienced elsewhere or previously. Such practices require high levels of collaboration, shared accountability, and often compromise. Asking teachers and learning assistants to work together in teams, not just in their planning but at the interface with students, has provided benefits to staff and students, while also presenting challenges—especially during a period of rapid growth for the school. Co-teaching has entrenched informal mentoring for teachers, aided the transition of new teachers into the college’s ‘shared learning environments’, and offered opportunities for critical reflection on the types of pedagogies best suited to a contemporary education at MacKillop Catholic College. From a leadership perspective, it’s been important to formulate teams that can work well together, where each team member offers varied attributes to the team and receives reciprocal benefits from being part of a team. As the school grows to become an established P-12 college, reaching Year 12 in 2025, the process of on-boarding and subsequently mentoring new teachers, including graduates, must continue to be a focus. It is anticipated that professional

38

S. County and B. Cleveland

learning will continue its current trajectory, with an emphasis on the development of teachers’ collective efficacy behind pedagogies for student agency and individualised growth. Developing communities of practice, driven by teacher-led action research (Young et al., 2021), should underpin pedagogical development that includes more clearly identifying and communicating spatialised pedagogic routines that can be shared and translated across the school. Space and practice relationships at the school have continued to emerge and have not yet stabilised. Therefore, they have not yet been well-documented as communicable outputs to create a shared language. As the college continues to grow to over 1400 students and over 200 staff in the coming years, the effective use of existing and additional new facilities will require ongoing recognition of their contemporary design affordances. Certainly, further research and professional development is needed to advance a collective appreciation and understanding of the action possibilities of both existing and new spaces. Organisational structures within the school that provide sufficient planning time for teacher teams to collaborate, reflect on their practice, and develop effective teaching strategies for shared spaces appears essential. An increasing emphasis on pedagogies for blended learning, supported by ever better educational technologies, must also be considered. Blended learning has become a key strategy in the school, allowing varied pedagogic encounters to occur concurrently within shared learning spaces, enabling students to express their agency and develop skills of inquiry, investigation, reflection, collaboration, communication, and creativity. The designs of recent capital works stages (3 and 4) have featured facilities with well-integrated furniture and technology, further enabling multiple activities to occur concurrently in adjoining learning settings. The college recently undertook a review of its first five years of operation. Strategic planning for the next five-year cycle will determine the sustainability of an ‘agile learning’ agenda. It is anticipated that leaders at all levels of the school will need to get behind a more structured and consistent pedagogical approach, calling on the best of what has been developed over the past five years to support students as agentic directors of their own learning. Clearly communicating preferred pedagogical practices (encounters and routines) to staff and students appears essential for the college’s contemporary vision for education to be sustained and to flourish in future years.

References Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Linked. The new science of networks. Perseus. Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.7459/ ct/29.1.02 Cleveland, B. (2016). Addressing the spatial to catalyse socio-pedagogical reform in middle years education. In K. Fisher (Ed.). The translational design of schools: Advances in learning environments research. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_2

3 Developing Pedagogic Routines in Innovative Learning Environments …

39

Cleveland, B. (2022). Pedagogic encounter network diagrams_Some examples.pdf. University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.26188/20676291.v1 Cleveland, B., Soccio, P., Mountain, R. & Imms, W. (2018). Learning environment design and use. Towards Effective Learning Environments in Catholic Schools (TELE): An evidence-based approach (2015–2017). Catholic Education Melbourne. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. Davies, B., & Gannon, S. (2009). Pedagogical encounters. Peter Lang. Deed, C., & Lesko, T. (2015). ‘Unwalling’ the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learning Environments Research, 18, 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9181-6 Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective teacher efficacy research: Implications for professional learning. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC10-2016-0027 Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Routledge. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84). Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin. Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools: ILETC Survey No. 1. University of Melbourne. http://www. iletc.com.au/publications/reports/ Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 179–198. New South Wales Department of Education (NSW DoE), Wagga Network of Schools, Bangamalanha Centre. (2022). 8 ways of aboriginal learning. https://www.8ways.online/ Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. Pearson, P. D., McVee, M. B., & Shanahan, L.E. (2019). In the beginning: The historical and conceptual genesis of the gradual release of responsibility. In M. B. McVee, E. Ortlieb, J. S. Reichenberg, & P. D Pearson. (Eds.), The gradual release of responsibility in literacy research and practice (pp. 1–21). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820190000010001 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https:// doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497001405 Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2014). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.924482 Soccio, P., & Cleveland, B. (2016). Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of learning environments. LEaRN Evaluation Module 3: Alignment of pedagogy and space. MacKillop Catholic College, Cairns. Unpublished research report, University of Melbourne. Young, F., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Affordances, architecture and the action possibilities of learning environments: A critical review of the literature and future directions. Buildings, 12(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12010076 Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2019). The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: Educators’ and architects’ perceptions. Australian Educational Researcher, 47(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y Young, F., Tuckwell, D., & Cleveland, B. (2021). Actualising the affordances of innovative learning environments through co-creating practice change with teachers. Australian Educational Researcher, 49, 805–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7

Chapter 4

Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic Encounters for Contemporary Education at Methodist Ladies’ College Benjamin Cleveland, Lisa Wilks-Beasy, and Christine Wintle

Abstract Activating learning spaces to generate more dynamic and engaging learning experiences for students was the overarching objective of the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project at Methodist Ladies’ College (MLC)—a large private girls’ school in Melbourne, Australia. The applied research explored what effective teaching and learning could look like, both socially and spatially, and sought to generate an array of ‘pedagogic encounters’. It was envisaged that descriptors of these encounters could be shared between teachers and used to plan their lessons around readily recognised pedagogical routines. With support from academics at the University of Melbourne, MLC’s Plans to Pedagogy team of 20 teachers investigated the affordances for teaching and learning in a range of spaces across the secondary school. They mapped the pedagogic encounters that occurred in their classes, helping to generate shared understandings about how to utilise learning spaces to promote student agency, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, strong relationships and opportunities for a diversity of achievement—all key principles of the school’s learning statement. It was found that teachers shared a relatively common repertoire of pedagogic encounters, including across curriculum domains, and were able to identify the educational value of these encounters (i.e., what teaching and learning objectives were associated with different social groupings and spatial arrangements). The pedagogic encounters identified were classified by looking for generalisable coding, or patterns, in the encounters that teachers initially mapped on their own. When multiple teachers identified the same, or suitably equivalent encounters, these were classified as a specific pedagogic encounter type. The language used to identify each was derived from the terminology that teachers used naturally to describe them (e.g., one-to-many, one-to-one, student group-to-many, and so on). To communicate the findings, drawings depicting each encounter type were produced. These were B. Cleveland (B) University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] L. Wilks-Beasy · C. Wintle Methodist Ladies’ College, Kew, VIC, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_4

41

42

B. Cleveland et al.

complemented by descriptions of their educational value, or purpose. The findings were disseminated across the school at a whole-school staff learning conference, where teachers were introduced to the encounter drawings and invited to experience each pedagogic encounter themselves, taking on the role of learners. This exercise, along with making the drawings available to staff in various forms, helped establish a common language for talking about and enacting spatialised pedagogic practices and routines across the college. Keywords Pedagogic encounters · Pedagogic routines · Spatialised pedagogic practices · Learning spaces · Affordances

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Methodist Ladies’ College’s (MLC) main campus is located in Melbourne, Australia. It accommodates 2128 students from the Early Learning Centre to the Senior School. The campus features a vast array of general and specialist facilities, including for the performing arts, visual arts, sports and recreation, hospitality, science and technology, and multiple libraries. The school also operates a boarding house on campus for 61 regional and international students. Recognising the relationships between pedagogy and space, the school’s leadership wished to investigate how new and existing learning spaces could be better used to engage students in contemporary education. With both new and existing spaces thought to offer untapped potential to support pedagogies aligned with the school’s learning statement, the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project offered MLC’s teachers the chance to participate as practitioner-researchers (Blannin et al., 2020) in developing new insights into spatialised pedagogic practices. Teachers participated in the development of research questions, data collection methods, data collection, data analysis and dissemination of localised research findings. In addition to developing new knowledge about the relationships between pedagogy and space, collaboration with researchers from University of Melbourne’s Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) was intended to encourage the development of research capacity within the school. The Learning@MLC statement is a living document that sets out what is valued most about learning at the college. It provides a common language that puts ‘learning at the centre of all that we do’, and is framed by five key principles of learning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

relationships curiosity critical thinking creativity a diversity of achievement.

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

43

Fig. 4.1 Classroom environment in the Nicholas Learning Centre, MLC

Activating learning spaces to generate more dynamic and engaging learning experiences for students was the overarching objective of the applied research. Fundamentally, the project sought to explore what effective teaching and learning can look like, both socially and spatially. Twenty teachers volunteered to join the research initiative, which was conducted over 3 years as part of the school’s professional learning programme. The project was born out of the school leadership’s feeling that teachers’ pedagogic practices could be improved through paying closer attention to the learning environment affordances (Young et al., 2019) present within and around the college’s educational facilities (Fig. 4.1). Framed by Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory and Lindberg and Lyytinen’s (2013) ideas about affordance ecologies, the project sought to aid implementation of the learning principles captured in the Learning@MLC statement and develop insights into how teachers could better harness the action possibilities of the physical environment to improve their pedagogical practices and subsequently their students’ learning experiences. The P2P project was also designed to support MLC’s Strategic Plan (2017–2022), with an emphasis on four of the college’s six Strategic Pillars: 1. Student learning and achievement—MLC provides a broad and challenging academic curriculum which fosters a passion for learning and focuses on excellence, whilst developing independent, creative and adaptable thinkers. 2. Student wellbeing—MLC offers age appropriate, sequential, and integrated programmes within a responsive student wellbeing framework in order to develop resilient young women who are confident to make positive choices in life.

44

B. Cleveland et al.

3. Excellence in staff—MLC recognises that quality educational outcomes are driven by excellence in teaching and learning provided by the highest quality, motivated teaching and educational support staff. 4. Innovation and resources—MLC will continue to lead and innovate in developing resources, sites, programmes and facilities that support our students in a vibrant learning environment. The research questions that drove the project were developed collaboratively by the P2P team in consultation with the supporting academics. The two key questions included: 1. How can the affordances of learning spaces (new and existing) be better used and/ or improved to develop dynamic and engaging teaching and learning (pedagogic) routines aligned with the Learning@MLC statement and the College’s Strategic Pillars? 2. How can knowledge generated about the effective use of learning environments be identified, distilled, shared and translated across the school, including integration into teacher planning? Generating shared understandings amongst teachers about how they could take advantage of learning spaces to promote student agency, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, strong relationships, and opportunities for a diversity of achievement was the overarching goal. In addition, the school wished to share these developments with the wider school community, including current and prospective parents and carers. It was considered important to bring the wider school community along on the journey, encouraging appreciation and understanding of the practices being developed and highlighting their influence on student engagement and learning. The research was also intended to inform the processes of designing and occupying new facilities through feeding pedagogic insights into an ongoing ‘design, build, occupy, inhabit’ cycle. This objective was expected to support continual improvement in the design and use of learning environments at the college, aiding the long-term development of contemporary teaching and learning practices (Fig. 4.2).

Background/Theory: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? Learning Environment Affordances The theoretical lens applied to the research centred around Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory. This posits that features of the environment may afford a range of action possibilities to users (e.g., writing on a whiteboard) relative to their abilities to first perceive the action possibilities (e.g., determine that the wall is writable) and subsequently actualise the affordances based on their physical abilities (e.g., able to

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

45

Fig. 4.2 Common learning area in the Nicholas Learning Centre, MLC

access the wall and write). As such, Gibson’s theory recognises the complementary relationship between the environment and user. Importantly, it suggests that users’ perceptions of their surroundings are central to determining if the action possibilities present in the environment are used or not (Young et al., 2021). In addition to people’s individual perceptual and physical abilities, cultural contexts may also influence people’s abilities to perceive and actualise affordances (Costall, 1995; Gaver, 1991; Ingold, 2008; Rietveld & Kiverstein, 2014). To this end, Costall (1995) suggested that we “experience objects in relation to the community within which they have meaning” (p. 472). This means that people can learn to recognise the affordances that are present in their environment through witnessing the actions of others’ as well as through training (Heft, 1989; Rietveld & Kiverstein, 2014). Specific applications of affordance theory in the field of learning environments research were applied. Young et al. (2019) defined learning environment affordances as, “qualities of the environment (space, objects and people) which enable perceived teaching and learning activities and behaviours” (p. 697). Their definition was used to guide conversations within the P2P team about teachers’ and students’ use of learning spaces. While affordance theory has only gained direct attention in learning environments research during the past decade, the application of similar thinking about the relationships between educational practices and spaces has featured in the discourse about school facility design since the late 1960’s when Herman Hertzberger (1969) wrote about his approach to designing the Montessori Primary School in Delft, Holland in

46

B. Cleveland et al.

Harvard Educational Review (Young & Cleveland, 2022). This research honoured Hertzberger’s design approach by exploring the multiple ways in which spaces—and settings within spaces—could be used for teaching and learning across the college.

Affordance Ecologies The research was also informed by Lindberg and Lyytinen’s (2013) ideas about affordance ecologies: socio-technical (or socio-spatial) systems consisting of the physical and technological environment, social structures, and the everyday activities of users. In keeping with these ideas, they described affordance ecologies as being constituted by three fundamental domains: an infrastructure domain, an organisation domain, and a practice domain. This suggests that the affordances available within an organisation are influenced by and made available to users through a combination of factors and should not simply be understood as the outcomes of direct human– environment interactions. In the context of schools, the infrastructure domain denotes the spaces, materials and technologies (tools) available to users (teachers and students) within the environment. The organisation domain denotes the institutional arrangements that guide ways in which the tools available in the infrastructure domain are interpreted and used (e.g., the timetable and cultural expectations about what types of pedagogical practices are acceptable). Finally, the practice domain recognises the actual in-use practices that may be witnessed by individuals and groups (i.e., the enacted or actualised affordances). While the concepts outlined above may seem somewhat abstract, these ideas proved useful in guiding the research towards developing applied understandings of the relationships between the affordances of various aspects of the learning environment and effective pedagogic encounters and routines. Following Lindberg and Lyytinen’s (2013) ideas further, the concept of affordance configurations was applied to help identify the pedagogical encounters commonly enacted across the college. In a broader theoretical context, they suggested that a focus on affordance configurations—which emerge from alignments between the infrastructure, organisation and practice domains—can assist researchers to understand the internal dynamics of the affordance ecology and gain insights into how various configurations may emerge, stabilise and drift (change over time). Lindberg and Lyytinen (2013) recommended that: By describing and analysing affordance ecologies and their domains, we can arrive at i) generalizable analysis of affordance configurations in practice and ii) grammars for analysing how such configurations are shaped by the organization and infrastructure domains (p. 56).

They went further to theorise that “activities and affordances are naturally grouped in various life forms through their family resemblances” (p. 58) and can be grouped to establish lexica of affordances based on the family resemblances. At a more pragmatic level, they went on to suggest that “systematic and generalizable codings of

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

47

affordances and their configurations” (p. 58) may help establish a lexicon of affordance configurations that are representative of common patterns of socio-material entanglement. These ideas had a significant bearing on the research design described below.

Methods: How Did We Do It? Adopting a socio-material research perspective, the project was designed to bridge the gap between the social actions of teachers and students and the materiality of the learning environments they inhabit (Fenwick et al., 2011). The applied research explored what effective teaching and learning could look like, socially and spatially, and sought to generate an array of pedagogic encounters, defined as the socio-spatial settings linked to various teaching and learning intensions. It was envisaged that descriptors of these encounters could be shared between teachers and used to plan their lessons around readily recognised pedagogic routines (i.e., linked pedagogic encounters). Figure 4.3 outlines the factors that were investigated when exploring the development of effective pedagogic encounters and routines. Adopting a qualitative instrumental case study approach (Mills et al., 2010), MLC’s P2P team of 20 teachers worked with academics from the University of Melbourne to develop the project’s research questions, identify and adapt data collection methods, collect and analyse data, and disseminate localised research findings. Over the course of 2 years, the group explored the relationships between pedagogy and space via a range of conversations, activities and data collection, and analysis protocols. All the teachers involved were considered to be practitioner-researchers

Fig. 4.3 Factors investigated that may influence the development of effective pedagogic routines

48

B. Cleveland et al.

(Blannin et al., 2020), rather than simply participants due to their active contributions to each phase of the project. Specifically, the P2P team explored the affordances for teaching and learning present in their learning environments and the pedagogic encounters that were occurring in their classes. Through these activities, the action possibilities of learning spaces were thoughtfully considered and the pedagogic encounters that teachers’ felt to be the most effective were identified. Distilling these space and practice relationships into communicable outputs was pursued with the objective to share favoured spatialised pedagogic encounters and routines (Saltmarsh et al., 2014) between teachers via the creation of shared language and visual media. The development of intuitive communication strategies was desired to enable teachers to participate in ongoing discussion about how they and their students could use the learning environment to create more dynamic and engaging learning experiences for students.

Sample Practitioner-researchers included 20 MLC teachers and one academic from the P2P team. These secondary school teachers volunteered to join the project, which was linked to the MLC Staff Learning Programme. They represented teachers from across the curriculum, from Physical Education to English and the Humanities, Maths, and Science. The number of teachers grew from 14 and 20 as the project developed between 2018 and 2019. The final year of the project, 2020, involved data analysis and reporting. It also coincided with lengthy Covid19-related lockdowns in Melbourne.

Research Settings The Nicholas Learning Centre is the centrepiece of MLC’s current building programme. Completed in mid-2019, this facility accommodates approximately 500 Year 7/8 students and is intended to provide the “tools and facilities required for dynamic 21st Century learning” (MLC, 2019). Its development generated renewed interest and impetus to develop strategies to engage teachers in thinking deeply about their spatialised pedagogic practice (Fig. 4.4). While the Nicholas Learning Centre was a key location for research, teachers explored pedagogy and space relationships across the Kew campus, including within the boarding house. In seeking to build capacity among teachers to better utilise learning spaces, the P2P project sought to develop teachers’ and students’ spatial competencies and pedagogic routines in and around all of the college’s facilities.

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

49

Fig. 4.4 Nicholas Learning Centre, MLC. Designed by McIldowie Partners and completed in 2019

Data Collection Methods and Procedure Following a series of discussions and workshops that were undertaken to explore what research questions should be investigated, it was determined that the following data should be collected to answer the questions identified: 1. Network diagrams of ‘learning encounters’ (i.e., pedagogic encounters). Using a supplied template document (see Fig. 4.5), teachers were asked to draw illustrative ‘network diagrams’ to represent various forms of social interaction in their classes between teachers and students, as well as students and students. They were also asked to note the educative value of these ‘pedagogic encounters’ to student learning. Some conceptual examples of network diagrams are shown below (see Fig. 4.6). The nodes depict students and/or teachers and the lines represent communication links. A temporal element was included to account for the duration and frequency of the various encounters identified. 2. Photographic depictions of ‘learning encounters’. Teachers were also asked to take photographs of various forms of social interaction between teachers and students and students and students, and to match these photographs with their network diagrams—adding detail about what each form of encounter looked like and the nature of its material/spatial context.

50

B. Cleveland et al.

Fig. 4.5 Mapping pedagogical encounters template

Fig. 4.6 Illustrative network diagrams: some conceptual examples adapted from Barabasi (2002)

3. Focus groups/workshops with teachers to curate the data previously collected. Subsequently, teachers were asked to ‘workshop’ the pedagogic encounters they had identified and documented using the network diagrams and photographs, with the following objectives: • identify regular patterns of pedagogic activity (i.e., the variety of encounters and relationships between encounters); • assess the effectiveness, or value, of different encounters, including in relation to the encounters experienced immediately before and after to help identify established pedagogic routines; • make connections between learning intentions and (a) pedagogic encounters and (b) patterns of pedagogic activity (i.e., pedagogic routines).

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

51

Template documents and protocols were provided to assist teachers to individually collate and curate the data they had collected.

Data Analysis Lindberg and Lyytinen’s (2013) ideas about affordance ecologies and affordance configurations were applied to explore the intersections between the infrastructure, organisation and practice domains, as represented in the data teachers had collected. Data pertaining to (a) pedagogic encounters and (b) patterns of pedagogic activity were thematically grouped into like-affordance configurations based on their family resemblances. In pursuit of effective ways of sharing and communicating favoured spatialised pedagogic routines between teachers, attention was paid to the following: • establishing systematic and generalisable codings (patterns) of pedagogic encounters and affordances for learning and their configurations; • establishing a lexica of pedagogic encounters and affordances based on family resemblances; • the development of a grammar of affordance configurations (i.e., combinations of social, material and organisational factors). The pedagogic encounters identified by teachers were classified by looking for generalisable codings, or patterns, in the encounters they had initially mapped on their own. When multiple teachers identified the same, or suitably equivalent encounters, these were classified as a specific pedagogic encounter type. The language (lexica) used to identify each was derived from the terminology that teachers used naturally to describe them (e.g., one-to-many, one-to-one, student group-to-many, and so on). The information regarding the value of each encounter was similarly derived from looking for generalisable codings (patterns) in the notes that teachers recorded about why they believed the encounters were supportive of students’ learning. For example, coding identified that ‘one-to-small-group’ encounters were believed to be supportive of risk-taking learning behaviours, developing collaboration skills, and teacher-assisted learning. To communicate the findings, drawings depicting each encounter type were produced.1 These were complemented by descriptions of their educational value, or purpose.

1

Mary Featherston AO kindly drew the illustrations. We are enormously grateful for her contribution to the research.

52

B. Cleveland et al.

Findings: What Have We Learned? Following an extensive process of analysing the data collected by the P2P team, the findings were distilled to produce six pedagogic encounter types (see Table 4.1). These represented the affordance configurations that teachers most commonly documented as network diagrams and photographs. Subsequently, these were linked to their descriptions of each encounters educational value, or purpose, as agreed in the focus groups/workshops. The relations between the pedagogic encounter types and their perceived educational value demonstrated that teachers value diverse affordance configurations that offer students a variety of learning experiences. Large group (25 students plus), medium group (5–12 students), small group (four or less students), and individual (one student) encounters were identified, highlighting the value teachers place on varied socio-spatial settings in educational environments. While the educational values, or intentions, associated with each encounter type were found to differ, it was notable that common values featured across some encounters. For example, building strong relationships, a key principle of the Learning@MLC statement, was an objective linked to multiple pedagogic encounter types. For the ‘one-to-many’ encounter, relationships were linked to fostering class discussion and building peer trust and relationships. For the ‘one-to-one’ encounter, relationships and wellbeing was linked to private/personal conversations, positive/ supportive interactions, fostering personal identity, and encouraging participation and engagement. While for the ‘one-to-medium group’ encounter, relationships were thought to relate to fostering peer-to-peer interaction, telling stories and sharing information. Another principle of the Learning@MLC statement, critical thinking, was also linked to multiple encounters. These included the ‘one-to-many’ encounter, which teachers correlated with creating a setting for critical thinking, the ‘one-to-one’ and ‘individual’ encounters, which teachers believed encouraged students to think critically, and the ‘one-to-medium-group’ encounter, which teachers associated with students engaging in discussions and discourse that supported development of their listening and questioning skills and their critical thinking skills overall. Further links to the Learning@MLC statement were also apparent, suggesting that the affordance configurations that were identified had clear links to forms of practice associated with promoting students’ agency, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, strong relationships and opportunities for a diversity of achievement—all key principles of the college’s learning statement. Connections between the encounters identified and the college’s Strategic Pillars were also apparent, especially regarding (1) student learning and achievement (linked to critical thinking) and (2) student wellbeing (linked to relationships). This demonstrated productive links between the Strategic Pillars, the key principles of the Learning@MLC statement, and the encounters that teachers fostered in their classes.

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

53

Table 4.1 Top six pedagogic encounters identified at MLC and their educational value Pedagogic (learning) encounter

Educational value of the pedagogic encounter

One-to-many (teacher or student to class of 25 Organisation or many more): • Welcome • Roll call • Set expectations and develop routines • Transition between activities Relationships (particularly circle arrangements) • Foster class discussion • Build peer trust and relationships Instruction and modelling • Communicate learning intentions and success criteria • Check for understanding • Demonstrate skills • Explicit teaching/instructional activities • Guide group discussion/sharing of ideas • Recap previous lesson(s) • Develop discipline specific language Engagement • Ignite curiosity • Create setting for critical thinking One-to-one (teacher-to-student, or student-to-student)

Relationships and wellbeing (teacher-student and student–student) • Private/personal conversations • Positive/supportive interactions • Foster personal identity • Encourage participation and engagement Feedback • Individual feedback • Acknowledge achievement(s) • Reflect on learning Instruction • Role modelling • Develop vocabulary • Explicit instruction/skill development • Support individual application/perseverance • Cater to diversity • Encourage critical thinking and creativity

Individual

Reflection on learning • Encourage critical thinking • Support diversity and personalised achievement (show what students can do as individuals) • Allow students to work/complete assessment tasks at own pace Mindfulness • Reflect on personal wellbeing • Develop self-management strategies • Encourage self-regulation of behaviour (continued)

54

B. Cleveland et al.

Table 4.1 (continued) Pedagogic (learning) encounter

Educational value of the pedagogic encounter

One-to-medium-group (teacher or student to 5–12 students)

‘Risk-taking’ learning behaviours • Ask questions • Express curiosity in safe and relaxed setting • Contribute/test ideas with teacher and peer support • Gain feedback on ideas • Develop creativity Discussion/discourse • Peer learning • Language/vocabulary development • Listening skills development • Questioning skills development • Critical thinking • Opportunity to apply/consolidate understandings Relationships • Peer-to-peer interaction • Tell stories • Share information

Student-group-to-many (group of 2–5 students Collaborative/collective expression to class of 25 or many more) • Creative communication • Demonstration of learning/skills • Building relationships and shared understandings • Sharing ideas and receiving feedback • Learning from peer performances and reflection • Celebrating diversity of achievement

One-to-small-group (teacher or student to 2–4 students)

‘Risk-taking’ learning behaviours • Students able to share contributions in non-confronting settings (i.e., don’t feel pressured or embarrassed to put forward ideas) Collaboration skills • Student ownership of group dynamics and conversations • Problem solving to address challenges Teacher-assisted learning • Modelling learning processes

Illustrations produced for the project by Mary Featherston AO

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

55

Sharing and Translating the Research Across the College Sharing the research findings with all teaching staff at MLC was a key objective of the project. Initially, the findings were disseminated at a whole-school staff learning conference, where teachers were introduced to the encounter drawings and invited to experience each pedagogic encounter themselves, taking on the role of learners. The main objective of the Staff Learning Conference at the end of 2019 was for teachers to experience learning in different sized spaces and groups, in keeping with the conference theme, ‘The Experience of Learning—Past, Present and Future’. This event exposed over 250 teachers to the language generated by the research and to the ‘learning encounters’. The conference also positioned them as learners in various spaces, which enabled them to garner ideas about how they might use the affordances of these learning environments in future with their own students. It also gave them opportunity to reflect on the factors affecting their own learning via the completion of a short survey. This was given following each conference session and required staff to identify the learning encounters they had experienced and to reflect on their learning experiences. The day was designed around three sessions that staff moved through in sequence: a whole group session for all 250 staff in a large auditorium, workshop-style groups for 20–25 supported by a facilitator, and finally small groups of 4–6 that enabled staff to share emerging ideas about new practices and how they might actualise the affordances of various environments across the college. Presentations in the first session set up the rest of the day, encouraging staff to reflect on the experience of learning in both new and existing spaces at the school. Highlighting the correlation between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement (Hattie, 2011), emphasis was given to how staff value collegiate relationships and understand professional learning as an active and shared experience. Data was presented about the P2P research, including visual displays of the pedagogic encounters that had been mapped and distilled by colleagues. The next stage of the college’s masterplan was also presented, helping staff place their learning within the context of the school’s future building programme—and associated pedagogic intensions. In the workshop-style groups of 20–25, staff were encouraged to take a deep dive into one of the six research projects the college had been involved in throughout the course of the year (of which the P2P project was one). Facilitators shared video narratives of their learnings from the previous year. This included footage from staff learning sessions, interviews with staff and students, encouraging staff to continue to share and learn from one another. The 30-min sessions considered not only the effect of these various projects on teachers’ practices but also included questions about how learning had been experienced in newly built classrooms and auxiliary spaces, such as in the Nicholas Learning Centre. The smaller group sessions asked teachers to use a feedback protocol to affirm individual action research plans and share them with their peers. Across the day, staff were asked to think about the learning spaces that they were in and to evaluate their experiences as learners. After each session, they were asked

56

B. Cleveland et al.

to complete a Learning Spaces Survey which took approximately five minutes to complete. Although the same survey was given following each session, they were asked to respond according to their experiences of the different spaces, including how it was set up to meet the learning intentions of the session. Teachers reported feeling comfortable in the full range of spaces, noting features such as furnishings, lighting, acoustics and temperature. Staff also reported that they felt a sense of belonging in both the large and smaller spaces. One respondent affirmed that, “the classrooms were well equipped for a variety of learning encounters and different ways of recording and reflecting on our learning”. This event, along with making the drawings available to staff in various forms, helped establish a common language for talking about and enacting spatialised pedagogic practices.

Conclusions: What Are the Key Takeaways? The P2P research project at MLC identified how the affordances of learning spaces (new and existing) could be better used to develop dynamic and engaging teaching and learning routines aligned with the Learning@MLC statement—and to a lesser extent the colleges’ Strategic Pillars. By inference, the research also offered insights into what types of pedagogic encounters should be embodied in the school’s future facilities to afford similar teaching and learning experiences. Additionally, the research identified methods by which knowledge about the effective use of learning environments could be identified, distilled, shared, and translated, and insights were developed into how such knowledge may be integrated into teacher planning. As a direct result of their involvement in the P2P project, MLC staff now regularly use the term ‘learning space’ and a shared language about pedagogic encounters is growing. Some enthusiastic champions from the P2P team have adopted deeper insights from the research and have actively encouraged other teachers and students to think spatially about their practice. The distribution of ‘pedagogic encounter posters’ in some areas of the school has been one initiative that has demonstrated the desire of staff to amplify the insights gained and embed new understandings in the everyday life of the school. The findings have also informed the design and use of recently completed learning spaces for Year 9 students, where visual reminders of the pedagogic encounters developed by the project are present. The hope is that staff and students will remember the visual representations, consider their perceived educational value, and translate these learnings into their daily use of the spaces they occupy. Finally, it should be noted that as social and material conditions change, affordance requirements in schools are bound to change. With recent shifts to online learning, what new affordances for learning might now be anticipated, or even expected, as schools expand their repertoire of online technologies? The longitudinal investigation of learning environment affordances in schools, including tracing the emergence, stabilisation, and drift (Lindberg & Lyytinen, 2013) of the affordances actualised by

4 Affordances for Learning: Identifying and Sharing Pedagogic …

57

teachers and students, could reveal a lot about the temporal dynamics of affordances and how teachers’ and students’ practices may change in response to evolving action possibilities for teaching and learning.

References Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Linked. The new science of networks. Perseus. Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 10(3), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.887 Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0959354395054001 Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Routledge. Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In CHI ‘91 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84). Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin. Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers. Routledge. Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x Hertzberger, H. (1969). Montessori primary school in Delft, Holland. Harvard Educational Review, 39(4), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.39.4.a0m374522202766g Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world. Environment & Planning A, 40, 1796–1810. Lindberg, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Towards a theory of affordance ecologies. In F. X. Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space: Organizations artefacts and practices (pp. 41–61). Palgrave Macmillan. Methodist Ladies’ College. (2019). Nicholas Learning Centre. Our new home for year 7 and 8. https://www.mlc.vic.edu.au/Why-MLC/Campus-Facilities/7-8-Learning-Centre Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397 Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035 Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2014). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.924482 Young, F., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Affordances, architecture and the action possibilities of learning environments: A critical review of the literature and future directions. Buildings, 12(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12010076 Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2019). The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: Educators’ and architects’ perceptions. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y Young, F., Tuckwell, D., & Cleveland, B. (2021). Actualising the affordances of innovative learning environments through co-creating practice change with teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7

Chapter 5

Transforming Practices in ILEs Joanne Blannin and Virginia Kung

Abstract The Plans to Pedagogy programme is focused on developing the capacity of teaching staff to engage in embedded research within their schools. Action research, with its focus on iterative review and development, has informed the design of P2P at Newmarket Primary School. This project engaged in knowledge-generating action research (Newton & Burgess, 2008). This research sought to answer specific questions and generate knowledge that could be used in the school in terms of developing teachers’ evaluation of their practice and collaborative teaching practices. The action research was designed to be participatory and, therefore, collaboratively engaged a small team of teachers and leaders in developing research skills and seeking answers to these key questions (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009; Cook, 2012). Drawing on Lewin’s seminal work (1946), this research was designed around the spiral process of learning, reflecting, planning and doing (Moghaddam, 2007). Each of the three phases of this project informed its subsequent stage. The data from each phase also raised new questions and posed new challenges. At the end of three phases, having worked with the academic researcher, the spiral of learning and the skills of practitioner-research are now embedded in the way the school investigates, learns and evaluates their teaching practice. Keywords Innovative learning environments · Primary school · Teacher capacity · Teaching spaces

J. Blannin (B) Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] V. Kung Newmarket Primary School, Auckland, New Zealand © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_5

59

60

J. Blannin and V. Kung

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Newmarket Primary School is situated in the heart of a large bustling retail area in New Zealand. The roll at the time of the project was just under 300 students, with a teaching staff of 14 supported by 6 support staff. This research project was undertaken over 3 years and is ongoing and currently led by the school leaders themselves. Newmarket Primary School has experienced much change over the last 10 years, particularly in the school’s demographic makeup. Presently they have 37 different languages that are spoken. The school’s total Asian group has nearly doubled in the last decade from 43% in 2007 to 68.2%. At present, the biggest ethnic group is Chinese children, who make up 26% of the school enrolment, and that number has remained constant for the past 4 years after a dramatic rise. The school’s M¯aori group has dropped to 2.8% of their total school population. The Pasifika enrolment currently sits at 5.1% of their total school numbers. The European population has decreased two thirds from the school’s data, dropping from 50 to 14%. Approximately 80% of the school’s student population use another language at home. In the last 10 years, the school’s migrant population has doubled and most of the students live in apartment dwellings by the train station. With this in mind, the Ministry of Education forecast has identified exponential growth in this busy inner-city area, impacting the small school and its staff. Predictions indicate that the enrolment will double in 5 years, leading to the need for new buildings on the school’s site. The school’s buildings were also designated for maintenance and refurbishment as part of the 5- and 10-year cycle. Based on this forecasting, Newmarket Primary School had a new building added to their existing school site, with this building being the first vertical four-story primary school built in New Zealand.

Background: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? In 2016, two staff members at Newmarket Primary School, working in traditional spaces, expressed an interest in trialling and experimenting working together in a collaborative space. The structure of the room permitted for a sliding door that joined two rooms to be removed. This allowed the two teachers to teach together and for the children to use both spaces. Over time both teachers planned and taught together. Expectations of working in the space were established. As they reviewed this, other staff were part of the discussion. Both teachers highlighted the things that went well and the challenges they encountered. In 2017, the Ministry of Education informed the school of future building plans (i.e., the four-story addition), and the success of the shared space pilot then informed the design of the new building. Serendipitously, expressions of interest were being sought from schools to participate in a small-group learning spaces research project with LEaRN’s experienced team at the University of Melbourne in The Plans to

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

61

Pedagogy project—a Learning Environments Applied Research Network strategy for assisting schools to use new spaces well. The Newmarket Primary School Board supported the Newmarket team becoming part of the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project and saw this as an opportunity to support the transition from traditional to innovative learning environments (ILEs) through the new building. For the school’s senior leadership team, participation in P2P meant: • building staff capacity to effectively participate in the conceptualisation and design of new builds, • developing strategies that help prepare teachers to adapt their pedagogies to maximise the potential of ILEs, and • using good evaluation to align practices in ILEs to the school’s vision and to structure strategies for effective long-term inhabitation of these spaces. Being actively involved in this research project also meant the school was part of a wider group network (across New Zealand and Australia) that provided access to the expertise of the University of Melbourne in developing the capacity of staff to effect spatially focused improvements in pedagogies. With the possibility of any staff moving into the ‘new build’ innovative learning environment (ILE), the senior leadership team saw the importance of providing professional development to all staff in what it meant to work in ILEs.

A Focus on Collaboration In Australia and New Zealand, the role of collaboration and increased student agency has been highlighted in government education policy for several years. It has been made clear that teacher collaboration is an important priority in achieving the goal of improved student learning (TKI: New Zealand Government, 2020). A 2018 commissioned report to the Australian government identified the necessity of collaborative teaching and learning practices for both students and teachers in the classroom (Gonski et al., 2018). Further, this report suggested that collaborative teaching significantly enhances student learning outcomes: “Active collaboration is particularly important for creating a growth-based learning environment and for increasing student learning progress. Research shows that teachers who work together and learn from each other are more successful in improving student outcomes than those who work alone” (Gonski et al., 2018. p. 59). Understanding the potential of collaborative practice, Newmarket Primary School sought to provide open-plan learning spaces that offered opportunities to work, learn and teach together, following evidence-based research in other schools (Kariippanon et al., 2019). Based on the literature and the school’s vision, the P2P project was guided by three research questions that focused on both collaborative teaching practices and the need for an evidence-based approach to change:

62

J. Blannin and V. Kung

1. How can space facilitate tenable collaborative practices? 2. How does this look within Newmarket’s unique structure? 3. What data can be generated to build an ‘evidence-based’ culture within Newmarket’s teaching community?

Methods: How Did We Do It? The school leaders identified a junior (5 and 6 year olds) and a senior (9 and 10 year olds) teaching team to participate in this research. This approach enabled more transferability of findings across the school and provided greater insight into how space was used or could be used by different age groups of children. The sampling approach also addressed the desire to compare the use of space between a new learning environment (in the senior school) and a traditional classroom that had been retrofitted into a shared teaching space (in the junior school). The participants were the two teachers from within each of those spaces. Participant details, including years of teaching experience, are shown in Table 5.1. These teachers engaged in a three-phase project, with several data generation methods used iteratively in the school. Table 5.2 presents the timeline for phases one and two. Phase three is currently in progress and is described in more detail later in this section. A small team of teachers at the school called the Spatial Learning Team (SLT) were introduced to the data generation practices used and were responsible for collecting the data and analysing it, with the support of an academic researcher.

Classroom Observations Observations of classroom interactions were conducted twice each year, during Term 1 and Term 4. This generated four classroom observations for each teacher in their learning space. Byers’ Linking Pedagogy, Technology and Space (LPTS) Metric (Byers, 2016) was used to structure the observations. This observation schema was used to quantify the number of times teachers and students engaged in specific types of learning (pedagogies). This real-time, macro-enabled Microsoft Excel metric enabled “a single observer to collate numerous observations of the same teacher” Table 5.1 Participant information Tiana

Tane

Manu

Prisha

Years of teaching experience

15

20

5

2

Type of teaching space

Innovative learning environment

Retrofitted traditional classroom

Innovative learning environment

Retrofitted traditional classroom

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

63

Table 5.2 Phases of the study Classroom observations

Stop-motion video capture

Phase 1 Two observations in each of two learning spaces

One video captured in each learning space. Total of 30 min of video captured over 5 days

Phase 2 Two observations in each of two learning spaces

One video captured in each learning space. Total of 30 min of video captured over 5 days

Interviews

Individual interviews with four staff Two staff from each of two learning spaces

(Byers, 2016, p. 86). It produced automated graphics at the end of each observation. The graphs were used as data points against which changes in practice could be measured. The validity of the findings was increased, as far as possible, by ensuring that the observations took place at the regular times and locations and with the same observer and observee (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To address the research question, with its focus on collaborative teaching in ILEs, the following observation categories were used during data collection: 1. Didactic Instruction—teacher delivers content and knowledge to the whole class, 2. Interactive Instruction—teacher explores concepts through activities and conversations with individual and/or small groups of students, 3. Facilitating—teacher engages students in leading learning and provides support as needed, 4. Providing feedback—engages in productive critique with students, and 5. Class Discussion—teacher and students engage in whole-class discussions. These data were analysed alongside the stop-motion video capture analysis to compare what space was used (stop-motion video) and the teachers’ and students’ activities (classroom observations). Classroom observation data was frequencybased and indicated the percentage of time teachers and students spent engaged in each of the five categories.

Stop-Motion Video To understand how spaces were used, it was determined that stop-motion videos would provide insights into student and teacher movements around the space—using stop-motion video enabled more extended periods to be recorded while generating a shorter video file for analysis. The stop-motion video was set up in the learning space and programmed to take a single photograph at two-minute intervals. Each of the four learning spaces was videoed for one hour each day for 5 days over the same week in Terms 1 and 4 of one school year.

64

J. Blannin and V. Kung

The Spatial Learning Team were supervised in the generation and analysis of the data. This supervision was provided to ensure appropriate data were generated in four learning spaces around the school. The videos were combined into a single video for each learning space. This process was repeated twice, resulting in two stop-motion videos for each learning space. The generation of video data was designed to support a deeper understanding of the learning spaces’ use. Videos did not focus on student or teacher activities, nor were faces visible in the videos. These data were analysed for frequency of use across eight possible categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Whole-Class Student Choice Whole-Class Teacher Directed Small-Group Student Choice Small-Group Teacher Directed Floor Student Choice Floor Teacher Directed Table Student Choice Table Teacher Directed

These categories were developed based on the desire to understand how spaces were used as the data covered two learning spaces in the newly completed innovative learning environment as well as the two learning spaces in an existing building where a wall had been removed to create one large, shared learning area. These categories also enabled tracking of the movement between spaces. To understand the sense of ‘ownership’ within the space and how decisions about collaboration were made, these categories were designed to help understand who was making the decisions about space use. This is evident in the ‘teacher directed’ and ‘student choice’ coding language. Identifying who made these decisions was challenging as the stop-motion video did not contain audio. Therefore, a strategy was developed in which teacher and student movements were used to infer decision making. These movements were: • student movements from one space to another (individual or en-masse), • students facing the teacher while the teacher was speaking, • students working with a teacher in a particular space, individually or in a group, and • student movements during an activity (demonstrating the ability to change spaces and make their own choices). Analytic software, MAXQDA, was used to review and code the stop-motion videos. This provided data that indicated the frequency of each type of space used in each learning area.

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

65

Interviews In phase 2, the four participating teachers were invited to participate in a 30-minute interview. An external academic researcher led the interviews, assisted by the leader of the SLT. This enabled the school-based leader to develop research skills and provided opportunities to understand how data analysis proceeded. The semi-structured interviews focused on teachers’ perceptions of their use of space. Three questions were asked: 1. How are we currently using these spaces? 2. What types of collaborative practices are these spatial practices allowing? 3. How are we sharing these spatial practices? Teachers were prompted to explain their responses and, where possible, to provide examples of their use of space and spatial practices. The interviews were audiorecorded, and notes were taken during the interviews. These notes were used to review the audio recording, and thematic coding summarised the participants’ responses. Emergent coding was used to identify key themes and categories within the data. Initial coding was undertaken line by line, in which the meaning of the text was summarised into a key phrase or term, at times, in vivo codes were used (Charmaz, 2017). A second researcher (another member of the spatial learning team) reviewed these initial codes, and a consensus was achieved. Next, categories of codes were developed by the spatial learning team, to generate emergent theory from the data. This stage saw codes grouped together with similar codes. This categorisation was conducted in a group setting with the spatial learning team, led by the researcher. Finally, the researcher supported the team to generate a final thematic analysis from the interviews. These themes could be traced back to initial data analysis and the emergent coding, enhancing the validity of the coding process and the analysis in general (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Phase Three In phase 3, the findings from previous data collection were used to identify the next steps in the research. This led to the question: ‘What do we mean by collaborative practices in innovative learning environments at Newmarket Primary School?’ To answer this question, an action research process was developed to engage school staff in the design, development and trialling of a ‘Framework for Collaborative Teaching in ILEs at Newmarket Primary School’. These stages are detailed below: 1. All staff were invited to complete a survey about their understanding and definitions of ‘collaborative teaching in ILEs’. 2. Workshop 1: All staff attended a workshop where they were guided to unpack evidence-based research around collaborative learning in ILEs. In teaching teams,

66

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

J. Blannin and V. Kung

they began to develop a definition of collaborative practice, drawing on the research. In their teaching spaces, teams of teachers took turns observing their team’s practices. They were supported to identify whether the criteria they explored in the workshop was observable within their team. Workshop 2: The teams of teachers were guided to reflect on their team’s practices and highlight areas of consistency and areas for growth. Teachers were then asked to create mixed teams from across the school. They then developed a criteria list of teacher and student behaviours that would answer the question: what does collaborative teaching in ILEs at our school look like? After the workshop, the spatial learning team collated and reviewed the criteria developed by teams. The first draft of the ‘Collaborative Learning in ILEs at Newmarket Primary’ uses this data. This draft framework was shared at meetings with the school community, including the school board and parents, and feedback was sought at all levels. The framework was finalised after having taken on board the feedback received. All staff were finally invited to complete a survey about their understanding and definitions of ‘collaborative teaching in ILEs’. This was compared to the initial survey to identify if understanding and definitions had changed.

In phase three, data for analysis were collected from the initial and final surveys. The final framework was also analysed as a data source and was mapped against existing data. This mapping enabled the framework to be evaluated as to its potential impact on student learning. In phase three, the analysis of the data was qualitative. The survey responses were thematically coded by the spatial learning team to increase the validity of the findings. The framework analysis was undertaken as a desktop review of the current literature of ‘collaborative teaching in schools’. For each criterion developed by the teachers, substantiating research literature was sought to support the claim.

Findings: What Have We Learned? During phase 2, video data were analysed to identify if there was consistency between the teachers’ interview data and their classroom practices. It was hoped that what teachers said about their teaching was able to be seen in their practice. This enabled us to focus on the research question of: How are we currently using these spaces? Initial comparison data can be seen in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. In Fig. 5.1, the number of times a teacher decided how space was used is compared to the number of times a student made a similar decision. In Spaces K and J, it appeared that initially (in analysis 1), the teachers’ voice was most prominent in the classroom. The teacher was making decisions about space use more than twice as often as the students. Since then, however, the choices about space use became closer to equal (shown in the red analysis 2). The number of times teachers chose

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

67

Fig. 5.1 Spaces K and J: frequency of teachers making choice about space in comparison to students

Fig. 5.2 Spaces D and E: frequency of teachers making choice about space in comparison to students

how space should be used halved from 160 to 88 incidences. Student choice also decreased but was more in line with an equal distribution of spatial use between teacher and student. In Fig. 5.2, a similar pattern was observed. As student decision making about space decreased, so did teachers’ decisions. This is an interesting pattern and suggests that teachers and students were less likely to be dictating space use, and students were less likely to demand to make their own decisions. It is possible that having become more used to the space and its affordances over time, students and teachers no longer see it necessary to discuss space. Each type of spatial use has, for this research, been

68

J. Blannin and V. Kung

categorised as one incidence, regardless of the amount of time students spend in that activity and location. Further research is needed to investigate the amount of time that students and teachers spend in each space. In addition to a change in practice evidenced by video observation, the interviews revealed that all teachers appreciated certain aspects of the spaces. The language used by participants included: light, airy, colourful, comfortable and good acoustics. Two of the four teachers also noted that they appreciated the design of the ILE spaces, namely identifying a sense of ‘flow’ between learning spaces. This flow appeared to enable staff to feel more collaborative in that they could ask for help without leaving the room, this appears evident in Fig. 5.2, where both teachers and students were more likely to choose to move between spaces. Instead, they felt able to move around the ample open space without fear of negatively interrupting the other teacher. In terms of learning and teaching, participants spoke about student ownership of the space to varying degrees. Three teachers commented that the ILEs enabled more student agency, as children could choose where to work and with whom to sit. The ability for students to choose their groups was a positive feature of the innovative space. However, there were some challenges in the ILEs. One teacher-participant noted that they felt limited by the large open-plan spaces. Concerns regarding more ‘messy, creative practices, such as art, STEM and water-based tasks’, were voiced. ILEs were seen as lacking the facilities to spread out, create, explore and store ‘messy’ products of student work. This is a challenge of open-plan spaces and merits further investigation in phase 3. If the space does not accommodate creative activities, the Spatial Learning Team could consider trialling a strategy to remove this barrier. This might include supporting staff to work on ‘messy’, creative activities simultaneously or when the space is empty. As Newmarket seeks to enhance its collaborative practices in the classroom, the data indicate that the new learning spaces can do so. Teachers in the reconfigured space felt empowered to undertake team teaching and highlighted the opportunity created by working in the ILE. In contrast, teachers in the new ILE spaces identified a lack of flexibility in their programmed due to the constraints of the space. The constraints mentioned were: • Inability to change teaching plans ‘on the fly’ due to the need to be mindful of other teaching activities occurring in the space, e.g. teaching dance while another teacher seeks to teach reading. • Challenges of quieter versus louder teaching styles occurring concurrently. • Lack of time and space to use their particular teaching skills (e.g. art, music). • Limitations of working on planning and non-contact activities. • Lacking a sense of ownership of their own ‘place.‘ It is of interest that within purposefully designed, learning spaces these teachers felt constrained. This suggests that teaching in an ILE will not lead to changes in teaching practice without support from colleagues, professional learning and an acceptance of failure as a learning opportunity. These constraints are now the focus of phase 3. Two teacher-participants identified collaborative practices in their team since moving to the new space (in this case, the reconfigured classrooms). They talked

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

69

about collaboration as a teaching practice, within which they shared the responsibility of learning, teaching and assessment between their two class groups. It was an active and interactive practice they engaged in every day. The other two teachers, however, appeared to define collaboration more traditionally. They saw their collaborative practice as purely located within team meetings and outside of classroom teaching time. These teachers worked in innovative learning spaces. While these teachers ran successful classrooms and are known as experienced educators within the school, these data suggest potential next steps. Developing a shared understanding of collaborative teaching practice (as distinct from shared planning) is an area for growth and could be a key goal for phase three.

Significance to the Broader School Context To understand the use and movement of the learning spaces, the school needed to ensure that this vision was part of the whole school plan. To this end, the entire staff were involved in the planning and discussion around this goal as it was important for everyone to understand the pedagogical thinking behind the use and design of the ILEs. Developing a shared understanding of the goals was the focus at each of the professional learning meetings (e.g. workshops, readings/research). From here, we gathered data from traditional learning spaces that existed in another area of the school (single-cell classrooms). We used this to compare to the new innovative learning environments. The data informed staff-wide discussions and decision making. In one example, we sought to understand how teachers moved around ILE spaces and used video (Stop Motion) and observation tools (Byers, 2016) to provide contextually relevant data. The stop-motion data helped illustrate how staff and students moved and how they used the space. In turn, these patterns of movements identified frequencies of use in different areas and the types of teaching in each area. This, then, was used to engage other teachers in deep discussions of their practices and anticipated use of ILEs, as they began to explore ILEs in their teaching. This reflective practice provided a structured and positive space for teachers to explore a range of teaching practices that they were led to consider, address or enhance. These practices, highlighted by the data, included: • teachers remaining fixed in the same location in the space for the whole session; • students moved to the teachers and the children worked in areas dictated by the teacher, indicating a lack of student choice; • teacher-centred and student-centred pedagogies; • preferred pedagogies in certain spaces; • types of teacher/student interactions, discussions, questioning or feedback strategies; • the affordances aligning (or not) with the affordances of the physical environment.

70

J. Blannin and V. Kung

Creating a Supportive Teacher Learning Environment It became clear that it was necessary to establish protocols for staff to engage both in the research and with the data in the broader school context. These protocols were set up and agreed upon early in the project and designated non-negotiable for all participants. The agreed protocols were: • collaboration—a school definition was developed (defining what collaboration looks like, sounds like, feels like and expectations of staff); • ways of working—Manaakitanga: a M¯aori value and principle referring to the concepts of respect, sharing, open communication and a collective effort with others. The ways of treating others the way you would like to be treated; • all staff are expected to be actively and respectfully involved in workshop activities. School leaders provided time and space for robust discussion, feedback and sharing of teachers’ practices. For this to occur, however, there needed to be high trust in the school, where teachers and leaders modelled by example and viewed the discussions and collaborations as adding value to their practice. To create a culture of reflective practice, it was seen as essential to lead by example, where good practice focused on student learning. In addition, school leaders supported a deeper understanding of the use of innovative learning spaces by creating ongoing opportunities for teacher’s voices to be heard as part of the reflective practices of the school. Regardless of their teaching tenure, both experienced and graduate teachers were engaged in the process and participants were acknowledged as having valuable contributions and perspectives to offer.

Ongoing Impacts of This Study As a result of creating valuable sets of contextually relevant data and co-creating protocols for engagement in professional conversations, several changes to teacher practices have been observed. Several teachers have been motivated by the study and the success of the video data analysis to video their practice. This has led them to seek feedback from their colleagues with a focus on professional learning and self-development. With this improvement in mind, this study appears to have made teachers more aware of their teaching practices and the potential impact (or not) of their teaching. Viewing and reviewing their practice and the implications this has on student learning in ILEs appears to have motivated teachers to consider changes to their practice and perhaps consider the novel affordances of ILEs.

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

71

Following this study, the school leaders have also identified other changes to teacher practices, including: • • • •

Positive changes in teachers’ pedagogical thinking; Increased opportunities for student agency in ILEs; Increased engagement with student feedback to inform teaching; Improved integration of digital technology to support student engagement and learning outcomes; • Increased diversity in learning experiences in ILEs. Overall, this study has had an impact on the teaching practices in the school. The approach to embedding teachers as researchers in the classroom and sourcing data from the school context appears to have engaged and motivated teachers to be more open about their practice and more willing to receive and act on feedback. Significant to this approach is creating a culture where teachers reflect on their practice needs to be supportive. Leaders needed to encourage teachers by celebrating attempts at changes and by acknowledging both failures and successes. In this way, teachers understood that they were part of a learning and research experience in which failure was not something on which to be judged. Indeed, teachers were supported to understand that the research process takes time and that often, several iterations of data collection and analysis are needed before we can reach conclusions.

Conclusions To conclude this chapter, we suggest that findings from Newmarket Primary School offer several valuable contributions to other teachers and leaders seeking to explore and engage with ILEs. These contributions are presented below. Teacher beliefs about teaching were initially seen to overshadow a teacher’s desire to use new spaces innovatively and collaboratively. These beliefs, however, were challenged by video data and the analysis of the movements and usage of spaces in the ILEs. We propose then that video data and stop-motion data appears to offer a useful device for exploring how ILEs are used. Teaching in an ILE will not lead to changes in teaching practice without the acceptance of failure as a learning opportunity. Teachers and leaders should be provided with time and space to share successes and failures with equal focus. Redefining a failure as a learning opportunity and a part of the research may support teacher persistence and change. The ability for teachers to practise and experiment with spatial use, without fear of failure (as is seen to be the case for teachers in the older, reconfigured classrooms), appears to have led to an increase in ‘creative teaching practices’ that make effective use of space. Connected to the ideas above, failure framed as a learning opportunity is crucial to engaging teachers in ILEs in experiment practices.

72

J. Blannin and V. Kung

A belief that space can positively impact student learning can lead teachers to increasingly student-focused and decentralised collaborative learning. Providing examples of how space can positively impact students can provide teachers with examples of success. Examples of best practices from within the school’s context appear to have more impact than other, non-specific examples. Teachers can be supported to engage in spatial thinking through reflective practices and through group and team meetings to share experiences. Leaders have an essential and embedded role in teachers’ development of spatial thinking. Creating a trusting, open and professional space for discussion and experimenting is critical, as is valuing the perspectives of all teaching staff regardless of the spaces in which they teach or their current learning spaces. The research focused on building staff capacity in the use of innovative learning environments at the school. From the data, the ongoing project, the feedback from staff and their desire to continue using the collaborative and video strategies for professional development, the study has undoubtedly impacted teachers’ capacity. In the future, it would be interesting to explore if the changes noted in the school become an embedded part of the culture and whether some further interventions or practices might maintain the momentum gained through this project.

References Brydon-Miller, M., & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79–93. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667469 Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. Informing Education Theory, Design and Practice through Learning Environment Evaluation, 2016, 11–17. Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45. Cook, T. (2012). Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: The challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1783 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter. http://www.worldcat.org/title/discovery-of-grounded-theory-strate gies-for-qualitative-research/oclc/253912 Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brien, L., Perry, L., & Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Commonwealth of Australia. Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. J., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A.-M. (2019). Flexible learning spaces facilitate interaction, collaboration and behavioural engagement in secondary school. PLoS ONE, 14(10), e0223607. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry, 1(11). Moghaddam, A. (2007). Action research: A spiral inquiry for valid and useful knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(2).

5 Transforming Practices in ILEs

73

Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring types of educational action research: Implications for research validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10. 1177/160940690800700402 TKI: New Zealand Government. (2020). Collaborative teaching. Ministry of Education. https://ele arning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Innovative-learning-environments/Collaborative-teaching

Chapter 6

Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well Wesley Imms and Rik Malone

Abstract In 2018, Luther College embarked on an ambitious plan to use two significant building projects to help them reimagine how they taught. Of the two projects, a large-scale retrofit of a middle school building is the focus of this chapter. The intention was to gather evidence about the efficacy of teacher professional learning in ILEs; to what degree did these activities improve the ways teachers utilised the new space to teach in a more diverse, student-oriented manner? This chapter discusses the way teachers co-developed, in collaboration with their university P2P team, an ‘ILE-use’ research plan. It worked from the hypothesis that teachers would be more willing to explore pedagogies that extend their skills if they are given proof of its effect. Their goal was evaluation-focused; already existing professional development strategies provided the intervention, with the P2P project developing ways to measure the impact of those strategies. The results are discussed within the context of it being an ongoing project. While the 3-year plan has now run its course, data analysis was only recently conducted due to delays in the building schedule, COVID, and ‘real-life’ events that have impacted key staff participation. This chapter reflects such realities in doing school-based, teacher-led research. Keywords Leadership · Teacher transition · Teacher professional learning · Teacher self-efficacy

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Luther College is a 7–12 co-educational Lutheran school situated in the middleeastern suburbs of Melbourne. Its core purpose is to ensure that Christ is central, excellence is pursued, and relationships are valued. Learning is prioritised, and must W. Imms (B) The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] R. Malone Luther College, Melbourne, VIC, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_6

75

76

W. Imms and R. Malone

be purposeful, relational, rigorous and reflective. Connection and collaboration are key concepts. Luther College is part of a wider community, being one of 86 Lutheran schools nationwide and one of 15 in Victoria. It opened in 1964 and its buildings range from the early 1970s, with continuous refurbishments and new builds maintaining a focus on the importance of effective physical spaces. In 2018, Luther College found itself in a position where its future growth required the development of new buildings, bringing with this a need to make pedagogies match the potential of these designs to improve the future learning needs of its students. This, it was argued, was best facilitated by focusing on quality pedagogy. With this broad but important focus in mind, Luther entered into a 3year research agreement with the University of Melbourne’s Learning Environment Applied Research Network (LEaRN). A preliminary stage of that partnership was a ‘plan of action’, or research proposal, which provided a structure for what became a complex strategy. With the development of the Plans to Pedagogy project, Luther’s needs were seen to be a good match and its proposal was adjusted to include P2P’s ‘spatial learning team’ concept. The learning space challenge for Luther College was twofold—providing staff the means to contribute to two emerging, large-scale building projects, and secondly, to equip staff to use the new, more flexible, and open designs to re-examine optimum pedagogies. In regard to the new buildings, one was a major refit of the existing middle school precinct (Fig. 6.1). The second was an intended greenfield arts precinct development. The first build was the focus of this P2P project. The experienced architects and a specialist spatial consultant provided all needed expertise to the conceptualisation of the design. The P2P project concerned preparing teachers and gathering data on impact. Regarding the ‘re-imagining’ of pedagogies, Luther College’s situation was no different to many schools. They had maintained an enviable academic record for its pupils using traditional classrooms that tended towards teacher-centric teaching approaches. They had maintained a healthy tradition of professional learning to improve teaching, but the spatial element that the new buildings offered required a specialist approach; the school was keen to know if their professional learning programmes had any impact on their teachers’ use of spaces.

The Literature: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? Luther College began this research partnership with considerable thinking already undertaken. It had a long history of progressive action regarding the continuous improvement of teaching (and learning) in the institution. Added to that was considerable work with commissioned architects and advisors on the retrofit or building of new learning spaces in the school, scheduled over the coming years. The P2P

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

77

Fig. 6.1 Middle school re-development, Cox Architects

proposal was intended to implement a pedagogic spatial dimension to those strategies. It sought to marry LEaRN knowledge on best design and teaching practices in innovative learning environments to Luther College’s unique and comprehensive knowledge of what works best for its students. As such, this P2P project built on the following: • Luther’s School Vison that was articulated in its Greater Futures: The Luther Strategic Design 2013–2017 document. The document set ambitious strategic goals; for example, the need to engage in rigorous teacher professional development, and to continuously improve the school’s approaches to curriculum, part of which involved infrastructure. While its scope was broader than these two foci, these were the issues most relevant at that time to this P2P project. • Luther’s thinking on progressive pedagogic practices, with the P2P-relevant topics being the co-design of new buildings and the need to identify what professional development strategies ‘worked’ within the Luther College context. • A School Master Plan. • Preliminary through to final schematics for the re-development of the Middle School Enhancement produced by Cox Architects in association with Dr Peter Jamieson.

78

W. Imms and R. Malone

This pre-existing work provided a strong foundation for the P2P project. What is of importance is how P2P was intended to support, extend or amplify these strategies. From the beginning, P2P was intended to add data to existing initiatives, and to bring a sharper ‘spatial’ component to their implementation. The initial conversations were summarised in a ‘wish list’ (Table 6.1). In summary, ‘what do we need to know?’ encompassed two issues: (1) assisting staff to transit into the much more flexible spaces in the new middle school building; and (2) using quality data to assist staff to refine teaching practices towards a more student-centred approach in the new spaces. The strategy was for the LEaRN researcher to work with the Luther Spatial Learning Team to build and implement staff development strategies, and to develop a method for capturing data about any impact. The questions that drove Luther College’s P2P project were: 1. How can Luther’s teaching staff be assisted to maximise the pedagogic potential of Luther College’s innovative learning environments currently in planning or under construction? 2. What evidence can be found that pedagogies are changing in these new environments? Table 6.1 Initial ‘wish list’—what do we want to know? What do we need to know? Year 1

Year 1 will use an exploratory design to investigate what is known, what gaps exist and what work needs to be done. We wish to know ‘What is Luther’s current knowledge and practice regarding ILEs, and what should it be?’ During Year 1 Luther’s spatial learning team will select, modify and implement LEaRN strategies to assist them to develop a spatial culture among their staff. These activities will assist staff to work with architects on the development of new facilities for the school, with an emphasis on ensuring the school’s education vision is accommodated spatially in new designs. It will focus on empowering staff to envisage the spatial role of good teaching and learning practices in these spaces.

Year 2

Year 2 will mostly focus on staff transition into these spaces. What we want to know is ‘How can we assist teachers and students to use spatial competencies to make their good teaching and learning even better?’ To do this, it will utilise selected LEaRN strategies that will be chosen by the school’s spatial team because of their perceived ‘best fit’ with the school’s needs. It will use the project leader’s advice and expertise to assist the school spatial team’s implementation of these strategies with a selection of Luther staff. The spatial learning team will document these activities, and where possible gather data for continuous dissemination to the school community, and where relevant, for Year 3 evaluation.

Year 3

Year 3 will continue Year 2 activities, but with two additional foci. The first concerns evaluation. What we want to know is “How can we gather evidence from these activities?”. The second concerns dissemination; we want to know “How do we ensure the ‘good ILE practices’ we have developed become long-term practices in our school?”. To meet both these goals, the spatial learning team will create outputs that explain activities from this project, in light of wider school practices. It will present on these findings to the school community and broader educational audiences.

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

79

3. In what ways are student learning experiences impacted by the new builds and pedagogic changes?

The Reality of Implementation, and the Scope of This Chapter This chapter presents an update on progress of Luther’s P2P research. It also provides a description of the way a good school adapts its ‘wish list’ to reflect the reality of circumstances. The following sections are organised chronologically—they map thinking over time to help illustrate changes brought on by events not always within its control. It begins with the grand plan and slowly refines that plan to their current situation. As Luther College’s needs spanned two separate building projects, Phase 1 was intended to focus on the immediate need—staff use of the refurbished middle school building, illustrated in Fig. 6.1. A follow-on Phase 2 was intended to assist Luther staff be actively involved in the design and transition into the new creative arts precinct. Phase 1 has been partially addressed, and Phase 2 has been postponed due to changing school priorities and delays in building schedules. Phase 1 constituted an ambitious programme of collaborative research but was also realistic given the school’s positive approach to reflective practice and the fact it had a team of highly motivated teachers. It began with thorough planning and excellent uptake by all participants. Several workshops were run, skills developed, and planning sessions conducted. Ethics was secured through the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, recruitment was undertaken, and data collection commenced. Considerable volumes of data were collected and analysed. These are now being scrutinised to understand what they have taught us regarding the original research questions. That analysis forms the material presented in this chapter. However, some parts of the original research plan were interrupted and have become impossible to now implement. Other external factors came into play; these will be discussed shortly. The essence of this story is adaptability. Considering many changing circumstances, how has Luther College adjusted its goals while keeping attention on the key advantages captured in the initial plan?

Methods: How Did We (Plan to) Do It? Approach Phase 1 began in mid-2018, with many weeks developing the ambitious research strategy described below. Several factors eventually slowed its implementation, influencing the staff development programme, and the pre- and post-Phase 1 measurements. These factors included changes in staff within the spatial learning team, an

80

W. Imms and R. Malone

agreement to slow progress while other P2P projects ‘caught up’,1 illness and other issues within the team’s families that necessitated a change in priorities, and of course, the COVID pandemic. This is not to suggest this project is not achieving its core aims. As this chapter will describe, considerable data has been collected and analysed, which informs the school’s spatial journey. However, this modification is useful to note here, as it highlights the need for flexibility and good ‘plan Bs’ in any similar longitudinal study in schools that, for its implementation, relies on external factors (such as build schedules) and on the realities of staff availability. For this reason, the original Phase 1 method is described below, the ‘results’ section will illustrate modifications to this plan, and the ‘takeaways’ in the final section will discuss lessons learned when conducting collaborative teacher-led research such as this.

Design and Procedure for Phase 1 Phase 1, the middle school refurbishment, was intended to implement a mixedmethod design. Its focus was on ‘what learning-space evidence can be gained from staff transition into the new Middle School building, that assists the creation a culture of pedagogic change?’ This strategy intended to create evidence that in turn could be fed to Luther College’s community of teachers to encourage consideration of how the physical design of spaces can impact teaching approaches. This was to be a lowimpact intervention study, one that tracked teachers’ use of the new spaces without impinging unnecessarily on their professional practice or on student learning. Data collection for Phase 1 is complete and is the focus of this chapter. It ran as a three-term quasi-experimental, control/intervention study. A Single-Subject Research Design was used, incorporating repeated measures across two groups of teachers and students: • four grade 8 teachers (Mathematics and English) who experienced the intervention, and • four grade 8 teachers (Mathematics and English) who did not receive the intervention. The intervention was to be professional development implemented by the spatial learning team. The measures were: 1. purpose designed student repeated measures survey (SSRD) conducted at regular intervals during Phase 1, 2. observations of teaching and learning, conducted at regular intervals during Phase 1, and 1

P2P was intended to build a collaborative research culture. Having begun their work before P2P was instigated and then transferring into that program, Luther was about 12 months in advance of the other schools. A decision was made to slow progress to match other schools—in hindsight this decision served that purpose but possibly at the cost of a loss of momentum for Luther.

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

81

3. a pre/post measure using the LEaRN Evaluation Tool. Measures 1 and 3 were quantitative data collection devices; to gain a qualitative aspect to the issue, the spatial learning team was to undertake selected repeated measure observations of actual teaching/learning practices in both intervention and control classrooms using the Byers Observational Metric tool (Measure 2). In addition to these measures, the Space Design and Use survey was also used as part of baseline data collection. A yearly research procedure was developed and is summarised in Table 6.2. Early in the second term of 2018 a pre-project measure was to be conducted. This was to be followed by the SSRD repeated measures survey to measure changes in students’ perceptions of their engagement, performance of the teachers and their learning outcomes. The initial (minimum three per term) SSRD surveys were be used to develop a baseline data set for all groups. Interventions (staff professional learning) would then be put into place for the experimental group, constituting: • A suite of professional development modules run with the experimental group teaching staff, and • Purposeful furniture selection and use. To build capacity in the Luther spatial learning team, the P2P project hosted two workshops annually for 3 years in Melbourne (although this was interrupted by COVID). These sessions conducted training of staff in research methods, analysis skills and dissemination strategies. They also reviewed each school’s project progress, and Table 6.2 Planned annual research implementation Term 2 Weeks

2

Space Design and Use survey

X

4

Pre/post LEaRN Evaluation Tool

X

SSRD student survey

X

Term 3 6

8

10 12 2

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

Intervention 2 (PD) Observational metric

X

Luther workshops

X

Writing and dissemination

Term 4 6

8

10 12 2

4

6

8

10 12

X

Intervention 1 (furniture)

Data analysis

4

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

4

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

6

X

X

X

5

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X

82

W. Imms and R. Malone

Fig. 6.2 Sampling framework

consolidated that learning through discussion, documentation and review of the research. In addition, the LEaRN P2P research team was contracted to visit each school a minimum of twice a year to review implementation of strategies, and to liaise with the spatial learning team regarding their developing knowledge. Most schools, including Luther College, received many more visits, particularly in the early stages as plans were being developed.

Sampling A purposive, typical-case sampling approach was used in Phase 1. Eight classes and eight teachers were convenience sampled for the project. These were spread equally between Mathematics and English classes scheduled to use the new middle school facilities during 2018. Figure 6.2 illustrates the distribution of these eight classes across the two research groups, control and intervention. The selection of teachers became automatic with the typical-case sampling of the classes.

Data Collection Pre- and post-testing. Initially, the intention was to conduct pre- and postproject measures using LEaRN’s Learn Evaluation tool. Conducted online with all consenting students in the study sample, consenting relevant teachers, a school leader, and an external design expert, this measure would produce a range of ordinal and categorical data summarising participants’ opinions of the scope, quality, and fitfor-purpose status of the buildings they were occupying. Results from this measure were to give one indication of the school’s changing opinions of their facilities, with comparison possible between the intervention and control groups. Table 6.1 indicates

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

83

the timing of this data set. This measure was not implemented, as will be discussed later in this chapter. Baseline SDU survey. To capture teachers’ learning space opinions before the research commenced, a version of LEaRN’s Space Design and Use survey (Mahat & Imms, 2020) was conducted. This asked five questions concerning current space arrangements, then type of teaching and type of learning occurring in those spaces, and the type of spatial affordances available for their teaching. This measure was implemented. Repeated measures survey (SSRD). This repeated measures survey was used to measure changes in students’ perceptions of: (1) their engagement; (2) the performance of their teachers; (3) their learning outcomes. Students were asked to complete the short, 12 item/2 min paper survey each two or three weeks. Table 6.2 indicates the timing of this data set. This measure was implemented, but not analysed in time for this chapter. Teacher observations and interviews. The LPTS Observational Metric (Byers, 2020) collected repeated measures of teacher and student actions within lessons. It was used to construct a profile of ‘typical’ behaviours, with visual graphic analysis capable of assisting teachers to modify practices over time. The observations were conducted by a rotation of the spatial learning team (it has acceptable observer variability) to attempt to capture same-class, same-lesson data that allowed another view of how the interventions impacted teaching practices. Table 6.2 indicates the timing of this data set. This observation component of this measure was implemented, but the teacher interview data was not analysed in time for this chapter. Professional Learning strategies. These were established LEaRN tools, with training given to P2P school’s spatial learning teams at the twice a year retreats, in Melbourne. They included Archipelago of Possibilities, Teacher Mind-frames, and another four selected by the school as most advantageous for their staff. This measure was implemented, but not analysed in time for this chapter.

Data Analysis Pre-post-testing. The LEaRN Evaluation tool came with a systematised qualitative analysis system; data was presented to the system, which generated a visual-graphics style summary of Luther’s responses normed to over 200 similar submissions in its data base. This was to generate a comparative analysis against like schools. However, the critical analysis was to be a pre- and post-project comparisons of Luther College’s two submissions, to identify what changes were noted by the staff and students over the period of the research. Open-ended comments were to be coded and analysis of emergent themes produced.

84

W. Imms and R. Malone

Baseline SDU survey. Analysis of the survey occurred by computation of frequencies, and visual graphic analysis (histograms). Repeated measures SSRD survey. Individual student responses were to be summed and plotted, developing a visual graphic analysis of baseline versus interventions across the two groups (control versus intervention). It was considered unlikely that the sample size would produce statistical power to allow any comparison of confidence intervals. Teacher observations and interviews. Repeated measures from each teacher were to be summed according to intervention stages, and the results presented via visual graphic analysis. The metric mapped observation of four ‘factors’—teacher pedagogies, learning communities, learning activities, and focus mode. Thematic analysis was applied to the interview data to explain the observations.

Findings: What Have We Learned? The Pre-project SDU Survey This survey gathered data on five questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What type of spaces are teachers using? How do the teachers feel these spaces impact their teaching? What teacher mind-frames (teaching attributes) are being exhibited? What learning styles are students exhibiting? How much work is needed for teachers to feel comfortable in the different spaces?

In regard to the first two issues, LEaRN’s (Imms et al., 2016) learning space design typology was used to identify teacher beliefs about which spaces best support or impede their teaching. The results (Fig. 6.3) indicated mixed feelings about traditional spaces, strong affiliation with traditional spaces with breakout potential, and consistent agreement that more flexible spaces hold potential for good teaching. Regarding issues concerning time needed to become comfortable teaching in different spaces (Fig. 6.4), it was no surprise that Luther College teachers felt traditional spaces provided little time for adjustment. Of interest, however, was the acceptance the ‘hybrid’ spaces (Types C and D)—adjusting to these spaces remained of little challenge for a surprising number of staff. There was also a linear nature to the data—some degree, to the more flexible the environment, the longer the adjustment time. The LEaRN Evaluation tool (pre- and post-project comparison) was not implemented. While that data would have proved informative, time was the key hindrance—the tool required organising a mixed-group walkthrough, interviews, and liaison with an external analyst. It was felt the SDU survey gave enough data for a pre- and post-project analysis.

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

Fig. 6.3 SDU findings

Fig. 6.4 Time to feel comfortable in spaces—SDU results

85

86

W. Imms and R. Malone

The Student SSRD Repeated Measures Survey The student SSRD repeated measures survey was implemented six times across three terms, providing solid data on student attitudes to the types of spaces being used and the types of teaching in those spaces. Unfortunately, analysis of these data was not available at the time of writing this Chapter.

The Teacher Observational Metric The teacher observational metric was implemented six times with eight teachers, across three terms in 2019. Results of those observations, organised by the four factors embedded in the metric, and comparing observations of the same teachers in the traditional rooms and then in the new ILE learning spaces, are illustrated as aggregated summaries in Figs. 6.5, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8. In terms of the pedagogies used by the teachers in traditional compared to the new ILE spaces, the Mathematics teachers increased direct instruction in the new ILEs, but interestingly also increased interactive instruction. They maintained a strong commitment to facilitating learning (setting tasks, encouraging completion) but this did drop marginally in the ILE. Feedback decreased in the ILEs, there was a very small amount of class discussion introduced in the ILE (none in the traditional setting) and reduced questioning. In comparison, the English teachers reduced direct and increased interactive instructions to the ILE setting. They provided less feedback, increased class discussion and decreased questioning in ILEs.

Fig. 6.5 Teacher Maths and English pedagogies, comparison of traditional and new ILE spaces by subjects English and Maths

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

87

Fig. 6.6 Learning communities, comparison of traditional and new ILE spaces by subjects English and Maths

Fig. 6.7 Learning activities, comparison of traditional and new ILE space by subjects English and Maths

In terms of the learning communities created by the teachers in traditional compared to the new ILE spaces, the Mathematics teachers reduced individual learning approaches in ILEs, but increased small group activities. They increased the use of whole class working approaches and significantly reduced the use of mixed groupings. The English teachers, in comparison to their Mathematics colleagues, demonstrated an opposite trend in terms of using more individual learning, and reducing small group activities in ILEs. English teachers mirrored the trend shown by Mathematics teachers in terms of using more whole class communities in ILEs, and

88

W. Imms and R. Malone

Fig. 6.8 Focus modes, comparison of traditional and new ILE spaces by subjects English and Maths

like Mathematics teachers they also reduced (but not as markedly) their use of mixed-group communities in ILEs. In terms of the learning activities instigated by the teachers in traditional compared to the new ILE spaces, some surprising results are shown in Fig. 6.7. There was a decrease in each element of this measure in ILEs. This applied to both the English and Mathematics teachers, with a limited exception of applied learning activities—applying learned knowledge (the Mathematics teachers increased this activity marginally). In terms of the learning activities instigated by the teachers in traditional compared to the new ILE spaces, Mathematics teachers increased teacher-centred but also increased student-centred approaches. They increased informal activities (allowing students to walk around the room to engage others) and utilised spaces outside the classroom significantly in ILEs. In comparison, English teachers decreased teacher-centred and increased studentcentred activities in ILEs, also increasing informal learning activities and utilising spaces outside the classroom for learning.

Conclusions: What Are the Key Takeaways? In terms of this project’s research question 1 (How can Luther’s teaching staff be assisted to maximise the pedagogic potential of Luther College’s innovative learning environments currently in planning or under construction?), these data suggest some strong support at the start of the project for traditional spaces (see Fig. 6.3) but an

6 Using Teacher-Led Research to Assist Colleagues to Use ILEs Well

89

acknowledgement the new designs might well support good teaching. The responses in Fig. 6.3 show a bimodal tendency—‘strongly supports’ and ‘strongly impedes’ are the dominating opinions. This is a staff yet to be convinced of the change. The teacher observation data show a discipline-divide in terms of use of ILEs. Mathematics teachers appeared less likely to test the limits of the new spaces and relied on established approaches. In comparison, the English teachers, in general, appeared to experiment more with the ILEs. These data were collected in a short period of time immediately before and after occupation of the ILEs and do not reflect a time factor—while teachers say they can adapt to ILEs within six months, they also lament a lack of preprofessional learning to assist them in that transition (Imms & Mahat, 2021). Such transitions do not happen automatically and take time for the full effect to occur. These comments are supported by the teacher Space Design and Use survey items, shown in Fig. 6.4. In terms of research question 2 (What evidence can be found that pedagogies are changing in these new environments?), there was marginal change of pedagogies by Mathematics teachers in the ILEs. In comparison, English teachers increased the teaching characteristics typical of more student-centred pedagogies. These pedagogies flowed into the focus modes created by English teachers in ILEs and also the learning groups facilitated by teaching approaches, with English teachers increasing student-centred approaches while the Mathematics teachers appeared to ‘retreat’ in ILEs to didactic instruction and increased control over student actions. Again, it must be stressed these data were collected early during occupation of the ILEs; good teachers adapt and change their pedagogies if given the evidence these spaces ‘work’, and this takes time (Morris & Imms, 2022). In terms of research question 3 (In what ways are student learning experiences impacted by the new builds, and pedagogic changes?), one can argue from these data that while English teachers embraced elements of the new ILEs, the Mathematics teachers did the opposite, increasing teacher control in ILEs in terms of pedagogies being used, and the types of learning groups they initiated. There was some complexity in this regard, however, as it did not apply consistently across the four factors. For example, while English teachers appeared to use affordances offered by the ILEs to ‘free up’ their students experiences, both Mathematics and English teachers increased the use of whole class communities in ILEs. Another example was in the learning activities factor—there was an almost uniform decrease by both Mathematics and English teachers of instigating formative, applied, analytical, practice-oriented and student-focused activities in ILEs. This project is not yet finished; as discussed earlier, the myriad of issues that interrupted its conduct leaves some critical tasks still to be done. One such task is the analysis of the SSRD student surveys. Another is finalisation and analysis of teacher interviews. These examples will add depth of information to the very focused data presented in this chapter. This is expected to interrogate some unexpected findings (such as the learning activities teacher observations) and to add a more descriptive story to this school’s brave examination of their practices. In addition to answering the research questions, this chapter also offers some final comments regarding the practical realities of research in schools. The first is how

90

W. Imms and R. Malone

the planned research and the actual work differ in places. The authors believe this disparity is not a negative thing; it is the reality of running a complex piece of research in the dynamic atmosphere of a school that is constantly evolving best practices. As such, it speaks to the capacity to be both reflective and reflexive—to assess what is happening and react quickly to address and accommodate changing issues. The second is what we refer to as ‘external forces’. No-one predicted the COVID pandemic, let alone planned for its huge impact on the working lives of staff and students. In that environment, priorities needed to change. So too is the reality of running longitudinal studies in schools; staff changes, family events, the changing of leadership teams, the changing of school priorities all impacted this project’s capacity to meet goals that were set some time previously. The third is the strengthening of skills to adjust and change during the running of the project, while maintaining an eye on ‘the goal’. The staff and the LEaRN researchers learned a great deal about how to re-assess research protocols and adjust, emphasise or abandon components of the project that were unfeasible. This needed to be done while maintaining a focus on what would most benefit the school and its students. This was and remains a project that illustrates the benefits of an adaptive mind set.

References Byers, T. (2020). What does teaching and learning look like in a variety of classroom spatial environments? In W. Imms & T. Kvan (Eds.), Transition of teachers into innovative learning environments: A global perspective (pp. 110–119). Springer. Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (Eds.). (2016). Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge. Sense Publishers. Imms, W., & Mahat, M. (2021). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Final research findings. University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/124366 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2020). The space design and use survey: Establishing a reliable measure of educators’ perceptions of the use of learning environments. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00382-z Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2022). Designing and using innovative learning spaces: What teachers have to say. IUL Research, 3(6), 7–25 (Ambienti di apprendimento innovativi. Ripensare gli spazi della scuola tra pedagogia, architettura e design).

Chapter 7

Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind Frames and Student Deep Learning Marian Mahat and Maria Emery

Abstract In recent years, teaching pedagogies have undergone significant transformations as schools become more flexible and innovative. New ways of organising space and furniture are part of this change, facilitating communication, democratising the teaching environment and focusing on student learning that is deep and participatory. Utilising a quasi-experimental design method in one case study school, this chapter discusses the impact of student-centred spatial and furniture configurations on teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ deep learning. The findings demonstrate how even small changes to spatial and furniture configurations can transform teaching and learning. The chapter concludes with leadership implications to practitioner-led inquiry. Keywords Spatial configurations · Furniture configurations · Teacher mind frames · Student deep learning · School learning environments

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Henschke Catholic Primary School is a co-education K-6 school located in Wagga Wagga, a major regional town in New South Wales, Australia. It is an amalgamation of two schools with an enrolment of over 550 students in 2017. Each year level generally has three classes, with additional classes occasionally created in response to high demand for placements. While Year 3 and 4 students operate in collaborative learning environments, the remainder of the school operates in a one class/one teacher model, with some additional support for literacy and numeracy.

M. Mahat (B) The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] M. Emery Henschke Catholic Primary School, Mount Austin, NSW, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_7

91

92

M. Mahat and M. Emery

Enrolments have been consistent over the years, with a forecast of 550 students for the upcoming academic year. Henschke continues to operate with a mix of collaborative and traditional classroom spaces. K-2 are 4 single classes while Years 3–6 operate in collaborative spaces. In Term 4 of 2017, the school undertook development of an architectural master plan for the entire school site. This led to Henschke receiving a substantial amount from the Catholic Block Grant Authority in 2021 to commence Phase 1 of the school rebuild. A second grant has been applied for. In addition to the grant provided by the Catholic Block Grant Authority, the built project will also be supported by the Catholic Education Diocese of Wagga Wagga. The overall objective of the school’s participation in the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) was to develop a culture of continuous improvement through a sustained shift in pedagogy—from teacher-centred to student-centred practices. This objective was aligned with the school’s improvement target, to develop a school-wide, shared responsibility for student learning, and to develop a culture of continuous professional improvement. This was a significant challenge; while the three-year P2P timeframe could achieve a great deal towards informing this outcome, it was decided to stage the research through three Phases, allowing previous findings to drive the design on subsequent Phases. Consequently, the aim of Phase 1 was to investigate the extent that student-centred spatial configurations lead to improved student deep learning. This phase was driven by one primary research question: To what extent do spatial configurations that promote student-centred practices improve student deep learning?

The Literature: Placing the Henschke P2P Initiative into a Wider Context Constructivist learning theory defines learning as an “active process in which learners are active sense makers who seek to build coherent and organised knowledge” (Mayer, 2004, p. 14). It serves as a foundation for the development of studentcentred teaching methods, which were defined by Cannon and Newble (2000) as “ways of thinking about teaching and learning that emphasise student responsibility and activity in learning rather than content or what the teachers are doing” (p. 16). The impact of constructivist learning theory and student-centred approach encourages the emergence of a wide range of spatial configurations (Fisher, 2016) and new teaching approaches focusing on students’ behavioural participation in learning, including problem-based learning, project-based learning, open-ended learning environments, collaborative learning and student-activated teaching (Baeten et al., 2010). These teaching methods that focus on students’ engagement are constantly contrasted to traditional didactic teaching, in which the teacher provides information that is passively received by the students (Prince, 2004). While there tends to be uncertainty about what student-centred learning actually is (Lea et al., 2003) as it takes different

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

93

forms in practice, the common goal of these teaching methods is to encourage student learning and understanding (Hannafin et al., 1997; Mayer, 2004), which can be manifested by a deep approach to learning. Deep and surface learning are well-known concepts in educational research. Marton and Säljö (1976) first used the term learning approach to describe how students’ various learning intentions are linked to distinct learning outcomes. These approaches are defined as ‘surface’ or ‘deep’. Specifically, a surface approach to learning indicates minimal engagement with the activity, with a focus on memorisation or application of procedures to obtain a passing grade without much reflection. On the contrary, a deep approach to learning entails an interest in comprehending and making sense of material, and students tend to have an intrinsic motivation to learn and understand relationships between various components in learning (Mahat et al., 2018). Previous studies regarding these two approaches have suggested that highquality learning outcomes are linked to deep methods, while low-quality outcomes are linked to surface methods (Biggs, 1978; Entwistle, 2001; Marton & Säljö, 1984). However, it needs to be noted that deep learning is often only partially realised, with students operating across a surface-to-deep learning continuum depending on their educational settings and situations (Postareff et al., 2015). Recent research has gone beyond the simple division between surface and deep learning, embracing ‘super skills’ for students to be prepared for the complex life and job environments in the twenty-first century (P21, 2016). These learning and innovation skills are referred to as the 4Cs, including creativity, communication, critical thinking and collaboration. Researchers and policymakers have increasingly advanced the idea of skills required in the twenty-first century from the notion of 4Cs to 6Cs, adding character and citizenship as two new conceptualisations (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). These 6Cs are considered as deep learning characteristics which can be enabled by student-centred pedagogies. To better meet the demands of deep learning for twenty-first-century students, schools worldwide are adopting innovative student-centred teaching practices and altering their physical learning environments (Blackmore et al., 2012; Cleveland & Fisher, 2014; Kuhlthau, 2015; Mulcahy et al., 2015). In Australia, significant financial investment has been made in school learning spaces to engage students in ways that align with twenty-first-century learning skills. Consequently, traditionally organised classrooms with rows of seats and chairs are being replaced by a variety of furnishings and arrangement possibilities that may be readily customised to provide a wide range of instructional and learning options (Kariippanon et al., 2020). The relationship between the built learning environment and student learning outcomes has been acknowledged in recent years (Blackmore et al., 2011). According to existing studies, well-designed learning environments promote pedagogical reform and student engagement (Cleveland, 2016; Stern & Etheridge, 2008). In contrast, poorly designed classroom conditions have a detrimental influence on students’ sense of comfort and overall impression of the learning space (Lei, 2010). In one study, Byers et al. (2014) used a quasi-experimental approach to examine the impact of learning spaces on teachers’ pedagogy, student engagement and student learning outcomes. The study compared variables between two different settings. The first is

94

M. Mahat and M. Emery

the traditional classroom, and the other is what they referred to as the new generation learning spaces (NGLS), embedded with a transition to more student-centred and collaborative learning settings. Findings from the year-long study showed measurable impacts of learning spaces configurations on student engagement and learning outcomes, with improvements often associated with NGLS. If student deep learning is influenced by spatial arrangements, the third influencing factor is the teacher; specifically, what the teacher does in the learning space. According to Tobin (1990), teachers have a direct impact on the context in which classroom learning occurs. Teachers’ understanding of their roles, curriculum content and pedagogical knowledge can immediately impact how they organise their teaching practices. These factors are referred to as “teacher mind frames” (Tobin, 1990, p. 34). Later, Hattie (2009) carried out a meta-analysis of over 800 studies relating to student learning and discovered that teacher mind frames are the intervening variables that influence how they think and act when engaged in all aspects of teaching. Ten teacher mind frames identified in his work represent evidence that ‘high impact’ teachers are evaluators, change agents, learning experts and feedback seekers who are always engaged in conversation and challenge (Hattie & Zierer, 2018). These teacher’s mind frames, entrenched in preconceived ideas, biases, opinions and values, provide key understanding into the encounters and activities that occur in a learning environment (Mahat et al., 2018). In the case of Henschke, where new builds being designed under their master plan are intended to lead to more student-centred, deeper learning, this phase of the P2P project explored the extent to which different spatial configurations promoted student-centred practices, and consequently student deep learning. This study aims to fill the gap in empirical evidence regarding whether spatial settings in a learning environment will translate into changes in teaching practices and learning outcomes (Blackmore et al., 2012; Mulcahy et al., 2015).

Methods: How Did We Do It? This study employed a quasi-experimental design, involving non-equivalent control and treatment groups completing a pre- and post-test, where the treatment group was the only group that received interventions. Phase 1 centred around two traditional Year 5 classes with one acting as a control class. Two spatial interventions were conducted after a series of design thinking workshops to develop teachers’ spatial competencies. These were accompanied by observations to examine the impact of the interventions on teaching practices using the Linking Teaching, Pedagogy and Space survey (LTPS) observation metric (Byers, 2016) to observe teaching and learning. This process was bookended by pre- and post-surveys for teachers to assess the changes on teacher mind frame and student deep learning. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

95

Design-Thinking Workshops In order to develop teachers’ spatial competencies, two design thinking workshops were conducted with teachers. The first, Archipelago of Possibilities, explored what teachers hold dear in their teaching practices. The workshop was designed to surface what teachers consider most important in a successful teaching practice, and to consider what teachers believe stops them from pursuing these practices (Mahat & Imms, 2020a, 2020b; McEntee et al., 2016). The second workshop, Innovative Learning Environment and Student Learning, explored teachers’ understanding of how spatial settings could be used to support or improve students’ deep learning (Mahat & Imms, 2020a, 2020b; Mahat et al, 2017). The teacher in the control class (Teacher 2) was not involved in the workshops. Following the workshops, two interventions were co-designed with the teacher in the treatment class (Teacher 1). The first intervention involved developing new learning zones (using new and old furniture and reconfigured spaces) based on learning setting principles (Fisher, 2005) as described in Fig. 7.1. The learning setting principles describe types of spaces and spatial qualities that support activities of delivering, applying, creating, communicating and decision-making. Fisher (2005) advanced the idea that a learning space can have multiple learning settings that are clustered together so that individuals and groups have easy access to a range of pedagogical settings. Three learning zones were implemented in the treatment class. The first was what was termed a ‘sharing’ zone—where the teacher delivered information to students

Fig. 7.1 Linking pedagogical activities to spatial settings (from Fisher, 2005)

96

M. Mahat and M. Emery

collectively. This is akin to Fisher’s pedagogical activity of delivering. The second was a ‘creating’ zone—an area where students engaged in active learning and either worked individually or collaboratively on a task (Figs. 7.2 and 7.3). Finally, the third was the ‘feedback’ zone—a station where the teacher provides feedback with students, either one-on-one or in a small group (see Fig. 7.4). A range of furniture was used, including fitness balls, stools, chairs, couch, bean bags and different shaped tables. For the most part, furniture and other resources were repurposed (from storage or other classrooms) to develop the learning zones. It should be noted that the reconfiguration occurred in a typical traditional classroom.

Fig. 7.2 ‘Create’ zone for active learning in groups. Used with permission from Maria Emery, Henschke Catholic Primary School Fig. 7.3 ‘Create’ zone for individual active learning. Used with permission from Maria Emery, Henschke Catholic Primary School

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

97

Fig. 7.4 ‘Feedback’ zone with a bean-shape table. Used with permission from Maria Emery, Henschke Catholic Primary School

Once the learning zones were implemented, the second intervention involved developing a shared spatial language with students around the teaching and learning principles of each zone. Instead of telling students the behavioural expectations in the refurbished learning space, the teacher and students worked together to discuss and agree on the roles and responsibilities for both students and teachers in each zone (see Table 7.1). This was displayed on pinboards for all to see when an agreement was reached.

Observations In this study, the Linking Teaching, Pedagogy and Space (LTPS) observation metric (Byers, 2016) was used to provide teachers with empirical evidence on their practice and track its subsequent impact on their students. Observations of teacher practices were conducted by a lead teacher not involved in the teaching of both classes. A series of observations were conducted in each class. The collation of data over repeated observations afforded the opportunity to measure the impact of pedagogical decisions, supported by changes in furniture configurations or teaching practices on students’ learning.

98

M. Mahat and M. Emery

Table 7.1 Shared agreement of roles and responsibilities in each learning zone Learning zone

Teaching and learning principle

Student role/responsibilities

Teacher role/ responsibilities

Sharing zone

Learning environment is safe and productive

• To listen • Do not distract your friends • Raise your hand if you have questions • Actively participate in discussion, either whole class, small groups or partners

• Speak clearly • Let students know lesson goals and objectives • Minimise time spent in direct instruction • Provide opportunities for student discussion and questioning

Creating zone

Students challenged and supported to develop deep levels of thinking and application

• • • • • • •

Feedback zone

Assessment practices are • Reflect on learning an integral part of teaching • Listen to feedback from and learning teacher or peers • Set goals

A reasonable level of noise • Encourage and develop problem Work as a team solving and Listen to each other higher-order thinking Talk about your thinking skills Sit where you best learn • Inquiry approach to Persevere learning Respect those who like to work independently • ICT Integration • Targeted Feedback • Goal setting

Pre- and Post-survey for Teachers Pre- and post-surveys provided the opportunity to measure change in teacher mind frames and student deep learning. The survey consisted of two components: teachers’ perceptions of their mind frames and their perception of students’ learning. In the Teacher Mind Frame section of the survey, teachers were asked to respond to teacher mind frame statements that were developed as a pilot questionnaire (Murphy, 2020), reflecting their opinion on a four-point Likert scale of Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly disagree. A summary of the items is provided in Table 7.2. Teachers’ perceptions of student learning were assessed using a revised Learning Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987; Biggs et al., 2004), consisting of 10 items in the deep learning subscale (Mahat & Imms, 2021). For consistency with the Teacher Mind Frame Survey, a four-point Likert scale of Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly disagree was used. A summary of the items is provided in Table 7.3.

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

99

Table 7.2 Items in the teacher mind frame survey No

Item

Q1

I teach all my students to engage in deliberate practice and try again even when they first do not succeed

Q2

I teach all my students to concentrate

Q3

I use many strategies so I can understand student learning

Q4

I have multiple ways to find out what students know

Q5

When I plan student learning I have multiple ways to work out if they have made progress

Q6

If I do not succeed in teaching/leading, I will try again until they all understand

Q7

I evaluate my practice using student data

Q8

I use student data to discuss learning steps with my students

Q9

I use data to drive my professional development

Q10

I alter my programs in response to student feedback

Q11

I reflect on student data to inform my practice

Q12

I identify how successful I have been as a teacher by using student data

Q13

All students in my class feel respected by other students

Q14

All students in my class respect help from any other student

Q15

All students in my class respect other students who are expert in their learning

Q16

All students in my class trust each other

Q17

I make it clear to all students that errors are welcome

Q18

Errors are an important part of learning

Q19

All my students need to make errors in order to learn

Q20

When students are listening it is not as effective for their learning as when they are talking

Q21

Students learn best when talking to each other

Q22

I believe all of my students can be assessment capable learners

Q23

I believe student assessment is feedback about me

Q24

When I gather student data, I see it as a result of my teaching/leading

Q25

I believe student assessment is evidence of the impact of my teaching

Q26

I believe student intelligence can be improved through teaching

Q27

Your intelligence is something you are born with and cannot change very much

Q28

You can learn new things but you cannot really change your basic intelligence

Q29

You can always greatly change how intelligent you are

Q30

Each student has a certain amount of ability and you can’t really do much to change this natural ability

Q31

My peers are influential components of my learning

Q32

I work with others to plan strategic directions as well as student learning

Q33

I actively share learning with my colleagues

Q34

I meet regularly to discuss my impact and next steps

Q35

I believe that I can do more with others than working alone (continued)

100

M. Mahat and M. Emery

Table 7.2 (continued) No

Item

Q36

I strive for challenge and not ‘doing your best’

Q37

I put all my effort into my teaching

Q38

I know how to teach all my students and engage in deliberate practice and try again even when they first do not succeed

Q39

If I do not succeed in teaching, I will try, try again until they all understand

Q40

I am a hard worker in my classroom

Table 7.3 Items in the adapted Learning Process Questionnaire In my opinion, students at our school: Q1

Find that at times studying makes them really happy and satisfied

Q2

Try to relate what they have learned in one subject to what they learn in other subjects

Q3

Feel that nearly any topic can be highly interesting once they get into it

Q4

Like constructing theories to fit odd things together

Q5

Work hard at their studies because they find the material interesting

Q6

Try to relate new material, as they are reading it, to what they already know on that topic

Q7

Spend a lot of their free time finding out more about interesting topics which have been discussed in different classes

Q8

Try to understand what the author means when reading a book

Q9

Come to most classes with questions in mind that they want answering

Q10

Like to do enough work on a topic so that they can form their own conclusions before they are satisfied

Findings: What Have We Learned? Changes in Teacher Pedagogical Approach Over Time Teacher 1’s (intervention class) approaches to facilitation and provision of feedback increased after interventions (see Fig. 7.5). Facilitation is a pedagogical approach that enables teachers to encourage students to learn and absorb information in a way that is meaningful and relevant to them. By letting students choose where they ‘create’ learning, this increased their agency to decide how (individually or as a group) and where they learn best (on a fitness ball or a couch), empowered to make decisions (types of learning that suit them), respected as individuals (shared agreement on roles and responsibilities) and trusted with personal responsibility (allowing students to show responsibility when learning). The ‘feedback’ zone empowered students to make decisions on when they needed feedback. Although students have always been encouraged to ask questions and feedback on their work, the novelty of having a feedback station meant that the

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

101

Fig. 7.5 Changes in pedagogical approach over time, Teacher 1

concept was emphasised with students, feedback was structured to what and when they needed most, and the teacher did not feel like she was being ‘pulled in different directions’ when being inundated with multiple questions at the same time.

Teacher Mind Frame and Student Deep Learning Figure 7.5 provides the means of teacher mind frames and student deep learning, from the perspective of the two teachers, pre- and post-intervention. Teacher 1’s mind frames improved significantly (p < 0.05) pre- and post-interventions, while teacher 2 remained the same. Similarly, Teacher 1’s perceptions of student deep learning improved following the interventions although this was not as significant, while teacher 2’s perception of student deep learning remained the same (see Fig. 7.6).

102

M. Mahat and M. Emery

Fig. 7.6 Pre- and post-surveys of teacher mind frames and student deep learning, Teacher 1 and 2

Conclusion: What Are the Key Takeaways? Designing learning zones with specific spatial settings could make a difference in teachers’ practices and student learning. Each learning zone highlighted specific areas of learning and teaching and helped to rethink the different elements that were critical in teachers’ pedagogical practices: physical space, resources, changing roles of student and teacher, and how to support different learning styles. Reconfiguring furniture to match specific learning zones also enabled students to have agency about the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of learning. Teachers also made pedagogical choices that positively influenced their teaching practices and student learning. This exercise also reiterated that innovation in teaching are not limited to newly designed innovative spaces, but can also occur in traditional classrooms. Having a shared agreement about the roles and responsibilities within each learning zone provided clear expectations and consequences of positive behaviour. While teachers are ultimately responsible for classroom management, students played an important role as well. Co-creating roles and responsibilities with students meant that students directly informed the structure and learning atmosphere as important members of the classroom community. It created a culture of learning, accountability and inclusivity. Teachers have a significant influence on the classroom learning environment, and hence, the student learning that occurs within it (Rowe, 2003; Tobin, 1990). It can be argued that teachers’ ways of thinking can inform their decisions and consequently, their behaviour and practice (Clark & Yinger, 1977; Hattie, 2012) in the learning environment. In this study, Teacher 1’s mind frame improved after intervention indicating that Teacher 1 was consciously thinking about her teaching

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

103

role, the content and pedagogical knowledge within the new refurbished learning space. The use of practitioners’ reflections (Schön, 1983, 1987) can be extremely reliable in gaining accurate wide-scale perceptions of complex school variables including student learning (Mahat & Imms, 2021). In this phase of the study, it was found— albeit with a small sample size—that student deep learning, characterised by critically applying new facts to existing knowledge, searching for (as opposed to accepting) meaning, being actively curious about new knowledge, and accepting that learning is a part of their personal development (Mahat et al., 2018), improved after the interventions. Facilitated learning replaced rote memorisation with critical thinking, comprehensive understanding, imaginative learning and the appreciation for subtlety, and this is evidenced by the improvement in the teacher’s perception of deep learning of their students. This study provides evidence of the impact of spatial and furniture configurations on teaching practices and student learning in Henschke Catholic Primary School. In particular, it provides inspiration to others on how to rethink their current classroom space and practices and demonstrates how even small changes to existing learning spaces can improve teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ learning. Specifically, findings from the study will inform the design of the new spaces that are currently being planned at Henschke. These collaborative learning environments are being designed to facilitate student-centred pedagogy and co-teaching. In Phase 2 of the P2P programme, the school explored co-teaching pedagogies to transition from traditional classroom spaces into innovative learning environments. Utilising a single-subject research method design, Phase 2 investigated how different team teaching pedagogies within a flexible learning space promote student engagement. Strong leadership is seen as necessary to successfully engage teachers in embedded research within schools (Blannin et al., 2020). One way to promote such a culture is the school leader carrying out research and modelling the process of learning and enquiring (Godfrey, 2016), as can be seen at Henschke. The success of the P2P programme at Henschke could be attributed to the role of the Assistant Principal within the spatial learning team. The Assistant Principal was seen as a champion who was willing to listen to new ideas (not just imposing them) and to take risks to move from the way things have always been done. Having a positive perception of change enabled the Assistant Principal to harness teachers’ motivation and positivity and use it to try and help bring along those who felt less positive. Additionally, even though there was a change in the school leadership (two co-principals joined the school in the middle of the programme), their continued support in the program ensured a culture of continuous improvements throughout the school.

104

M. Mahat and M. Emery

References Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–280. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Senior, K. (2012). Innovative learning environments research study. Department of Education and Early Childhood, Victoria/OECD. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 10(3), 99–166. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.10.3 Byers, T. (2016). A quasi-experimental and single-subject research approach as an alternative to traditional post-occupancy evaluation of learning environments. In Evaluating learning environments (pp. 117–130). Brill Sense. Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed.). Kogan Page. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(4), 279–304. Cleveland, B. (2016). Addressing the spatial to catalyse socio-pedagogical reform in middle years education. In K. Fisher (Ed.), The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments (pp. 27–50). Sense Publishers. Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28. Entwistle, N. J. (2001). Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education. Kybernetes, 30(5/6), 593–603. Fisher, K. (2005). Linking pedagogy and space. Department of Education and Training. Fisher, K. (Ed.). (2016). The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Springer. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Technical Report. Pearson. Godfrey, D. (2016). Leadership of schools as research-led organisations in the English educational environment: Cultivating a research-engaged school culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 301–321. Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–99. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2018). 10 mindframes for visible learning. Routledge. Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A. M. (2020). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of flexible learning spaces: A complex adaptive systems analysis. Journal of Educational Change, 21(4), 569–593.

7 Spatial and Furniture Configurations: The Impact on Teacher Mind …

105

Kuhlthau, C. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century (pp. 1–8). Center for International Scholarship in School Libraries (CISSL), Rutgers University. Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational boulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334. Lei, S. A. (2010). Classroom physical design influencing student learning and evaluations of college instructors: A review of literature. Education, 131(1), 128–134. Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne. Mahat, M., Grocott, L., & Imms, W. (2017). “In the real world...”: Teachers’ perceptions of ILEs. ILETC phase 1 teacher workshops. The University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/ 194339 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2020a). Archipelago of possibilities: Facilitator guide. The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/124323 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2020b). Innovative learning environments and student learning: Facilitator guide. The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/11343.241884 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2021). Establishing a reliable measure of perceptions of teacher and student use of learning environments. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13384-020-00382-z Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. Marton, F., & Siilj, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. McEntee, K, Brandalise, I., Goncalves, R. D, Riendeau, S., Thao, K., & Grocott, L. (2016). Priming teachers to reflect on intrinsic motivations for change. Pilot project report. The University of Melbourne. Mulcahy, D., Cleveland, B., & Aberton, H. (2015). Learning spaces and pedagogic change: Envisioned, enacted and experienced. Pedagogy Culture and Society, 23, 575–595. Murphy, D. J. (2020). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. The University of Melbourne. Unpublished thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/ 11343/290169 P21. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. The partnership for 21st century skills. http:// www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework Postareff, L., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Factors contributing to changes in a deep approach to learning in different learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 18(3), 315–333. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. In M. Meiers (Ed.), Building teacher quality: Research conference 2003: Proceedings (pp. 15–23). ACER. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Stern, N., & Etheridge, R. (2008). Flexible learning spaces: The integration of pedagogy, physical design, and instructional technology. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 47–53. Tobin, K. (1990). Teacher mind frames and science learning. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning (pp. 33–91). Falmer Press.

Chapter 8

The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning Marian Mahat, Lisa Plenty, Jeremy Hawkes, Jason Golding, Ailsa Mackerras, and Louise Wallace-Richards

Abstract Collaborative teaching and learning approaches are becoming increasingly important as schools become more flexible and innovative. Many teachers are challenged by the expectations of collaborative team teaching, which involves a group of teachers working purposefully, regularly and cooperatively to support student learning. Utilising an action research approach, this chapter explores the extent to which collaborative teaching approaches can promote twenty-first-century skills in students in one school. The findings suggest that while collaborative teaching strategies improved self-regulation and critical thinking of students, modelling alternative practices allowed for gradual change rather than large-scale changes. Several practical implications are provided from this research that can help other educators cultivate the capabilities required for collaborative team teaching. Keywords Co-teaching · Team-teaching · Collaborative pedagogies · Spatial configurations · School learning environments · Student learning

Introduction: What Was Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Opened in 1983, Radford College is an independent Anglican Pre-kindergarten to Year 12 co-educational day school, located in the inner north of Canberra, Australia. The College is situated on one site, with a breakdown of spaces for the Early Learning Centre (ELC), Junior School K-4, Year 5–6 and Secondary College Year 7–12. Radford College currently has an enrolment of over 2000 students, with considerable recent growth in the past 5 years. College buildings are a combination of original single cell classrooms, early 2000s Junior School buildings based on Reggio Emilia

M. Mahat (B) The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] L. Plenty · J. Hawkes · J. Golding · A. Mackerras · L. Wallace-Richards Radford College, Bruce, ACT, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_8

107

108

M. Mahat et al.

philosophy, as well as a series of more contemporary additions constructed at various points over time to facilitate periods of growth. Following a visit to the Anglican Church Grammar School in Brisbane, Australia in 2017, the Radford College leadership team engaged with the Faculty of Education to participate in the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project commencing in 2018. The aim of the school’s participation in the project was twofold: (1) to transform secondary school teachers’ pedagogical practices and (2) to inform the design of the second masterplan focused on ongoing renovation of the original secondary school buildings to align with their pedagogical vision. Phase 1 of this initiative focused on investigating furniture and spatial settings in two prototype learning spaces. Findings from Phase 1 indicated that scaling professional learning for supporting pedagogies required in flexible learning spaces were best facilitated where teachers were working collaboratively. It was also determined that opportunities to co-design curriculum, co-deliver lessons, personalising learning experiences and evaluating the learning process could, in many cases, be done most effectively when teachers worked collaboratively. It was also found that a contextual process for measurement of success was needed to ensure context-specific goals could be defined and reached. Following on from Phase 1, Phase 2 focused on trialling collaborative teaching approaches to support the development of Radford Learner Traits. It centred on introducing secondary school teachers to the Morison Centre, a large two-level building incorporating contemporary large release spaces on each level. The learning spaces included operable glass walls between learning spaces and the capacity to remove these glass walls between classrooms and the breakout space on the upper level. The overarching aim was to investigate how collaborative pedagogies within a physical space could promote students’ learning. A single primary research question guided this phase of the research programme: To what extent can collaborative pedagogies improve the characteristics of a ‘Radford Learner’? This chapter outlines the study taken during Phase 2. A strategy for Radford College in 2017 was the use of communities of practice (CoP) for teachers focusing on classroom teaching. Each CoP, consisting of 3 teachers, met throughout the year as part of the regular meeting schedules of the College and in their own time to discuss their observations of each member of the CoP’s teaching and to share and solve issues that they encountered in their practice. Since 2017, the CoPs were allocated a teaching practice or strategy to focus on, and in 2018 and 2019 the CoPs were also asked to observe in each other’s lessons the deliberate use of space and furniture to engage students in their learning. In 2018 the secondary school also established Leadership CoPs (LCoPs) to enable middle academic leaders to engage in areas of educational research in line with the College’s 2016–2020 Strategic Plan and their passions. This approach has continued with the new 2021–2025 Strategic Plan. In 2019, consistent with Phase 2 of the P2P study, two of the focus topic areas for the LCoPs were the embedding of the Radford Learner Traits and collaborative approaches to learning and teaching.

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

109

The Literature: Placing the Radford P2P Initiative into a Wider Context For some time, many schools in Australia have been transforming from traditional classrooms to innovative learning environments (ILEs), characterised by highly flexible spaces, movable furniture and other learning spaces affordances with the mediation of technology (Blannin et al., 2020). These ILEs aim to support student-centred learning and contribute to the development of the twenty-first-century learning skills promoted by governments worldwide. The teaching of these skills is considered vital for educators to prepare students for the twenty-first century. In 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conducted research to explore how twenty-first-century skills and competencies inform educational policies in 16 countries, including Australia (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). The results highlighted three dimensions of competencies and skills for students, including information dimension, communication dimension and ethics and social impact dimension (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). Other researchers have also identified specific skills that are required for students to develop in future education and the workplace. Saxena (2014) emphasises the importance of the 4Cs namely, creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration, to facilitate the development of the learning skills that students should possess in the twenty-first century. Drawing on previously established definitions of deep learning and new pedagogies enabled by technology, Fullan and Langworthy (2014) further extend the notion of 4Cs to 6Cs to add character and citizenship. These are perceived by scholars and policymakers as the essential skills required for students to be better prepared in an increasingly complex world. To better support the development of students’ contemporary learning skills, teachers have been encouraged to employ a collaborative approach to share responsibility for teaching delivered in more flexible learning spaces (Mackey et al., 2018). As Timperley et al. (2014) argue, it is often too difficult for an individual teacher to transfer to these new learning designs and approaches, and thus, a collaborative approach is needed. Although teachers in traditional classroom settings may have the opportunity to work collaboratively, they tend to remain isolated when it comes to managing their own classes. This tendency of retreating to their own private classroom or workspace also makes it difficult for schools to cultivate a collaborative culture among teachers (DuFour, 2011). One way to encourage a collaborative approach is to employ a community of practice of educators who share common interests to engage in activities through learning, sharing and solving problems (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Socially constructivist in nature, the communities of practice approach is embedded with the assumption that knowledge is collaboratively constructed, and learning depends upon social interactions (Jang, 2008). According to Wenger (1998), a successful community of practice should be based on mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire. In a community of practice focused on teaching and learning, teachers will be mutually engaged in the teaching and learning of students.

110

M. Mahat et al.

A joint enterprise will be developed through a shared understanding of the role of teachers in relation to student learning and through building a shared repertoire of tools and methods for the support of that learning. As a result, the establishment of a community of practice will not only support teachers to evaluate their teaching and develop new teaching methods, but also reflect on their practice and share their ideas of teaching with each other (Laksov et al., 2008). At the micro-level, the positioning of teachers in a collaborative teaching context, explicated by terms such as ‘co-teaching’, ‘team teaching’ and ‘cooperative teaching’ (Murchú & Conway, 2017; Villa et al., 2008), also contributes to a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. Models of collaborative teaching such as one teach one drift, team teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, one teach one observe and station teaching, proposed by Friend et al. (2010) are aligned with quality instruction and practices (Murchú & Conway, 2017) to improve student learning outcomes, more so than the implementation of each on its own. Previous studies have shown how collaborative teaching approaches exert positive impacts on the student learning experience (Conderman, 2011; Lynch et al., 2015; Villa et al., 2013). A meta-synthesis of collaborative teaching approaches in primary and secondary schools across different countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia, found that overall collaborative pedagogies were beneficial to teachers as well as students (Scruggs et al., 2007). Furthermore, collaborative learning approaches “assist students to develop higher-order thinking skills and to achieve richer knowledge generation through shared goals, shared exploration, and a shared process of meaning-making” (Brindley et al., 2009, p. 3). Collaboration is also one of the key skills in 4Cs or 6Cs that contemporary students should acquire. Several studies have explored the impact of collaborative teaching and learning on students in traditional classroom settings (Brindley et al., 2009; Scruggs et al., 2007), as well as the perceptions of educators and leaders towards the transitions to collaborative teaching pedagogies in a flexible learning environment (Fletcher et al., 2017; Markey et al., 2017; Mackey et al., 2018). However, there seems to be a lack of empirical studies that examine the impact of collaborative approaches on student learning, particularly related to the development of twenty-first-century skills, within the context of flexible learning environments. This study aims to address this research gap by examining how collaborative approaches enacted through the learning space contribute to the development of characteristics of a Radford Learner. Consistent with the literature on twenty-first-century skills, Radford College conceptualised a Radford Learner as characterised by six traits of being a thinker, principled, communicator, resilient, self-regulated and open-minded or what the College termed as the Radford Learner Traits. The six learner traits and their characteristics are detailed in Table 8.1. It was found that there was a lack of awareness and understanding among students about what it meant to be a Radford Learner.

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

111

Table 8.1 Radford learner traits Learner trait

Student characteristics

Thinker

Critically and creatively solves problems Analyses, synthesises and evaluates for deep understanding Makes connections and applies knowledge and skills to new situations Exercises initiative in making reasoned and ethical decisions Reflects on learning and plans for future action

Principled

Acts with integrity and honesty, with a sense of fairness and justice Respects the dignity and rights of all people and the environment Takes responsibility for actions and their consequences Contributes to society and strives to be a globally minded citizen Shows care and empathy for others Leads others in being principled

Open-minded

Shows curiosity about the world and his or her place in it Challenges assumptions Respects the perspectives of others Receptive to feedback Takes responsible risks

Communicator

Expresses ideas confidently and respectfully Listens actively and respectfully Selects medium appropriate to purpose and audience Strives for accuracy and precision Fosters and develops relationships by collaborating with others

Self-regulated

Demonstrates a positive sense of self Is well-organised Works independently or in a group Manages impulsivity by making choices to regulate feelings and actions A balanced approach to life and learning

Resilient

Acts with intent and purpose to meet commitments Perseveres over time to improve understandings, knowledge and skills Sees mistakes and challenges as opportunities

Note Adapted from The Secondary School Radford Learner. Radford College

Methods: How Did We Do It? An action research approach was employed, which involved educators examining and ultimately improving their pedagogy and practice. Action research is an iterative approach, combining theory and practice (Avison et al., 1999; Baskerville & WoodHarper, 1996). Action research is strongly focused on action and change, operates over reasonably short time spans and involves substantial collaboration and participation (Maccoll et al., 2005). In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their teaching. It provides busy educators with opportunities to develop more deliberate, substantial and critical reflection that can be documented and analysed to improve an educator’s practice. In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy et al., 2010).

112

M. Mahat et al.

Participants This study focused on the pedagogies of four teachers who were team teaching in two year-levels—one team in Year 10 English and the other in Year 8 Mathematics. All four teachers were involved in the study, attending professional learning workshops and co-designing strategies with the lead teacher and academic expert.

Design-Thinking Workshops Two design-thinking workshops were conducted with teachers to assist them in developing spatial interventions in their learning spaces. Using design-thinking principles that engage participants directly with ambiguous prompts yet tangible materials, the Teacher Mind Frame and Belief Systems workshop developed as part of the Innovative Learning Environment and Teacher Change (ILETC) project explored how teachers’ mind frames and belief systems shape their teaching in innovative learning environments (Mahat & Imms, 2020; Mahat et al., 2017). The Don’t Just Stuff It workshop developed by Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI, now known as Learning Environments Australasia) focused on how to use learning experiences (in this case, collaborative teaching and learning) to define learning spaces and the furniture within them (CEFPI, 2010). The workshops were also supplemented with a presentation by Chris Bradbeer, the then Chair of Learning Environments Australasia, on teacher collaboration and team teaching. The professional learning workshops were facilitated by the academic expert and were also attended by other teachers not directly involved in the study. Following the workshops, interventions were co-designed with the four teachers specific to their context. The interventions focused on typologies of pedagogy (Fig. 8.1) adapted from Imms et al. (2017) and team teaching adapted from Friend and Bursuck (2009) (see Fig. 8.2) relevant to their learning spaces and curriculum areas. Teachers developed and explored strategies for collaborative teaching that were implemented and evaluated in collaboration with their co-teachers. For the Year 10 classes, this involved defining specific pedagogies to increase student agency, peer learning and critical thinking. For the Year 8 classes, this involved designing learning experiences to support differentiated and personalised learning needs, use of research to examine the success of the blended learning approach, and increasing opportunities for student agency and peer learning. Examples of collaborative teaching pedagogies used with the Year 10 English classes included shared teacher presentation of content and shared facilitation of group work responses; student identified choice of lesson content for extension or further support or further inquiry into specific curriculum concepts with teachers each facilitating one of the selections; and station rotation collaborative student work to build critical thinking and deepen analysis. The Year 8 Mathematics class had the opportunity for one teacher to support larger group learning, while the second teacher worked with mixed-ability small groups or individuals for further support;

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

113

Fig. 8.1 Typologies of pedagogy. Note From Imms et al. (2017)

Fig. 8.2 Co-teaching models (from Friend & Bursuck, 2009)

blended learning where some student groups collaborated in real time, seeking peer assistance with teacher guidance if needed to deepen understanding, while others worked independently from an online Maths learning platform (Mathspace) and other self-guided resources; and student choice for extension activities to apply conceptual learning with teachers collaborating on the management of classes and support for higher needs students.

114

M. Mahat et al.

Data Collection Methods Observations were conducted to examine the impact of the interventions on teaching practices. In the Year 10 English class, the Linking Teaching, Pedagogy and Space (LTPS) observation metric (Byers, 2016) was used to provide teachers with empirical evidence on their practice and track its subsequent impact on their students. In this study, the observations of teacher practices were conducted by a lead teacher not involved in the teaching of that class. A series of observations was conducted in each class. For the English class, specific lessons were designed for collaborative teaching and the observing teacher was invited to attend and record observations. Each lesson was carefully designed, including practices as outlined above, with varied learning activities and pedagogical approaches. A visit to a peer P2P school engaging with team teaching practices was arranged, and learning from this school inspired further lesson ideas for exploration. The collation of data over repeated observations afforded the opportunity to measure the impact of pedagogical decisions, supported by changes in furniture configurations or teaching practices, on students’ learning. The other class (Year 8) used video observations. Video observations were annotated using ELAN—Linguistic Annotator, a computer software that manually and semi-automatically annotates and transcribes audio or video recordings (see website: https://www.mpi.nl/corpus/html/elan/). It has a tier-based data model that supports multi-level, multi-participant annotation of time-based media. The process was bookended by pre- and post-surveys for teachers and students. In Phase 1, with the use of more generic measurement processes pre- and postintervention, it was determined that a contextual process for measurement of success was needed to ensure context-specific goals could be defined and reached. Consequently, teachers completed a College-designed self-appraisal based on Hattie’s (2012) Teacher Mind Frames. This survey is completed by all secondary school teachers annually. Based on Hattie’s (2012) conception of Teacher Mind Frames, teachers were asked to respond to ten mind frame statements that used a six-point Likert-type scale of Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often and Always. A summary of the items is provided in Table 8.2. Students completed a College-designed Radford Learner Traits Questionnaire, which consisted of 33 self-reporting statements that yielded scores for student perceptions of their Learner Traits as conceptualised by Radford College (see Table 8.1). The questionnaire used a four-point Likert-type scale of Mostly, Often, Seldom and Never. Additionally, students were offered two options (yes or no) for two questions (Items 24 and 25). A summary of the items is provided in Table 8.3.

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning Table 8.2 Items in the teacher mind frame survey

No

Items

Q1

I am a change agent

Q2

I am an evaluator

Q3

I collaborate

Q4

I engage in dialogue and not monologue

Q5

I engage in positive relationships

Q6

I enjoy challenge

Q7

I see assessment as feedback to me

Q8

I see learning as hard work

Q9

I talk about learning and not about teaching

Q10

I use the language of learning

115

Findings: What Have We Learned? The overarching aim of the study was to investigate how collaborative pedagogies within a physical space could promote students learning. It responded to a single research question: To what extent can collaborative pedagogies improve the characteristics of a ‘Radford Learner’?

Pre- and Post-survey The overall mean in the Radford Learner Trait Questionnaire for students in Year 8 improved slightly, but this was not significant (p > 0.10). The overall mean for Year 10 students did not change pre- and post-intervention. While overall patterns of growth are not evident, survey questions related to the desired traits of self-regulation and thinker demonstrated a positive improvement (p < 0.05) in Year 8 students. In year 10 students, a positive improvement was also seen in the subscale of Thinker. The Teacher Mind Frame Survey improved for all teachers (see Fig. 8.3), but the improvement was not significant (p > 0.10) (Table 8.4).

Changes in Teacher Pedagogical and Student Learning Approaches Over Time During the observations, it was noted that didactic instruction seemed to increase while facilitating decreased in the Year 10 English class. There is also an indication of increased use of mixed-ability groupings. Although students’ observable use of higher-order skills (understanding, applying and analysing) remained consistent

116

M. Mahat et al.

Table 8.3 Items in the Radford Learner Trait Questionnaire No

Items

Q1

I am encouraged to act with integrity and honesty in this class

Q2

I know and respect my classmates

Q3

I respect the classroom learning environment and consider it a valuable place to support my learning

Q4

I am encouraged to take responsibility for my own actions and their consequences

Q5

My teacher trusts me to manage my own learning

Q6

I have opportunities in this class to connect with our society and consider my role as a global citizen

Q7

I have opportunities in this class to demonstrate that I care about and have empathy for my peers

Q8

I have opportunities in this class to demonstrate that I care about and have empathy for my teacher

Q9

I have opportunities to make principled decisions and model good decision making

Q10

I have opportunities in this class to think critically and use critical thinking for problem solving

Q11

I have opportunities in this class to use creative thinking for problem solving

Q12

I have opportunities in this class to analyse ideas and information to further my understanding

Q13

I have opportunities in this class to synthesise ideas and information to further my understanding

Q14

I have opportunities in this class to evaluate concepts to further my understanding

Q15

The learning experiences our teachers plan help me to connect my existing knowledge with this class

Q16

I am able to apply skills and knowledge developed in this class to other classes and new situations

Q17

I have opportunities in this class to make decisions

Q18

I have opportunities in this class to think about important ethical considerations

Q19

I am encouraged to reflect on my learning and plan steps for future action

Q20

I am encouraged to persevere with my learning to improve my understanding

Q21

In this class, my teacher values learning through mistakes and challenges

Q22

I have opportunities in this class to work both independently as well as with groups of peers

Q23

The workload expected for this class is reasonable and I am able to balance it with other commitments

Q24

I would like further opportunities in this class to work independently

Q25

I would like further opportunities in this class to work with groups of peers

Q26

I feel encouraged to express my ideas in this class

Q27

I feel that my peers value my input and listen respectfully to my ideas

Q28

I feel that my teacher values my input and listens respectfully to my ideas

Q29

I have opportunity to choose the means through which I communicate my learning (continued)

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

117

Table 8.3 (continued) No

Items

Q30

I feel connected to other members of my class and feel confident in collaborating with my peers

Q31

I am curious and interested in learning in this class

Q32

I challenge perspectives and assumptions about concepts and ideas

Q33

I respect that others may have different perspectives to my own

Q34

I am interested in the feedback I receive and use it to inform my next steps

Q35

I am confident in taking responsible risks to support my learning in this class

Fig. 8.3 Teacher mind frame survey

over time, the amount of time they received instruction also increased. It is important to note that the English teachers undertaking this research were experienced practitioners, both with leadership roles in the school. These teachers applied a range of pedagogical approaches to the range of lessons. The element that was new to these teachers was teaching together. The in-class observations therefore did not necessarily show growth over time, but more a mix that reflected different learning activities and a range of pedagogical practices that were carefully selected to best support student learning. In the Year 8 Mathematics class, students were assigned mixed-ability groups of four. Students were explicitly instructed about success criteria and were asked to

118

M. Mahat et al.

Table 8.4 Radford Learner Trait Questionnaire by subscale Subscale

Year 8

Year 10

Pre-test

Post-test SD

n

M

p SD

Pre-test n

M

Post-test SD

n

M

p

n

M

SD

Principled

34

3.07 0.28 34

3.00 0.31 0.19 45

3.32 0.26 45

3.35 0.21 0.56

Thinker

31

2.92 0.17 31

3.11 0.15 0.02 42

3.48 0.10 42

3.55 0.11 0.07

Resilient

35

3.07 0.18 35

3.23 0.12 0.18 45

3.59 0.04 45

3.52 0.11 0.64

Self-regulated

35

3.08 0.07 35

3.30 0.12 0.02 44

3.53 0.19 44

3.51 0.09 0.91

Communicator 34

2.89 0.20 34

2.96 0.15 0.48 43

3.45 0.18 43

3.36 0.13 0.23

Open-minded

34

3.11 0.28 34

3.12 0.28 0.85 40

3.59 0.10 40

3.51 0.15 0.11

Overall mean

29

2.96 0.65 29

3.11 0.63 0.36 37

3.50 0.32 37

3.50 0.42 1.00

monitor their learning using the criteria. Students were encouraged to ask peers at their table before asking teachers for assistance to give other students the ability to teach each other. Using the ELAN tool, student higher-order behaviours of collaboration, self-regulation and teaching each other were annotated in the video observations. The behaviour characteristics are summarised in Table 8.5. Data collection for this phase of the project was completed at the end of 2019, and further analysis and triangulation of data occurred thereafter. A face-to-face meeting to discuss final findings with the spatial learning team on 16 March 2020 was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there were limited opportunities to finalise this phase of the research project in collaboration with the academic expert in 2020 and 2021, Radford College staff have continued to work on logistical considerations and building practice of team teaching across the secondary school as well as an ongoing process of teacher learning, evaluation of the use of spaces and furniture. Table 8.5 Characteristics of higher-order behaviour of year 8 students Higher-order behaviour

Student observable characteristics

Collaboration

Talking at tables Pointing/gesturing to work Asking questions Showing work to others

Self-regulation

Focused on task at table Engaged with others Asking and doing equally Referring to success criteria

Teaching each other

Sharing work Offering suggestions Asking challenging questions of others Giving examples

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

119

As with action research, teachers reflected on the impact of their pedagogical interventions on students’ learning immediately and throughout 2019. Key reflections that enabled improvements to be made throughout this period included: • Students struggled with inquiry-based learning. Many students wanted to know the end answer without going through the process of learning. • Students took a while to use their group to answer questions and collaborate during learning activities. • The change in pedagogy and the introduction of blended learning through Mathspace and OneNote provided teachers with space to support all students’ learning needs. • Blended learning allowed for students of different ability to be working on different tasks simultaneously. A middle management leadership CoP has continued to develop recommendations and share findings with colleagues through presentations and sharing of internal documentation. One of the outputs from the CoP was the development of a Playbook that was created to share findings and strategies more broadly within the school. Figure 8.4 provides a synthesis of the findings, while Fig. 8.5 summarises some of the implications for collaborative teaching strategies as summarised in the Playbook. In addition, advice from the CoP has informed timetabling decisions, where considerations for purposeful combinations of teachers both within and across subject departmental areas will increase opportunities for team teaching. With acknowledgement that synchronous team teaching is not possible in all subject areas, collaborative planning has been advocated to build shared practices and learn collaboratively with and from peers. Head of Department observations of teacher practice have been reframed to a peer teaching model, taking some of the pressure in being observed away from the teacher and modelling the practice of team teaching further. Radford

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT IN 2020? Collaboration can occur asynchronously Collaborative planning can enrich content knowledge and pedagogy Collaborative planning allows creation of exemplar resources Collaborative teaching can provide opportunities for lesson observation in a team teaching model Collaborative teaching provides further opportunities to diversify learning activities Students need explicit instructions to build skills in self regulation so they optimise their learning

Fig. 8.4 Findings of the action research. Note From CoP collaborative teaching and learning playbook. 2020. Radford College

120

M. Mahat et al.

WHAT MAKES TEAM TEACHING SUCCESSFUL? Trusting relationships between the two teachers and a shared understanding of the lesson outcomes Timetabling to facilitate the process Time to plan and evaluate together with both teachers taking ownership of the program Flexible furniture to create different spaces Multiple screens to project onto and no of classroom Regular use of small groups, developed on basis of learning needs not class rolls

Fig. 8.5 Collaborative teaching strategies. Note From CoP collaborative teaching and learning playbook. 2020. Radford College

teachers also used the experience of blended learning through periods of remote learning in 2020 and 2021 to build the practice into regular curriculum design to better provide opportunities for differentiation and personalisation of learning. Regarding the use of classrooms and furniture arrangement, all new teachers engaged in a practical learning workshop to build their understanding of pedagogy for flexible learning spaces and the value that is placed on team teaching and collaborative practice at Radford College. As 2021 was the third year of the Morison Centre in use, a review was conducted, engaging all Heads of Department in analysis of the use of learning spaces and collaborative practice in their teams. Findings of this review have been shared with College leadership teams and will inform ongoing practice and the replacement of furniture as it ages.

Conclusion: What Are the Key Takeaways? The P2P programme is an example of practitioner-led research developed within a structured university-school partnership that considers differing school contexts (Blannin et al., 2020). It has provided some crucial insights into the supports that schools should develop to enable teachers to develop their pedagogical practice through research. One of the critical issues around practitioner-led research was how teachers with proven, well-established teaching practices could be challenged to utilise more student-centred approaches that the new learning environment designs were intended to provide. At Radford, it was recognised that modelling alternative practices and

8 The Impact of Teacher Collaborative Pedagogies on Student Learning

121

sharing of internal and broader research would allow for gradual change. The use of a CoP to extend research, to peer observe lessons in action, to exchange ideas and share resources, helped support this gradual change. There also appears to be a disconnect between teachers’ expectations of research and the speed at which change should occur. The potential challenge with the disconnect is that change may be slower to enact across the school. Teachers’ enthusiasm may diminish before improvements are realised. With this in mind, the ongoing practices of teacher learning, sharing of research findings to validate practice and regular review that are in place at Radford within the CoPs are an example of best practice. Such practices ensure that collaborative culture continues to be embedded and maintained across the teaching and learning teams.

References Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154 Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97. Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 235–246. Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. CEPS Journal, 10(3), 99–116. Brindley, J. E., Blaschke, L. M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–18. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. In B. Cleveland, H. Mitcheltree, & W. Imms (Eds.), What’s working? 2016: Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environmental evaluation (pp. 77–87). CEFPI. (2010). Learning furniture: A ‘don’t just stuff it’ guide. Association for Learning Environments. Conderman, G. (2011). Methods for addressing conflict in cotaught classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(4), 221–229. DuFour, R. (2011). Work together, but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57–61. Fletcher, J., Mackey, J., & Fickel, L. (2017). A New Zealand case study: What is happening to lead changes to effective co-teaching in flexible learning spaces? Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 70–83. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009). Including students with special needs. Allyn & Bacon. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. T. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools. ILETC Survey No. 1. The University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/219467

122

M. Mahat et al.

Jang, S. J. (2008). Innovations in science teacher education: Effects of integrating technology and team-teaching strategies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 646–659. Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2010). Action research in healthcare. Sage. Laksov, K. B., Mann, S., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2008). Developing a community of practice around teaching: A case study. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(2), 121–132. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lynch, D., Madden, J., & Doe, T. (2015). Creating the outstanding school. Oxford Global Press. MacColl, I., Cooper, R., Rittenbruch, M., & Viller, S. (2005). Watching ourselves watching: Ethical issues in ethnographic action research. In Proceedings of the 17th Australia conference on computer–human interaction: Citizens Online: Considerations for today and the future (pp. 1–4). Association for Computing Machinery. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90140/ Mackey, J., O’Reilly, N., Fletcher, J., & Jansen, C. (2017). What do teachers and leaders have to say about co-teaching in flexible learning spaces? Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 97–110. Mackey, J., O’Reilly, N., Jansen, C., & Fletcher, J. (2018). Leading change to co-teaching in primary schools: A “Down Under” experience. Educational Review, 70(4), 465–485. Mahat, M., Grocott, L., & Imms, W. (2017). “In the real world...”: Teachers’ perceptions of ILEs. ILETC phase 1 teacher workshops. The University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/ 194339 Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2020). Teacher mind frames and belief systems: Facilitator guide. The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.46580/124324 Murchú, F. O., & Conway, P. (2017). (Re) Positioning team teaching: The visibility and viability of learning in classrooms. Education Research and Perspectives, 44, 43–69. Saxena, S. (2014). How do you teach the 4Cs to students (Part 1): Creativity and innovation? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/914-how-do-youteach-the-4Cs-to-studentspart-1-creativity-and-innovation Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-Teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry (Vol. 234). Centre for Strategic Education. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning (Vol. 2). Corwin Press. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2013). A guide to co-teaching: New lessons and strategies to facilitate student learning. Corwin Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 9

The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement and Teacher Pedagogy Julia E. Morris, Wesley Imms, and Adam Dehring

Abstract Furniture is a critical component of an innovative learning environment, yet little empirical data exist about how students and teachers purposefully use furniture to support learning. This study sought to examine how furniture impacted two key variables: (1) student engagement and (2) teacher pedagogies. Using a single subject research design, the project aimed to isolate the effect of furniture on these variables as teachers moved between flexible and traditional furniture arrangements. Flexible rooms offered a range of furniture items, including soft seating options and varying desk heights. Traditional arrangements consisted of groups of standard desks with hard backed chairs. The findings of the study showed that student engagement remained high regardless of furniture provided; however, teacher workload was significantly increased to maintain students’ engagement in traditional furniture settings. In addition, a ‘retained practice of engagement’ factor was identified over the one-term intervention, suggesting longer term engagement measures might drop. The majority of students said furniture does make a difference to their learning, citing physical comfort and self-management of behaviour as two reasons they choose flexible furniture options. Keywords Furniture · Student engagement · Pedagogies

J. E. Morris (B) Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] W. Imms The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia A. Dehring Vasse Primary School, Vasse, WA, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_9

123

124

J. E. Morris et al.

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Vasse Primary School is an independent public school situated in regional Western Australia, approximately 200 km south of the state capital city. It has been operating for more than 150 years and currently has over 800 students from Kindergarten to Year 6 (from 4 to 11 year olds). The school is known in the region for its innovative approach to inquiry-based pedagogies. Their vision is to create highly engaged and resilient learners, and they have adapted Schlechty’s (2011) engagement model of high attention and high commitment to inform their planning. Prior to the Plans to Pedagogy project, Vasse Primary had an ongoing collaboration with an Australian furniture provider to create learning spaces with unique furniture arrangements that would support their inquiry-based learning programme and support engagement across their student cohorts. This project is a unique case within Plans to Pedagogy as it was funded by the furniture provider, Beparta, rather than by the school. This arrangement was mutually beneficial for both the school and Beparta: both parties wanted empirical data to see if the furniture in innovative classroom arrangements was having the positive impact on learners and teachers that they thought it was. For this project, Vasse Primary School led the research activities, in collaboration with their Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) academics. Beparta participated in initial scoping discussions and received regular briefing throughout the project to ensure the dissemination of findings in a usable format to them as an industry partner and funder. From the initial scoping discussion, Plans to Pedagogy at Vasse Primary School had two key aims: (1) to explore the impact of furniture on students and their engagement and (2) to explore teachers’ use of furniture in their learning environments. Consequently, the project team developed two research questions to structure the research: 1. Do levels of student perceptions of their engagement in learning correlate to types of furniture provided in their classrooms? 2. Do teaching styles (pedagogies) change with differing furniture arrangements?

The Literature: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? The school already had strong models around engagement and inquiry learning specific to their school context. They aimed to develop learners who fit Schlechty’s high attention and high commitment engagement profile; committed students who were actively involved in their learning, who personalised their learning and who moved beyond ‘ritual compliance’ in the classroom (Schlechty, 2011, p. 20). They added an extra profile to Schlechty’s original model, called empowerment, as they felt once learners were engaged, they could then strive to extend their own learning and

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

125

follow individual aspirations. This model of engagement was congruent with literature on twenty-first-century learning and a desire for students to develop critical, collaborative, communicative and creativity skills (among others) that would support them in the knowledge economy (Bernhardt, 2015). Importantly, the school shared a pedagogical model that would help their students to engage in both the content of schooling and these twenty-first-century learning skills. Based on inquiry learning, the school’s inquiry framework guides teacher planning and delivery. The school has cycles of teacher-led instruction and student-led collaborations throughout the year, culminating in student presentations of their work. Each classroom sets a theme for their inquiry learning, but students are largely self-driven in developing the scope of their collaborative projects and the processes they use to bring together their body of work across the year. Anecdotally, the school had found students were engaged and productive in their inquiry work and felt it was promoting deeper learning across a wider range of students, including students who may not have been equally engaged in more traditional models of learning. This assertion is supported by the literature, as inquiry-based models empower students to engage in learning they find meaningful while also supporting them to develop autonomy as learners because it is student-centred (Buchanan et al., 2016; Chu et al., 2021). The existing engagement and inquiry-based models at Vasse Primary School are symbiotic with innovative learning environment characteristics. There is a growing body of research to show how innovative learning environments help facilitate teachers’ use of pedagogies that develop twenty-first-century learning skills (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014; OECD, 2006; Young et al., 2020). In the case of Vasse Primary, the classrooms could be considered innovative spaces largely because of the furniture arrangements in the rooms. With the historical 150-year-old school with its semi-permanent demountable classrooms and some brick single cell classrooms, the physical buildings could be considered quite traditional. However, the school had integrated good technology in their rooms to support ubiquitous integration of digital learning (Fletcher et al., 2020; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006) and used a range of furniture types and arrangements in each room, so they could easily reconfigure spaces to assist different types of learning (Dudek, 2000; Imms et al., 2020; Oblinger, 2006; Saltmarsh et al., 2015). It is this flexibility of the environment that is integral to the space being termed an innovative learning environment (Butin, 2000; Dovey & Fisher, 2014; Leiringer & Cardellino, 2011; OECD, 2006), assuming that the practices within the space are also innovative given that space and teaching are interconnected (Mahat et al., 2018). There is growing evidence that teachers’ practices in innovative learning environments are changing. For example, Murphy (2020) found that innovative learning environments correlate with increased student deep learning and greater use of Hattie’s (2012) high-impact teacher mind frames, being those teacher practices that result in improved student outcomes. Vasse Primary School wanted to know if its teachers’ practices would change if they had different furniture arrangements, and if their students’ deep engagement in learning was also impacted by the innovative furniture arrangements they had been investing in.

126

J. E. Morris et al.

Methods: How Did We Do It? This case study borrowed a method from the health sciences, called Single Subject Research Design (SSRD) (Satake et al., 2008). The design is quasi-experimental in nature and is used when health researchers wish to follow a case that is an outlier. The results of an outlier case cannot be compared to the general population, so SSRD allows baseline data to be taken for the outlier and then for any intervention experienced by the outlier to be compared back to their own baseline instead (Horner et al., 2005). In this research, our ‘outlier’ or case was the teacher/students belonging to one classroom. Because SSRD is quasi-experimental in nature we needed to: (1) be able to isolate furniture as a variable, (2) measure the effect of furniture on student engagement and teacher pedagogies and (3) control as many other variables as possible to ensure it was furniture that was responsible for changes to engagement and pedagogy. We believed that the best way to achieve this was through an A–B–A design across three school terms, where teachers alternated between traditional and flexible furniture arrangements. The ‘A’ setting was a classroom’s normal furniture arrangement, with ‘B’ being the opposite. This approach allows the first ‘A’ setting to provide baseline data, giving us a measure of what was deemed the normal environment for that teacher and their students. The ‘B’ setting was the intervention, the alternative furniture arrangement, and the second ‘A’ was a return to normal (a withdrawal). Because this change happened with other variables controlled (i.e. the same teacher, teaching the same students, across a full 10 week term for each stage), one could argue that if the measures for the ‘B’ setting differed, the cause was most likely the furniture arrangement. The study used a purposive sample, chosen automatically by the willingness of their teachers to participate. The project recruited five teachers from Years 3 to 6. Three agreed to have their classrooms’ flexible furniture arrangements changed to traditional in term 3. One of the four teachers was a ‘reverse intervention’— they normally used a traditional furniture arrangement and agreed to convert to a more flexible arrangement during the ‘B’ stage. The fifth acted as a control with no changes to furniture arrangements. The spatial learning team worked with the participating teachers to define what they believed a ‘flexible’ and a ‘traditional’ furniture arrangement looked like. Figure 9.1 shows examples of these arrangements, although every teacher arranged their two settings in slightly different ways. The flexible furniture rooms were characterised by a wide range of furniture options, whereas the traditional arrangement consisted of standard desks with hard backed chairs, organised around a floor mat used for whole class work. In order to gather data, a repeated measures approach was used, meaning the same measures were conducted at regular intervals, regardless of whether teachers were working in an ‘A’ or ‘B’ furniture arrangement. Those measures were: 1. Short student engagement surveys, done every three weeks: This provided an ongoing measure of how students felt they were behaviourally and cognitively engaged over the past three weeks.

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

127

Fig. 9.1 Examples of a traditional (left) and flexible (right) furniture arrangement at the school

2. Observations of teaching, done every three weeks: Conducted by one schoolbased researcher, they provided an ‘objective’ assessment of teaching practices. An online observational metric was adapted from the Byers’ model (2014) and embedded in Novum’s Learning Environments Assessment Survey Application (LEASA) platform, a tablet-based application. 3. Teacher Mind Frame surveys, done at the end of each term: This provided a measure of the incidence of ‘high-impact’ teaching strategies (Hattie, 2012). 4. Teacher semi-structured interviews, done at the end of each term: These interviews ‘unpacked’ the previous term in relation to teachers’ perceptions of their teaching, their students’ engagement and the use of furniture. In addition to these measures, students completed a photo-elicitation task when they were in the flexible furniture arrangement settings. For this measure, students took photographs of their favourite place to learn in the past three weeks and annotated it explaining why they had chosen the item of furniture they had photographed. Statistical analysis was performed on the survey data for both teachers and students. Descriptive statistics (mean, mode, standard deviation, range) were used to explore the level of engagement in each classroom group. As the group sizes for each classroom varied and were small (< 35 students), the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine if there was a difference in engagement between the control group (A–A–A) and the intervention groups (A–B–A), or if there was a difference within the intervention groups (i.e. each class moved from A–B or B–A), with post-hoc Mann–Whitney U tests used to find exactly where this difference occurred. The LEASA tool provided timed data, showing the total number of minutes (or hours and minutes) of the observation and the number of minutes each teacher practice (i.e. direct instruction, facilitating, providing feedback) was observed during the lesson. These data were converted to a percentage (i.e. 50% of the total lesson was spent with the teacher as facilitator), and an average was calculated for the term (i.e.

128

J. E. Morris et al.

over the 3 lessons observed in term 2, the teacher was a facilitator for 40% of the observation lessons). These means were graphed, so a teacher could see how much time they spent employing certain pedagogies across the A–B–A arrangements. The semi-structured interviews with teachers and students’ photo-elicitation data were both coded inductively. For these data, themes were developed from the data through multiple readings (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Frequencies were also drawn from the photo-elicitation data coding, so we could determine which furniture items were most selected by students and explain the characteristics of furniture that were most important to students. In terms of procedure, the P2P academic research team visited Vasse once a term to interview the volunteer teachers and to meet with the Vasse spatial learning team (comprising four senior school leaders). The P2P academic research team ensured they conducted the interviews, so there was no dependent relationship between the teachers and the interviewers, particularly important as the spatial learning team included leadership staff. The P2P academic research team also visited the school twice a year to conduct recruitment and provided a briefing to the school staff from an external perspective. However, one aspect of the spatial learning team unique to Vasse Primary was the recruitment of an additional member to the team in term 2, 2019. At this time (when beginning data collection for the A–B–A design), the spatial learning team released an additional teacher one day a week to conduct all observations, implement the student surveys each three weeks and to facilitate the photo-elicitation, as well as organising all the data to share back to the P2P academic researchers. Releasing this teacher to manage the data collection supported the project in a number of ways, including: (1) being a sounding board for teacher participants in the research, often answering questions or helping them through the process; (2) providing valuable support in ‘flipping’ the classroom furniture arrangements with teachers and ensuring there was enough of the ‘right’ furniture available in the school for each type of arrangement; (3) providing flexibility in scheduling data collection to support teachers’ workloads as he was on-site, which would not be possible if the P2P researchers were conducting data collection as the closest researcher was located approximately 200 km away from the school site; and (4) collating data and sharing it with the researchers (ensuring confidentiality of individual teacher observation records).

Findings: What Have We Learned? The Vasse case study sought to explore the effect of furniture choices on two variables: (1) students’ perceptions of their engagement in learning and (2) teachers’ pedagogies. While these findings are presented, we also share other (unintended) findings to emerge that provide information for other teacher-researchers who are embedded in research at their school site.

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

129

Question 1: Do Levels of Student Perceptions of Their Engagement in Learning Correlate to Types of Furniture Provided in Their Classrooms? Only one data set directly addressed this question—the repeated measures student survey—but the photo-elicitation task provided some insights into the survey results. Regarding the survey, Table 9.1 shows the difference in mean scores across both behavioural and cognitive engagements when students experienced changed furniture arrangements. There was very little change to the mean scores on the survey between the flexible and traditional furniture arrangements in the 2019 data, which was not the finding expected by the school and researchers. While there was a large range of scores in each scale, most students rated highly on both scales across the year. As there was no significant change to engagement, our attention turned to the photo-elicitation data to see if students were aware of any impact made by furniture. While these data cannot be linked to students’ engagement in learning, the photo-elicitation responses provided an explanation of the types of furniture students preferred and students’ perspectives on how these furniture options supported them to learn. The five most preferred furniture items when working in the flexible spaces were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

High tables with adjustable stools (17%); Circular tables (16%); Equilateral triangular tables with soft seating (13%); Ottomans and soft seating, without a desk or table (13%); Rectangular tables with soft seating (10%).

These options accounted for almost 70% of students’ furniture selections in the flexible environment. A ‘traditional’ desk and chair was preferred by only 7% of students. The high tables allowed students to manage their own behaviour: ‘[My feet don’t] touch the floor because when we had the other fernichair [sic] I used to mess around’. It helped them with their posture through its flexibility (‘you can stand or sit at it’), Table 9.1 Range and mean scores for student engagement scales across differing furniture arrangements Engagement scale

Furniture arrangement

N

Minimuma

Maximum

Mean

Standard deviation

Behavioural

Traditional

298

2

5

4.25

0.719

Flexible

299

2

5

4.26

0.746

Traditional

307

1

5

4.01

0.569

Flexible

307

1

5

4.02

0.838

Cognitive

and maximum scores are for a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree a Minimum

130

J. E. Morris et al.

which helped students manage back pain issues that were sometimes exacerbated by other furniture, such as wobble stools. Circular tables were preferred by students who wanted proximity to peers, and for collaborative tasks: ‘You can communicate with your peers when doing activities’. Equilateral triangular tables with soft seating options were rated third most frequently, alongside ottomans and soft seating options (without a desk/table). Students gave the following reasons for working at equilateral tables: • Writeable surfaces: ‘You can draw on the table and use it for working out instead of wasting paper’ and ‘you don’t have to get a whiteboard from the shelf’. • Working collaboratively: ‘it is easier to chat’ and ‘better for group work’. • Amount of working space: ‘you’re not squished and you have lots of room’. • Comfort (in relation to ottomans at equilateral tables): ‘you can sit enny [sic] way on them’, ‘on soft things I’m more focused’, ‘I move less’. The predominant reasons students gave for choosing their furniture item/s were comfort (54%), flexibility (11%), height (7%) and movement (7%). Comfort was most important to students when selecting their preferred work furniture. Comfort was mostly associated with soft seating options, although there were a range of students who also identified adjustable stools as being most comfortable as these allowed better flexibility for taller students, and in term 4 (after the majority of students returned to flexible furniture from a more traditional arrangement) more students identified chairs with backrests as beneficial as they ‘can lean back instead of slouch’ and ‘don’t get a sore back’. Flexibility and height were mostly associated with high tables. Flexibility was used as a key term for both stool adjustment (‘I like how the chairs can go up and down’) and desk height adjustment (‘the desks are high, low, medium levels’). These options allowed students to alter the way they were working: ‘It allows me to either stand or sit while being comfortable’. Flexibility was also mentioned in relation to whiteboard equilateral tables that provided both a good working surface and the ability to draw ideas directly onto the table. Equilateral tables were also mentioned as flexible because of the amount of space they provide, allowing students to work comfortably at the table for both collaborative and independent tasks. Movement referred to the students’ ability to move while on the item of furniture, for example, rocking on ottomans and sitting on wobble stools or fitballs. In relation to sitting on fitballs, one student wrote ‘I like how you can do small bounces on these which is relaxing’. This was typical of comments made about movement, which was seen to relax students and make them more comfortable in their learning environment. Students were particularly fond of wobble stools because ‘if you have lots of energy, you can try to tire yourself out on the wobbly stool’. In addition to asking students what their preferred furniture was and the characteristics that made them select their item/s, we also asked students to explain how their selected furniture item supported their learning. While 7% of students reported that furniture made no impact, an overwhelming 93% of students felt that furniture did have a positive impact on their learning. The most common responses were the effect of furniture in supporting better concentration on tasks, increasing comfort

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

131

or a sense of safety, ability to see whiteboards/smartboards and working or storage space provided: • Concentration (15%) was supported when students could move furniture to be in a particular space in the classroom, as ‘you can maneuver [sic] to be in the right spot which helps you concentrate’. For some students this included finding personal space in the classroom, with one student describing how they felt ‘less distractions because I’m facing the wall’. • Comfort and safety (14%) included having choice to adjust position on the item, ‘Because it is comfortable, and I can sit however I like’. Most comments here related to soft seating, which was anticipated due to the prevalence of soft seats in the item selection question. In term 4, direct comparisons were made between soft seats and the more traditional chairs provided in the ‘traditional’ furniture arrangements: ‘Yes, because it is more comfortable than a hard plastic chair’. Safety was added to this theme because some students identified it specifically: ‘By making me feel safe and secure’ (in relation to a floor cushion at a low table) and ‘You feel like you’re very safe!’ (in relation to an ottoman against a wall, with the student working on a table). • The ability to see the whiteboard or smartboard (13%) was identified as critical to engaging in schoolwork, and furniture assisted this in a range of ways. Most annotations in this theme were linked to working at high tables: ‘The tall desk helps me learn more effectively by all of us being able to see the board and none of us need to move or shift or turn around to see it’. • The amount of working space and/or storage space (9%) was listed more prominently in term 4, after students had worked in traditional furniture arrangements. Students appreciated keeping working spaces clear, typified by annotations such as, ‘I can work knowing that my stuff won’t fall off the desk’. It was also important to have enough space on a working surface for collaborative tasks or when working at the same table with peers: ‘there is enough room for everyone’s work’.

Question 2: Do Teaching Styles (Pedagogies) Change with Differing Furniture Arrangements? This question was addressed by the repeated measures teacher observations, which provided direct objective measures of what was seen to occur in the classrooms. Teacher interviews unpacked these observations, and the Teacher Mind Frames survey provided a measure of participants’ attitudes to teaching. A total of 23 observations were conducted in the intervention group while in flexible furniture classrooms, and nine observations were conducted with traditional furniture arrangements. Figure 9.2 shows that teachers spent more time conducting learning that was student-centred when they had flexible furniture arrangements and more time using teacher-centred approaches when teaching with traditional classroom furniture. Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to see if this visual trend was supported

132

J. E. Morris et al.

Fig. 9.2 Comparison of mean times (as a percentage) for focus mode in flexible and traditional furniture arrangements

statistically. The results showed a significant difference at the 0.05 level (ILE: Mean Rank = 14.74, n = 23; Traditional: Mean Rank = 21.00, n = 9), U = 63.00, z = − 1.70, p < 0.05, providing evidence that teachers spent more time in a teacher-centred mode when working with traditional furniture; the same result was found for more student-centred learning experiences when working in classrooms with more flexible furniture arrangements (ILE: Mean Rank = 18.35, n = 23; Traditional: Mean Rank = 11.78, n = 9), U = 61.00, z = − 1.78, p < 0.05. Findings from teacher interviews supported the data, and teachers drew the observation that the teaching/learning style ‘dictated’ by the traditional arrangement: ‘…[I] might be more efficient in terms of covering content—skills and processes. But at what cost? The students worked individually, losing the effectiveness of social skills development, collaboration…so they lost a lot as well’. The traditional furniture arrangement also appeared to force the teacher to teach in a particular way (‘I taught content’) and students to work in particular way (‘They were focused, engaged, but on content, not on why they were learning it…’). Each teacher expressed having lowto mid-level pedagogic difficulties with changes in furniture during the ‘intervention’ term; this was not as extensive for the ‘reverse’ participant (traditional to innovative to traditional). Those innovative-to-traditional difficulties are summarised in teacher comments such as: ‘I had to learn to not move, to feed information to my students’ and ‘Students had to learn to not move, to rely only on the colleagues close by’. Figure 9.3 shows mean scores for a range of teacher pedagogical strategies used across both flexible and traditional furniture arrangements. Visually, the data show that teachers spend more time using direct instruction and class discussion when working with traditional furniture, but there was not enough evidence to show any statistically significant difference for these indicators. Similarly, there was not enough evidence to show a statistical difference for the increase in interactive instruction, feedback and questioning when teaching with flexible furniture despite the mean scores indicating that this is the case. This was also the case for ‘facilitating’, even

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

133

Fig. 9.3 Comparison of mean times (as a percentage) for teacher pedagogies in flexible and traditional furniture arrangements

though the mean ranks showed a much higher count when teachers were working with flexible furniture arrangements (ILE: Mean Rank = 17.74, n = 23; Traditional: Mean Rank = 13.33, n = 9), U = 75.00, z = − 1.20, p = 0.123. Consistent observations were made about teaching workload in flexible versus traditional furniture arrangements, with the observation that the latter placed a greater burden on the teacher and affected their pedagogies. Teachers expressed that: ‘It was a lot more work for me. I had to prepare for one-on-one instruction, I couldn’t use the students’ peer feedback with each other to facilitate, spur on learning’. While the observation data provided a clear overview of the types of classroom learning activities and practices that were being conducted in each space, they did not provide a measure of how teachers felt they were performing. Consequently, the Teacher Mind Frame survey was conducted once a term to measure the incidence of ‘high-impact’ teaching strategies, and an interview was conducted after each furniture change to gather qualitative data. The data for each of the four intervention room teachers showed that their overall scores on the Teacher Mind Frame survey generally increased when they were teaching with flexible furniture (Morris & Imms, 2022). A statistically significant change was found for the mind frame ‘I build relationships and trust’, which was higher when teachers were working with flexible furniture arrangements (ILE: Mean Rank = 9.64, n = 7; Traditional: Mean Rank = 5.36, n = 7), U = 9.50, z = − 1.94, p = 0.05. This finding was consistent with the interview data, whereby teachers spoke about being ‘removed’ from the students because they ‘taught content rather than facilitated learning’ when in the traditional spaces. They compared the difference between the two arrangements: ‘The kids worked more efficiently when they had choice where to work, who to work with … that made my teaching easier, I could

134

J. E. Morris et al.

use my time to engage with the students, not me pushing content down their throat from the front of the room’. In summary, during the intervention all teachers expressed disruption to established teaching patterns and noticed changes in how students learned. The difficulties (and disadvantages) teachers experienced appeared greater for those going from innovative-to-traditional arrangements. The change created additional workload for teachers; it was apparent they aimed to minimise the impact of the change on students by consciously adapting teaching approaches and re-designing learning activities. A consistent theme was significant student agency in using furniture as part of their learning; during the intervention, students and teachers noted a reduction in opportunities to do this when moving to a traditional setting. However, an additional finding of this research was the lived experience of having a teacher-researcher embedded in the school. The choice for the school to release one teacher for a day a week to collect all data and be the conduit between the school and the P2P researchers was a unique circumstance within the P2P project overall and came with both benefits and challenges. The teacher-researcher reflected on their experience, summarised in the below vignette: In 2019 I was given the opportunity to be involved in collecting data for the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) research project being undertaken at Vasse Primary School. My role included the facilitation of timetabling 5 different classrooms to complete 40 min observations, coordinate the changeover of classroom furniture, completing data entry and presenting the school findings to other P2P participants. Positives: • This role gave me the opportunity to develop my leadership skills and develop my abilities to coordinate staff and data to be suitable for the researchers to utilise for the project. • I was able to gain a basic understanding of the research process including ethics, data collection, analysing data and compiling the results in a way suitable to be shared. • I could utilise the research findings to make decisions in our school for future furniture purchases for different classrooms across our school. Minus: • The interruption to the classroom during observations and data collection was something I needed to manage to ensure two things. First, the type of activity being observed- did this activity give the teacher and students an opportunity to showcase the true pedagogy of the teacher? Second, the time it took the students to complete the student survey and photo description during the observation did take longer than first anticipated. Interesting: • The networking opportunity with schools across Australia and New Zealand that are taking part in the P2P research project. This gave us at Vasse an insight to different decisions being made on a larger scale of building and classroom designs.

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

135

• The student feedback during the Vasse project was more useful than first anticipated. The insight into why a student makes a decision in our classrooms was something we as a school can and will use moving forward with classroom furniture planning. For this teacher-researcher, there were professional learning benefits to their involvement in the project. However, this responsibility also came with challenges. For example, the teacher-researcher was on the front line to respond to teachers’ and students’ concerns about their changed furniture arrangements. If a teacher was worried or frustrated about the impact the furniture change had on their intended teaching, they would contact the teacher-researcher to discuss it. If students felt confronted when their classroom arrangement had changed over the holidays, they would complain to the teacher-researcher. The additional workload to sensitively manage these concerns was also an unanticipated part of being the lead teacher-researcher at the school.

Conclusion: What Are the Key Takeaways? The data from the Vasse case study found that teachers do change their pedagogies in response to furniture arrangements in their classrooms, but that a single term of working in traditional environments was not enough to lower students’ engagement. From analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data, it appears students have ‘resilient engagement’; the strong inquiry and engagement models that have been a core part of the school’s practice seemed to mitigate any negative effects of traditional furniture arrangements. However, teachers reflected on taking students out of traditional furniture arrangement settings into informal spaces (such as outdoors) in order to ensure collaborative learning practices and deep learning activities could still be effective. Despite there being no statistical change to students’ engagement, 93% of students said they felt furniture had an impact on their learning. Students as young as 8 years old actively sought furniture to meet their individual physical and/or learning needs, with comfort and flexibility being two critical characteristics for furniture selection. While students’ engagement remained high, a key finding from the study was the increased workload for teachers to sustain inquiry-based learning when using traditional furniture arrangements. Teachers were the key individuals impacted by inflexible furniture arrangements as they felt they had to teach in ways that were not consistent with their preferred pedagogies, and developed additional resources and activities to try to maintain high engagement around their perceived constraints of the traditional arrangement. They felt it was easier to employ inquiry-based methods and to plan for student-led work in flexible furniture arrangements. The observation data supported these reflections, with teachers’ pedagogies being more teachercentred when using traditional furniture and more student-centred when they had flexible furniture. Teachers also felt they maintained better student relationships

136

J. E. Morris et al.

when working in the flexible spaces and also had to manage less relationship issues between students when in the flexible furniture arrangements. The findings from this study have led the spatial learning team to complete a second year of data collection, further exploring the nature of students’ engagement in learning. This year of data collection is focusing on critical thinking, peer relationships/collaboration and creativity, three areas the leadership staff want students to develop. Again, these traits will be examined as students move between differing furniture arrangements, providing information to the school on what arrangements best support the learning traits they desire from their students.

References Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. Bernhardt, P. E. (2015). 21st century learning: Professional development in practice. The Qualitative Report, 20(1), 1–19. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Buchanan, S. M. C., Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C., & Edwards, S. (2016). Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 23–39. Butin, D. (2000). Multipurpose spaces. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446423.pdf Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The Effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ ct/29.1.02 Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2021). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63. Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. Routledge. Fletcher, J., Everatt, J., Mackey, J., & Fickel, L. H. (2020). Digital technologies and innovative learning environments in schooling: A New Zealand experience. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00156-2 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. Imms, W., Morris, J. E., & Grunseit, D. (2020). Innovative furniture and student engagement. In M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), The encyclopedia of educational innovation. Springer. Leiringer, R., & Cardellino, P. (2011). Schools for the twenty-first century: School design and educational transformation. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 915–934. https://doi. org/10.1080/01411926.2010.508512 Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Chapter 5. Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Educause. https://www.educause.edu/res earch-and-publications/books/learning-spaces/chapter-5-student-practices-and-their-impactlearning-spaces

9 The Relationship Among Classroom Furniture, Student Engagement …

137

Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne. http://www.iletc.com.au/pub lications/reports Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2022). Designing and using innovative learning spaces: What teachers have to say. IUL Research, 3(6), 7–25. Murphy, D. J. (2020). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290169 Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as change agent. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. https:// www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf OECD. (2006). Evaluating quality in educational facilities. http://www.oecd.org/education/innova tion-education/evaluatingqualityineducationalfacilities.htm Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/ responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327. Satake, E., Jagaroo, V., & Maxwell, D. L. (2008). Handbook of statistical methods: Single subject design. Plural Publishing. Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. John Wiley and Sons. Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2020). The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: Educators’ and architects’ perceptions. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y

Chapter 10

The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly Changing Environment Wesley Imms, Julia E. Morris, and Karyn Gray

Abstract At the time of the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project, Haeata was a threeyear-old K-12 community college situated in a major New Zealand city. It was the product of a community tragedy—two successive earthquakes made several smaller schools in the area uninhabitable, providing the opportunity for amalgamation into a large innovative community school. The region had a low socioeconomic profile and many challenges in terms of general literacy levels, attendance, and behavioural issues. A Public Private Partnership (PPP) school, its innovative design provided opportunity for the Haeata leadership team to reconceptualise how learning for their unique cohort of students could be undertaken. The Plans to Pedagogy project was seen to be one way to align the resulting quite ambitious educational reform to the school’s open plan design. This chapter tracks a unique journey followed by the P2P team, as school requirements changed during Haeata’s ‘settling in’ and the P2P project sought to accommodate those changes. It is not a completed story. School pedagogic changes re-defined P2P aims, COVID-19 interrupted data collection in P2P’s second year, and of most impact was a massive change of staff that saw the complete P2P team leave Haeata with only the baseline year of data completed. However, such events assist researchers to understand the complexity of running multi-year projects in schools. The chapter presents the Haeata story in its initial three years of existence, describes how the research priorities were set and summarises analysis of its baseline data. Finally, it comments on lessons learned in terms of how to ‘future-proof’ multi-year projects in rapidly evolving schools.

Karyn Gray was Vice Principal and Team Leader of the P2P Spatial Learning Team at Haeata Community Campus during the period described in this chapter. W. Imms (B) · J. E. Morris The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Morris Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia K. Gray Raphael House Rudolph Steiner School, Lower Hutt, New Zealand © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_10

139

140

W. Imms et al.

Keywords PPP schools · Mapping use of space · Student choice · ILE

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Given the investment in innovative learning environments in New Zealand, there is a need to explore how students are using these spaces and the impact they have on student learning. As a complex school that has a wide range of learners and a highly personalised approach to their learning programmes, Haeata Community Campus (hereafter ‘Haeata’) was constantly innovating teaching practices in response to anecdotal evidence. The aim of this P2P project was to gather robust evidence about how the school’s unique spatial arrangements were being utilised by students and how their use of space corresponded to their needs as learners. These data would provide a basis for teachers to interrogate how space could be used to enhance student learning at Haeata. Haeata is a decile 1 ranked school, opened in 2016 as part of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with a private entity constructing the buildings, then ‘renting’ them back to the district. Haeata was created from 2013 to 2016 through the amalgamation of four local institutions into one community campus because of the Christchurch earthquakes. This amalgamation came amid some understandable concern from several teachers, students, and community members. The foundational school leaders accepted the community and student ‘grief baggage’ from this process, and healing these divisions became a school priority. When commencing as a P2P school, Haeata was physically and organisationally distributed around five Hapori, or sub schools—years 0–2, 3–6, 7–10, 11–13 + , and a bi-lingual (Maori/English) 1–5 Hapori. Each had a separate single-storied building, linked by covered walkways. A central double storied administration/sports hall/ auditorium/cafeteria building acted as the school hub. The PPP arrangement of the school offered some benefits (a high-quality build, reduced time spent by staff on maintenance administration), as well as some disadvantages (reduced freedom to modify the school structures, slow maintenance, and a lack of freedom in terms of furniture). In effect, the PPP led to a perception that there was ‘no control of the space—any re-organisation must be approved’ (spatial learning team, personal correspondence, May 1, 2019). Due to the nature of the amalgamation and the PPP structure, the school had limited design-focused resources at its disposal. There exists no educational brief, or any history of refinement of the design to match the school’s educational vision. However, in 2019 the school was driven by a clear Haeata Learning Design consisting of five ‘values’, which were then organised into seven ‘dispositions’ that guided both students and staff. From this structure, the school worked to seven ‘learning principles’, the position at which teachers began their planning processes, shown in Table 10.1.

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

141

Table 10.1 Haeata’s learning design Values

Learning dispositions

Learning principles

Alofa; compassion, commitment and Compassion love that ignites action Collaboration

Social (learning with others)

Manaakitanga; where every learner has a sense of belonging

Designing

Culturally intelligent (embracing all cultures)

Fa’aaloalo (respect)

Authentic (relevant, with meaning)

Hanga Whare; the building of foundations for all learners to leave the school more curious than when they arrived

Contributing

Connected (enhancing learning)

Service; where all learners are mindful of their unique role in making a difference

Resilience

Inclusive (supported and welcomed)

Success; where every learner crosses Rangatiratanga the stage with dignity, purpose and (self-management) options

Open (available to all)

Personalised (uniqueness)

Consequently, the P2P research at Haeata sought to explore how their unique spaces were being used to inform the school’s overall knowledge. The project was guided by the following research issue: What evidence can be gathered that assists Haeata staff to positively impact student learning experiences through effective use of the school’s unique spatial arrangement? In the methods section to follow, it is explained that in addressing this question, Haeata’s unique mission made more traditional research approaches difficult. The school’s spatial learning team and the P2P research partners spent considerable time in a number of visits over more than a year and a half designing then re-designing the research approach, as the school’s pedagogic approaches evolved. Eventually, an exploratory design was settled upon, with Phase 1 providing the baseline on which further research would be structured. Phase 1 research questions stabilised to the following: 1. What choices are students making about Haeata’s spatial arrangements? Where, why, and what are they doing, and with whom? 2. How do students feel about themselves as learners, in terms of Haeata’s seven disposition statements? 3. What relationships exist between students’ choices about space and their feelings about themselves as learners?

142

W. Imms et al.

Literature/Background: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? Haeata owns a progressive, creative, and bold approach to developing the best curriculum for its unique student cohort; as a result, the school consistently re-designs its practices in keeping with evolving needs and ideas. We have an innovative student-centric approach to learning programmes that is predicated on individual well-being and learning plans with learning being developed from individual student interests rather than being delivered by teachers in packages. Collaborative practice is becoming embedded as the norm and the vast majority of staff and a growing majority of students articulate support for the pedagogic approach of the school. We are continuing to evolve daily and pushing the boundaries pedagogically within our spaces—although we may not be using the spaces as purposefully to match our pedagogic practice as we could. (spatial learning team, personal correspondence, May 1, 2019.)

As a result of this fluidity, during the planning stages the school’s P2P project frequently changed its focus to meet those needs. The overarching research focus remained constant (What evidence can be gathered that assists Haeata staff to positively impact student learning experiences through effective use of the school’s unique spatial arrangement?). However, fluidity of practices created several research hurdles the P2P project needed to overcome. These included, in 2019: • Haeata did not use specific measures of student learning outcomes; traditional measures did not fit the school’s priorities. • Haeata did not follow a traditional timetable; students chose units of study on a rotational basis. • Haeata students were not aligned to a specific teacher (beyond their Puna Ako); all teachers cared for all students. • Haeata students occupied no set spaces (beyond their Puna Ako); they moved freely across the campus according to what units of study they had chosen to undertake. Haeata wished to use the P2P project to encourage its staff to think more purposefully about how its use of space could address some of the challenges within its school community, namely: • Teachers having to develop learning principles that were required to fit the space, not vice versa; • A ‘challenging’ student cohort; • A school community that did not choose to enlist in a learning design that was markedly different to their existing school systems; • Few existing relationships, in that the pre-existing schools had little history of any collaboration prior to Haeata Community Campus; • No pre-existing ‘school behaviours’ on which to build because of the marked change in school design.

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

143

These ambitions were informed by a range of key learning theories. While the school was not based solely on any one theory, the original learning design took aspects of the Big Picture School movement started by Dennis Littky, which seeks to give students skills that are aligned to real-world practices (Littky & Grabelle, 2004). It was also influenced by Julia Atkin’s ongoing learning design work across learning in the knowledge era, vision driven development of spaces, and how to support effective learning communities (Atkin, 2023). Writing from David Perkins about what really matters in learning also played a part, which espouses that learning needs to be connected to big ideas that matter to students and society (e.g. citizenship) and that students need to learn this content and have opportunities to translate it into action (Perkins & Tishman, 2006). Authentic curriculum integration was a central theory, and conscious working towards self-regulated student learners was always a strong aim of the school. There was a determination from the beginning of the learning design by the original senior leadership team to put learning outcomes and achievement on an equal footing with well-being outcomes and achievements. As Haeata progressed over the first few years, the work of Will Richardson (United States) and Bruce Dixon (Australia) became more heavily influential—with both education leaders posing big questions about the nature of schooling and how it might need to change within a rapidly changing world (Anytime Anywhere Learning, 2023; Big Questions Institute, 2023). The learning agreements and commitment to transdisciplinary learning and Te Ao M¯aori were strongly emphasised, and there was a conscious effort with staff in each team collaborating to design and deliver meaningful, localised, authentic learning experiences for learners.

Methods: How Did We Do It? Design For Phase 1 of the research, it was decided that an exploratory mapping exercise would be undertaken to determine how students were utilising the space. This mapping could then be used as the basis for intervention in further phases, based on what the school’s needs were at future junctures.

Procedure We conducted this exploratory Phase 1 during 2019, with the intention of reviewing analysis at the end of the year. Data were collected until the end of the year at 5-week intervals, in consecutive months (August–November); year 5 students completed the survey 3 times, omitting the November collection. This led to 6 data collection points. The spatial learning team conducted the survey with the students; they watched as the

144

W. Imms et al.

Table 10.2 Haeata Community Campus’ values and dispositions and the corresponding item of the survey provided to students Values

Learning dispositions

Survey item

Alofa

Compassion

I am mindful of my influence on others

Manaakitanga

Contributor

I feel like I belong

Hanga Whare

Designing

I am curious about my learning

Service

Fa’aaloalo

I act with responsibility and respect

Success

Rangatiratanga

I am committed to my learning

Success

Resilience

I am building knowledge or skills that I need for the future

Success

Rangatiratanga

I feel like my learning needs are being met

students filled in the survey. They discussed responses with them to ensure ‘validity’; for example, getting rid of ‘F/U’ responses, averting non-sensical written responses, and as much as possible ensuring students were thinking about their responses. It was anticipated that collecting these data would allow Haeata to begin interrogating how students moved throughout the school spaces; a difficult task when every student (of approximately 700 in the 2019 student cohort) was following their own individual learning plan.

Data Collection Haeata’s Learning Design was used to develop a short survey. The first section was descriptive, focusing on determining ‘who is where’. Items included their names, year levels, and logging what space they were in. The second section was inferential, focusing on the ‘why’. Items included their intended activity, who they were intending to work with, and why they chose this space, as well as responses to how students felt they were (or were not) meeting the seven learning dispositions of the school. These latter items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. An example of the survey items related to the learning dispositions is shown in Table 10.2. The survey was implemented by staff who supervised students completing the online survey—aside from the validity aspect mentioned earlier, this also provided some certainty of consistent responses. A repeated measures design was used, with the same surveys being conducted with the same students, over time.

Sampling Haeata chose to sample a small group of students from years 5, 8, and 11 to complete the 2019 research. These were purposive samples that included approximately 50% of

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

145

each cohort, with approximately equal numbers of students from each of the school’s management stages (i.e. manager, self-managed, self-directed, and self-driven). Each student was allocated to a management stage that determined the amount of flexibility they had to move around the learning environment and the level of autonomy they had in directing their own learning. A total of 110 students were sampled from the school: 43 year 5 students, 32 year 8 students, and 35 year 11 students. Data regarding overall enrolments for these cohorts (provided by the spatial learning team) showed that these samples represented 86% of year 5s, 57% of year 8s, and 62.5% of year 11 students enrolled at the school.

Data Analysis Survey data related to the first half of the survey (i.e. the ‘what’) were analysed through descriptive statistics that showed percentages of who was working and where. This analysis was conducted on the whole school aggregate data as well as each year group individually to determine any changes between cohorts of students. While the dispositions (second half of the student survey) were originally measured on a five-point Likert scale, the charts presented collapse the data to three points: negative (which includes both strongly disagree and disagree categories), neutral (which includes the ‘I don’t know’ category), and positive (which includes the agree and strongly agree categories). This presentation of data was used to provide a clearer contrast of student responses towards the dispositions. For internal conversation at school the neutral responses were then omitted to show polarity of responses (see Table 10.3; note this ‘people’ item table was extended to also include space and learning items). The qualitative responses linked these groups of students back to Haeata’s People/Learning/Space construct (i.e. who are you with, what are you doing, what space are you occupying). The analysis was done for each year group separately to provide, for example, year 5 negative (low)/year 5 positive (high) responses. In addition, inferential statistics were also used to determine if certain spaces, people, or activities were linked to higher ratings on any of the school’s learning dispositions. This inferential analysis is outlined in this chapter. Table 10.3 Example, cross-section analysis, item ‘I am committed to my learning’ Time point: 3 Month: September Year group: 8s I am committed to my learning

People category 1 (teacher)

People category 2 (teacher aide)

People category 3 (peer)

Frequency Low commitment

8

3

9

High commitment

21

2

17

146

W. Imms et al.

Findings: What Have We Learned? Question 1: What Choices Are Students Making About Haeata’s Spatial Arrangements? Where, Why, and What Are They Doing, and with Whom? The exploration of students’ movements within the school was conducted in two stages; first, the aggregated responses were used to gain a sense of what was happening at Haeata, and second, a year group analysis was conducted to determine any differences between the groups. Figure 10.1 who students chose to work with at school, with most of the sampled students choosing to work with friends (59%) and 31% basing their movement on where a particular kaiako (teacher) was working. Figure 10.2 displays the range of tasks Haeata’s students were working on, with most of the sampled students reporting engagement with a learning task at the time of the survey. Only 7% of students said they were doing nothing, while 50% worked on individual projects, 24% were engaged in specific teacher-led workshops or classes, and 19% self-exploring (such as hypothesis testing or materials testing for individual projects). Figure 10.3 shows the spaces students chose to work in. The independent spaces were most popular; however, students also frequently selected working in physical exercise spaces such as the gym or working in spaces where there were specific teacher-led workshops. Figure 10.4 presents the main reasons why students chose to work in their selected space. Working with friends was the main reason students chose to work in a particular location. Interestingly, the acoustics of a space were consistently selected as a factor, Fig. 10.1 Whole school (N = 110) responses showing who students are working with

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

147

Fig. 10.2 Whole school (N = 110) responses showing how students are spending their time

Fig. 10.3 Whole school (N = 110) responses showing the usage of school spaces

with students opting to work where there was less perceived noise, and where they felt they belonged. Having mapped the whole school data, Fig. 10.5 shows the year group analysis for who students were working with. Within the selected sample of students, it was evident that students who were older more frequently worked on their own. Only lower year students (years 5 and 8) chose to work with specific kaiawhina (teacher aides). While the majority of students in the school chose to work with friends, this

148

W. Imms et al.

Fig. 10.4 Whole school (N = 110) responses showing why students choose to work in their selected location

factor was most frequently selected by year 8 students with year 5 and 11 students more likely to work in a space because of the teacher who was there. Figure 10.6 shows the year group analysis for the item ‘what are you doing?’ Older students were more likely to be working on personal projects. This aligned with the findings of Fig. 10.5 where older students were working more independently. Year 5 students were more likely to be self-exploring, consistent with a play-based pedagogy, although most students in year 5 were consistently participating in teacher-led workshops or activities. Year 8s most frequently selected personal projects, although approximately 25% were attending teacher workshops when they were surveyed. Interestingly, while year 11s mostly worked on their personal projects, nearly 10%

Fig. 10.5 Year group responses showing who students are working with

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

149

of the sampled students also stated they were doing nothing, suggesting these students might have required support on personal learning journeys. Figure 10.7 breaks down the types of spaces students elected to work in. Year 11s worked in a greater range of spaces compared to year 5s or 8s. Most of the year 11s worked in independent spaces, which was similar to the other cohorts. Interestingly, the years 5 and 8 samples more frequently selected to work in more informal spaces such as the café and gym. Figure 10.8 displays the reasons students chose to work in the selected location. Year 5 students were most motivated to choose a space because of the teacher and the sense of belonging they felt in the space. Year 8s were most commonly selecting spaces based on where their friends were and the acoustics of the space. Acoustics were also the predominant factor for year 11 students, although friends and a sense of belonging were important. Interestingly, only year 5 students worked in a specific place because it was compulsory for them to do so, or because they wanted to

Fig. 10.6 Year group responses showing the type of work students are doing

Fig. 10.7 Year group responses showing the spaces students choose to work in

150

W. Imms et al.

Fig. 10.8 Year group responses showing why students choose to work in their selected location

play in the space. These findings were consistent with the school’s pedagogy where students were encouraged to become more independent over time while maintaining a curiosity for learning. As part of this question, we asked students to nominate if there was another reason they chose their location. Year 5 responses to this question were: making movies which is fun, I was bored and drawing, I was having fun, and I’m in Minecraft club (given as a reason by multiple students). Year 8s had a greater percentage of alternate responses, including I can’t be bothered moving (multiple responses), I didn’t need to move so I didn’t, there are less people here, I’m creating a specific presentation, I was comfortable in my seat, I was bored, and I needed to work on a gift as part of my inquiry. Year 11s gave more learning related reasons compared to other groups: I needed specific assessment help, I wanted to do sport, I have credits, I need to get work done, I was in a frisbee workshop, and it was quiet and comfortable.

Research Question 2: How Do Students Feel About Themselves as Learners, in Terms of Haeata’s Seven Disposition Statements? After mapping how students were using Haeata’s learning spaces, research question 2 aimed to explore how the students felt about themselves as learners. Haeata’s seven dispositions were used for the survey instrument, as all students were encouraged to develop these dispositions despite the unique learning journeys students were undertaking. Figure 10.9 shows the whole school responses to the seven dispositions. Students were mostly positive about their development of these dispositions, with 72.1% saying they felt they were responsible and respected others and 71.8% saying they

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

151

Fig. 10.9 Whole school analysis (N = 110) of students’ responses to the seven dispositions

felt they were developing knowledge and skills they need for their future. The lowest agreement was for learning needs (the item ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’), with 60.4% of student’s agreement with this item and 15.3% disagreement. Figure 10.10 isolates the select sample of year 5 responses to the dispositions. The responses showed that of the 86% of year 5s sampled, most felt like they had a good sense of belonging and acted with responsibility and respect. There was very low disagreement with the items ‘I am committed to my learning’ and ‘I am mindful of my influence on others’. However, there was less agreement with ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’ and ‘I am curious about my learning’ suggesting that students desired more specific attention. While the sampling captured less of the year 8 cohort (only 57%), the data from the selected students showed a reluctance to engage with the seven dispositions, as shown in Fig. 10.11. Just over half of the sampled students (58.1%) responded positively to the three items ‘I am committed to my learning’, ‘I am building knowledge or skills that I need for my future’, and ‘I am mindful of my influence on others’. Of the sampled students, the two main issues in relation to dispositions were learning needs ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’ (19.4% disagreement) and ‘I feel like I belong’ (16.1%). The year 11 sample included 62.5% of year 11 cohort. Of the three-year groups, year 11s felt most positive about their development of the seven dispositions

Fig. 10.10 Year 5 analysis of students’ responses to the seven dispositions

152

W. Imms et al.

Fig. 10.11 Year 8 analysis of students’ responses to the seven dispositions

Fig. 10.12 Year 11 analysis of students’ responses to the seven dispositions

(Fig. 10.12). They felt they acted with responsibility and respect (91.4%), and all of the dispositions had over 70% agreement. Similar to the year 8 sample, belonging had the highest disagreement (11.8%).

Research Question 3: What Relationships Exist Between Students’ Choices About Space and Their Feelings About Themselves As Learners? The third research question required a different approach to analysis than questions 1 and 2. While collapsing the learning dispositions data into two categories (negative vs positive responses) made the data more manageable to map for research questions one and two, the conflation of categories resulted in two statistical issues when exploring the relationships between space and the learning dispositions for this research question: (1) the wide variety of spaces available to students and their reasons for working within a particular space resulted in contingency tables that did not meet statistical assumptions for tests of significance as expected cell counts were often lower than 5; and (2) the positive response of students in terms of the seven learning dispositions often resulted in a constant response within a category (i.e.

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

153

100% agreement by all students). Consequently, using tests of significance to isolate which spaces/people/activities/motivations have a relationship with more positive responses to the learning dispositions using the data set was difficult. To overcome these issues, the full Likert scale responses were used for the subsequent research question three analysis. Difference between groups tests was used to determine if there were significant differences on the learning dispositions depending on the following independent variables: • • • •

What space students were in. What activity they were doing. Who they were working with. Why they had chosen to work in their selected space.

Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to determine differences between groups for each independent variable; they are ‘a non-parametric equivalence to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) … [they do not] imply a correlation between variables, nor a causation. The test only finds differences between groups’ (Mat Roni et al., 2020, p. 75). Where the Kruskal–Wallis test determined that there was a difference based on the independent variable, Mann–Whitney U tests were used for post-hoc comparison. A Mann–Whitney U test also looks for difference between groups, but importantly, the groups with a greater mean rank suggest those students have greater agreement with the learning value being tested. Only significant results are reported in this chapter. It should be noted that the number of responses used in this analysis is often less than the full 110 students as there were missing data that prevented matching of characteristics to the seven dispositions.

The Relationship Between Spaces and the Learning Dispositions A Kruskal–Wallis test was initially conducted on the whole school data (N = 108) to investigate the influence of the types of space on the seven learning dispositions. The result showed that types of space did have a significant difference on students’ sense of belonging, their curiosity for learning, and their perception that their learning needs were being met. A statistically significant difference was found for the item ‘I feel like I belong’, H (corrected for ties) = 18.004, df = 9, p = 0.035, with significant differences between: • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 19.50, n = 3) and physical activity spaces (Mean Rank = 10.88, n = 20). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 18.50, n = 3) and teacher workshops (Mean Rank = 10.39, n = 19). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 8.50, n = 3) and visual arts (Mean Rank = 4.21, n = 7).

154

W. Imms et al.

• The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 37.00, n = 3) and the independent spaces (Mean Rank = 20.31, n = 39). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 9.00, n = 3) and the makerspace (Mean Rank = 4.00, n = 7). • Teacher workshops (Mean Rank = 15.95, n = 19) and the makerspace (Mean Rank = 6.86, n = 7). For the item ‘I am curious about my learning’, H (corrected for ties) = 17.547, df = 9, p = 0.041, differences were found between: • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 20.00, n = 3) and physical activity spaces (Mean Rank = 10.80, n = 20). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 8.50, n = 3) and visual arts (Mean Rank = 4.21, n = 7). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 35.50, n = 3) and the independent spaces (Mean Rank = 20.99, n = 40). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 8.50, n = 3) and the makerspace (Mean Rank = 4.21, n = 7). • Independent spaces (Mean Rank = 23.03, n = 40) and the kitchen (Mean Rank = 8.33, n = 3). A significant result was also returned for the item ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’, H (corrected for ties) = 18.314, df = 9, p = 0.032, with differences between: • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 21.50, n = 3) physical activity spaces (Mean Rank = 10.58, n = 20). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 18.50, n = 3) and teacher workshops (Mean Rank = 10.39, n = 19). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 9.00, n = 3) and visual arts (Mean Rank = 4.00, n = 7). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 39.00, n = 3) and independent spaces (Mean Rank = 20.73, n = 40). • The literacy laboratory (Mean Rank = 9.00, n = 3) and the makerspace (Mean Rank = 4.00, n = 7). • Teacher workshops (Mean Rank = 24.21, n = 19) and physical activity spaces (Mean Rank = 16.00, n = 20). From the post-hoc comparisons, it was evident that students in the literacy laboratory space responded more positively on belonging, and curiosity for learning and feeling their learning needs were met compared to many other spaces on offer at Haeata. Yet it is important to note that the literacy lab was only selected by year 5 students and represented a very small sample, so this aspect needs to be treated with caution. Teacher workshops were also a useful space associated with increased belonging and meeting students’ learning needs. Independent spaces were associated with students who had higher curiosity for learning. Both of these spaces were used by students across years 5, 8, and 11.

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

155

The Relationship Between Activities and the Learning Dispositions The whole school data (N = 108) showed that different activity types also resulted in differing responses to the seven learning dispositions. Kruskal–Wallis tests found significant differences for belonging and students’ perception that their learning needs were being met. For the item ‘I feel like I belong’, H (corrected for ties) = 9.115, df = 3, p = 0.028, there was a significant difference between students doing workshops with an adult (Mean Rank = 18.67, n = 26) and students who responded that they were doing nothing (Mean Rank = 10.79, n = 7). Students doing workshops had a greater sense of belonging than those who said they were doing nothing. A significant difference was also found for the item ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’, H (corrected for ties) = 13.793, df = 3, p = 0.003, between: • Personal projects (Mean Rank = 32.33, n = 53) and nothing (Mean Rank = 16.64, n = 7). • Workshops with an adult (Mean Rank = 19.46, n = 26) and nothing (Mean Rank = 7.86, n = 7). • Workshops with an adult (Mean Rank = 28.69, n = 26) and self-exploring (Mean Rank = 18.19, n = 21). Similar to belonging, students who were participating in workshops felt their learning needs were being met to a greater degree than those doing nothing or were engaged in self-exploration activities. Personal projects were also a more positive activity than doing nothing in terms of meeting students’ learning needs, which was expected.

The Relationship Between Who Learners Were Working with and the Learning Dispositions A Kruskal–Wallis test conducted on the whole school data (N = 109) examined the relationship between who learners were working with on the seven learning dispositions. It found that who students were with had an effect on their commitment to learning, their influence on others and their perception that their learning needs were being met. There were differences on the item ‘I am committed to my learning’, H (corrected for ties) = 11.102, df = 3, p = 0.011 for the following groups: • Working with a kaiako (Mean Rank = 56.68, n = 34) and with friends (Mean Rank = 44.63, n = 64). • Working on their own (Mean Rank = 52.63, n = 8) and with friends (Mean Rank = 34.48, n = 64). ‘I am aware of my influence on others’ also produced a significant difference, H (corrected for ties) = 8.647, df = 3, p = 0.034, with students working on their own (Mean Rank = 52.50, n = 8) being more aware of their influence than those working with friends (Mean Rank = 33.90, n = 63).

156

W. Imms et al.

Significance was also found for the item ‘I feel like my learning needs are being met’, H (corrected for ties) = 17.515, df = 3, p = 0.001, with differences between: • Working with a kaiako (Mean Rank = 64.11, n = 35) and with friends (Mean Rank = 42.28, n = 64). • Working on their own (Mean Rank = 52.00, n = 8) and with friends (Mean Rank = 34.56, n = 64). Overall, students working with a kaiako (teacher) felt more committed to their learning and felt their learning needs were being met compared to working with their friends. However, students also responded more positively across the three learning dispositions (commitment, influence, and learning needs) when working on their own compared to working with their friends.

The Relationship Between Reasons for Working in the Space and the Learning Dispositions Students’ reasons for working in a particular space comprised the final analysis of learning environment independent variables against the seven learning dispositions. Again, this testing was conducted on the whole school data (N = 109). Students’ reasons for choosing to work in a certain space had a relationship with their sense of curiosity for learning and their perception that their learning needs were being met. In terms of the item ‘I am curious about my learning’, H (corrected for ties) = 15.492, df = 7, p = 0.03, differences were found between: • Those who were attending a compulsory class (Mean Rank = 31.50, n = 2) and those who were working in the space because of their friends (Mean Rank = 16.06, n = 31). • Those who were working in a space because of the volume of noise (Mean Rank = 36.56, n = 27) and those choosing a space to be with friends (Mean Rank = 23.35, n = 31). A significant difference was also found for the item ‘I feel my learning needs are being met’, H (corrected for ties) = 14.515, df = 7, p = 0.043, between: • Those working in a compulsory class (Mean Rank = 32.50, n = 2) and those choosing a space to be with friends (Mean Rank = 16.00, n = 31). • Those choosing a space because of the kaiako (Mean Rank = 27.50, n = 7) and those choosing a space to be with friends (Mean Rank = 17.69, n = 31). • Those choosing a space because of the volume of noise (Mean Rank = 33.94, n = 27) and those choosing to work with friends (Mean Rank = 25.63, n = 31). Overall, compulsory classes were associated with greater curiosity with learning and learning needs being met when compared to choosing a space based on their friends. Students choosing working spaces based on volume (perceived quietness) also rated more positively on both curiosity and learning needs compared to students

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

157

who selected a space to be with friends. Students who chose to work with a particular teacher also had a better response to their learning needs being met than those choosing spaces to work with their friends. Overall, choosing a space to work with friends resulted in lower scores on the learning dispositions compared to alternative reasons.

What Does This Mean? The findings of Phase 1 show that the sampled students tended to be working in more flexible, open spaces compared to the purpose-built specialist spaces. Of these students, most felt they were working on something productive related to their learning, with only 7% of students responding that they were doing nothing at the time they completed the surveys. It was interesting to note that most students were working with their friends, which aligned with the collaborative approach to learning articulated by Haeata’s spatial learning team. Furthermore, there was evidence that students were able to articulate why they chose a specific space in which to work, with the main three reasons for choosing a particular space being (1) background noise/volume, (2) where their friends were, and (3) a feeling of belonging in the space. From Phase 1 data alone, it was too early to say if particular types of space (literacy laboratory, workshop, physical activity space, etc.) were having more positive associations with the learning dispositions than others. However, there was some positive evidence in terms of the impact of teacher workshops on students, with these being positively associated with belonging and meeting learning needs (in terms of our space analysis and activity analysis). Working with teachers or undertaking independent work was also prominent in terms of supporting students’ commitment and having their learning needs met. Working with friends was associated with lower responses on these dispositions, as well as their influence on others. Choosing a space to work based on noise/volume or to work with a particular teacher also resulted in higher responses to learning needs and curiosity. Similar to the people analysis, choosing a space to work with friends resulted in lower responses on the same dispositions. It was encouraging to see that most of the students in the sample responded positively to the learning disposition items, giving some initial evidence of the impact of Haeata’s Learning Design. Of the sampled students, there were some aberrant findings for the year 8 cohort, with these students having a greater ‘neutral’ response to the learning dispositions compared to the year 5 and 11 cohorts. This finding could be attributable to several factors and requires further investigation.

158

W. Imms et al.

Conclusions: What Are the Key Takeaways? The Haeata spatial learning team planned to develop and implement in 2020 a refined version of the 2019 research considering some emergent questions and issues such as: • Was the sample from 2019 enough to make definitive claims from the data? The spatial learning team felt the research protocol was working well in terms of mapping students’ use of the space, but they felt a greater proportion of the population was required as part of the mapping exercise. • Why were the year 8 responses to the learning dispositions less positive than the other cohorts? The spatial learning team were unpacking these findings with the staff, especially the discrepancy between the year 8 and 11 cohorts as these students work within the same Hapori and access the same classes. They were considering if the change was a result of: • A function of their developmental stage and adolescence; • A feature of prioritised relationships; and/or • An outcome of the school’s learning programmes. • What choices are students making when undertaking their personal projects? As personal projects are a large part of Haeata’s learning programmes, where and who students choose to work with were of interest to the staff. How they could enhance this learning was a focus for the staff. The advent of COVID-19 placed a pause on Haeata’s Phase 2 aspirations. Phase 1 data provided solid findings that continue to inform its evolving pedagogic approaches regarding spaces, namely: • Students tended to be working in more flexible, open spaces compared to the purpose-built specialist spaces. • Most students were working with their friends, which aligned with the collaborative approach to learning outlined by the school. But there was some evidence that being with friends resulted in lower commitment to learning. • The main reasons students choose a particular space to work were: (1) background noise/volume, (2) where their friends were, and (3) a feeling of belonging in the space. • Participating in teacher-led workshops improved student belonging and made students feel their learning needs were being met. • Teachers were having a positive influence at Haeata, with teachers improving students’ commitment to learning, meeting their learning needs, improving belonging, and encouraging curiosity.

10 The Haeata Story: Maintaining School-Based Research in a Rapidly …

159

References Anytime Anywhere Learning. (2023). Anytime anywhere learning framework. https://aalf.org Atkin, J. (2023). Learning by design. http://www.learning-by-design.com/ Big Questions Institute. (2023). Big questions institute: Helping leaders design the future through inquiry. https://bigquestions.institute Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. ASCD. Perkins, D., & Tishman, S. (2006). Learning that matters. Project Zero. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ resources/learning-that-matters Mat Roni, S., Merga, M. K., & Morris, J. E. (2020). Conducting quantitative research in education. Springer.

Chapter 11

Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build Natalie Sunner, Mick Martin, Wesley Imms, and Julia E. Morris

Abstract Many schools and architects aspire to ‘bring teachers along for the journey’ as they conceptualise, build, and occupy a new teaching and learning facility. The expectation is that collaboration during these stages will build greater uptake of teachers using the new spaces innovatively, because being part of their design lets them consider how they represent a visible culture of learning. The difficulty lies in how to do this well in a regional school context, where resourcing and staffing are impacted by geographical and economic constraints not always as present in more urbanised settings. The set of challenges a regional setting creates is worth exploring. This chapter provides one such example; it traces the early stages of a collaboration between a motivated set of teachers in a regional school, an architectural firm keen to involve teacher perspectives from ‘day one’, and an evidence-based programme intended to support and inform this journey from plans to actual pedagogy. It is limited by the fact it can only cover the early stages of this school transformation— at the time of writing, ground is being broken. But much of the hard work in terms of teacher involvement in the design has already been done, and the chapter offers unique insights regarding the creative thinking, or ‘what works’ approach, that helps to set up a productive and profitable collaboration between curriculum leaders, the teachers, the wider school community, the designers, and the researchers who assist in generating rich, largely descriptive, evaluative data. As well, this chapter covers several strategies Whitsunday Anglican School (WAS) actioned, all of which were aimed at advancing their design and build, commensurate with teachers using this growing knowledge to re-imagine pedagogies that may occur in the new spaces to focus on deep learning. While still in progress, the chapter reflects on the successes and shortfalls of activities conducted to date, and hypothesises further tasks. This provides one

N. Sunner (B) · M. Martin Whitsunday Anglican School, Beaconsfield, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] W. Imms · J. E. Morris University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia J. E. Morris Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_11

161

162

N. Sunner et al.

blueprint of a ‘whole-staff’ journey towards designing and implementing innovative learning environments to maximise deep learning.

Introduction: What is Our Learning Spaces Challenge? Whitsunday Anglican School (WAS) is a Kindergarten to Year 12 (K-12) independent School situated in the regional Queensland city of Mackay, Australia. The vision is for WAS to be the best regional co-educational K-12 School in Australia through a culture of research and innovation: Our broad liberal education inspires our boys and girls to develop their character, as we nurture their intellect, creativity, physical, spiritual and emotional wellbeing, where they can move confidently into the global community, using their gifts to humbly serve others.

Through a philosophy of visible learning and a pursuit of excellence, WAS seeks to ensure that its students are not disadvantaged due to their regionality or their individual circumstance. This aligns with the Education Council’s Alice Spring’s (Mparntwe) Education Declaration to support every student to be the very best they can be, no matter where they live or what kind of learning challenges they may face (2019). This is reflected through their vision of Strong Foundations—Bright Futures. WAS has a current enrolment of approximately 840 students and an aspirational enrolment target of 900. It has a staff of 63 across all core curriculum and ancillary specialist staff for both Junior School and Senior School campuses in the areas of European and Asian Languages, Mathematics, Science, Business, Humanities, the Arts, together with Athletic Development and Physical Education. Seventy-seven per cent of WAS staff have taught at the school for more than 3 years; retention of staff runs at around 88% per year, indicating a stable, skilled workforce. Like all regional schools in Queensland, WAS is facing several operational challenges into the future. One significant challenge is the risk of under-enrolment due to a regional transient workforce dependent on international commodity markets. Another complexity is the development of other nearby schools that have the capacity to keep fees lower than WAS (an independent school) can manage. It is meeting these geographic and economic challenges by first re-imagining the vision of its curriculum to directly address the needs of 21st-century graduates; and secondly through upgrading its facilities to assist implementation of key policy decisions aimed at making our graduates globally competitive. The School anticipates that their P2P project will create evidence that solidifies and maximises these initiatives. A critical review of WAS’s curriculum, teaching, and learning programmes identified that there was no whole-school pedagogical Framework, or a Master Plan to sustain innovative learning environments. Indeed, one of the policy initiatives mentioned earlier aims at addressing teacher training in the use of physical environments to improve the quality of teaching and learning through research and evidence-driven innovative building design for schools.

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

163

Our P2P project provides an immersive school improvement solution for WAS to facilitate teacher spatial competencies to better understand spatial innovation for learning. Engaging in a programme of research effectively operationalises a key driver of the school’s new Strategic Intent, Excellence in 21st Century Teaching and Learning to establish a researched and evidence-based curriculum and pedagogical framework from Kindergarten to Year 12. Established in 1988, WAS covers a 10.8-hectare suburban site. Given the absence of an effective Master Plan, there is no obvious ‘grammar’ to how the basic residential style double brick/tin roof constructions have been allocated to the site. Its classrooms have minimal height ceilings and basic ‘fit outs’ organised across a traditional, cellular classroom layout. There are few internal corridors, most access points are via external doors to large verandas or covered outdoor areas to accommodate monsoonal weather and the heat of a tropical climate. The teaching and learning programmes have historically been designed to reflect this traditional inspired learning environment, with limited use of adaptive affordances, or “…action possibilities for deep learning…”, to improve visible learning and spatial literacy (Young et al., 2020, p. 693). The critical review of WAS’s approach to teaching and learning programmes and the well-entrenched use of traditional closed classrooms signalled a need for further research and a paradigmatic shift in the School’s educational programme (Imms et al., 2017). WAS’s Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) research project aims were developed from the following aspirations: • Continue building ‘core’ knowledge skills: the School needs to continue to excel at developing the exemplary student skills and knowledge relevant to each subject discipline across all subjects. • Accelerate the ‘soft’ learning skills needed in future graduates: the School must increase their focus on the 21st-century learning skills that are becoming the hallmark of future career pathways—building critical and creative thinkers adept at communication and collaboration with colleagues. • Actively focus on supporting deep learning: deep learning attributes, defined well in Murphy (2021), bring to the fore the concept of cross-disciplinary learning—by that it is meant the recognition and use of bodies of knowledge from all subjects used expeditiously in seeking innovative solutions. • Use buildings as teaching tools: the new Master Plan includes a new Resource Science and Design Centre that provides opportunities to re-consider what is taught and how it is delivered, to diversify learning and create unique pedagogic opportunities. For example, this current development will involve Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) as an effective and allencompassing collaboration between the subjects it houses and has the capacity to build in new graduates the recognition that all knowledge is to be valued and utilised wherever possible. • Elevate ‘the other’ knowledge skills: our school excels in discipline-focused examinable knowledge development. The new building allows teachers to emphasise that divergent thinking skills partners convergent skills as a mechanism to achieve

164

N. Sunner et al.

innovative solutions. The School wishes to develop in academic staff the realisation that learning never stops, that pathways through life are determined by one’s capacity to think deeply and laterally in the pursuit of knowledge. This research project aims to create agentive teachers who feel they have the power to use the new spaces to be innovative in the learning opportunities they create; to assist teachers refine the mind frames needed to use spaces to improve learning. To address these aspirations within the P2P initiative, the following research question was proposed: To extend WAS’s perceived key attribute of being an academic school of excellence, how can ILEs be used to support improvements in student deep learning and teachers’ mastery of mind frames?

The Literature: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know? This qualitative research project seeks to address teacher inconsistency in using evidence to critically reflect on their pedagogy and the impact of their classroom design choices on student learning. The theoretical framing for the project is underpinned by the work of Hattie (2012, 2018) regarding the impact of visible learning. Hattie’s work draws on his meta-synthesis of educational research into student learning outcomes, and provides better understanding on which teaching strategies have been proven over time. His resulting ten ‘teacher mind frames’ form a profile of ‘high-impact’ teaching. These ten characteristics embrace both effective and affective characteristics, and the ‘soft’ skills needed to draw out the best in students. As such, his mind frames create a set of measurable items that supports further research; for example, what educational conditions (e.g. types of learning spaces) correlate to the presence of the 10 mind frames? It is this link The University of Melbourne’s LEaRN has explored (Bradbeer et al., 2019; Imms et al., 2017; Murphy, 2021). They are finding that ILEs capitalise on the relationship between space and pedagogy; they identify teacher ‘spatial competencies’ as a key variable in this better use of spaces. If well designed and used, ILEs constitute a spatio-pedagogical setting for optimal teaching and learning (Young et al., 2019). The WAS P2P spatial learning team believes that to build teacher efficacy and capacity, the School must develop strategies and tools to transition traditional teaching practices and prepare teachers to adapt to ILEs. Mind frames are one structure to support this growth and are aligned with the school’s belief that ‘Talented and committed teachers create with their students, a visible culture of learning. Great teaching changes lives and the greatest teachers change lives through an evaluative mindset’. A central component of this is deep learning, which in its simplest definition is the capacity to move on from surface learning skills that allow quick but often short-lived acquisition of facts for examinations. Deep learning extends this skill into longer-term relevancy. Students learn to use acquired knowledge to link to personal beliefs and experiences, to hypothesise a myriad of additional applications of that knowledge,

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

165

and the like (Mahat et al., 2018). The prevalence of deep learning is embedded in many of the WAS ‘aspirations’ listed previously. Fullan et al. (2018) characterises deep learning ‘climates’ as purposeful and connected to real-world contexts. The 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, align with WAS’s focus on the level of deep learning skills that students need to thrive in the modern world (Fullan, 2013). This thinking now informs a new whole-school pedagogical framework (K-12) as well as the new Resource, Science, and Design build project. If teacher mind frames and student deep learning form critical components of the WAS project, a third is the space itself and the actions of teachers working with architects to embed educational outcomes into the actual design. Without this component, it can be argued that new school building designs are driven by architects, with teachers and students inhabiting them passively (Young et al., 2019). WAS has focused on enhancing spatial affordances during the design phase, where teachers and curriculum leaders actively connect with architects to find an equilibrium in design perception. These connections work to build a taxonomy between architects, the School and teacher mind frames (Hattie & Zierer, 2018). To implement the new pedagogical framework, WAS sought to develop a taxonomy of affordances that differentiated Innovative Learning Environments from traditional learning spaces as a strategy for evolving teacher mind frames. Although each school context is different, the spectrum unifies these as we seek to action possibilities through the deliberate arrangement of spaces, indoor and outdoor, and furnishings, offering a wider range of pedagogical opportunities that have a visible impact on student learning (Young, 2020). The final component is, of course, the students. A student’s sense of connection to his or her learning space is improved through socio-spatial arrangements (Young et al., 2019). This is particularly important in regional Queensland schools with PISA reporting that students in regional schools feel less connected with their schooling environment when compared to their metropolitan peers (AHISA, 2020). This perception of connection has corollary with a higher percentage of students disengaging from classes in regional schools than students in metropolitan schools (AHISA, 2020). From this qualitative research, WAS seeks to achieve an ongoing focus on developing a shared taxonomy of affordances for creating innovative learning environments, to improve each student’s connection with the context of their physical learning environments. Students must have voice in this process, an embodiment of agency of their own learning that includes their conscious and considered use of space. Further, it is anticipated that the process of conceptualising, preparing for, and occupying the new build will correlate to improvements in measures of student deep learning and measures of teacher mind frames. These areas of the literature—teacher mind frames, student deep learning, ILE co-design, and student agency, underpin this P2P project. The comments provided in this section indicate WAS is not starting from scratch, much knowledge on addressing their issue already exists and can be used to structure their method and procedure. If this brief but focused literature informs the research question stated earlier by providing that underpinning, a secondary outcome also exists—the ‘unpacking’ of the primary question through analysis and dissemination of findings back into improved

166

N. Sunner et al.

practices. The School calls this the second ‘trajectory’ of research activity, using findings from this early phase to conceptualise, prepare, and inform teachers occupying the new build. That will be, the School hopes, the focus of subsequent publications.

Methods: How Did We Do It? Overview Our decision was this research would be best approached through an iterative design that was adaptable to the school’s changing situation. This included both the changes brought about by the building programme, but also in terms of practices; WAS’s new pedagogical framework and strategic plan was being implemented during this period, and the P2P project needed a structure that reflected and built on resulting evolving practices. To do this, we believed we needed a year to gather effective baseline data of the current situation, allowing us to use the remaining 2 years of P2P to implement spatial interventions and then evaluate the ‘new’ situation against that baseline. Obviously, any changes in the post-P2P comparison analysis could be attributed to both teacher re-thinking on use of space and changes brought on by the pedagogic framework, but this was deemed appropriate as we were using the ILETC definition of an ILE being the result of both spatial design and pedagogic practice—only when these elements are combined do we have an innovative ‘environment’ (Mahat et al., 2018). Thus, analysis of WAS’s new pedagogic framework practice together with the new physical environment was deemed entirely logical. The iterative approach would allow the spatial learning team and researchers to make strategic decisions about the nature of data to collect in post-baseline years; in this way, future phases of the research could respond to the latest developments in the build and associated teacher practices. It would also ensure we had data about teachers’ practices and perceptions of space before the physical build, with the potential for some aspects of the research to include pre-post measurements that would examine the impact of the new building on student deep learning, teachers’ practices, and teachers’ mind frames. Finally, as Fig. 11.1 illustrates, this approach has the capacity to dovetail into WAS existing teaching and learning initiatives.

Timeline As Table 11.1 illustrates, the project is being conducted in three phases that are mapped around the estimated timeframe of the new STEAM/Resource Centre build. Phase 1 in 2021 establishes baseline data about teachers’ practices and mind frames in their current teaching spaces. With COVID interruptions, Phases 2 and 3 are now

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

167

Fig. 11.1 Embedding P2P research into WAS’s policy initiatives

being co-designed from these baseline Phase 1 data during 2021–2022, with the goal of implementing professional learning during the building schedule of the new centre. That learning is intended to prepare teachers for the move into the new build mid-2023. Phase 3 will then measure similar (post-occupancy) data during 2023–24 that will act as pre- and post-measure. A similar measure will gather data of teachers who do not move and remain in traditional spaces. Table 11.1 Proposed project timeline Term 1

Term 2

2020

Term 3

Term 4

Project admin*

Project conceptualisation, documentation

Phase 1—baseline

Phase 1—baseline

2021

Phase 1—baseline

Phase 1—baseline

2022

Phase 1 analysis

Phase 2—planning Phase 2—professional learning

Phase 2—professional learning

2023

Phase 2—professional learning

Phase 2—professional learning

Phase 3—occupation, post-measures

Phase 3—occupation, post-measures

2024

Phase 3—occupation, post-measures

Phase 3—occupation, post-measures

Project analysis and reporting

Project analysis and reporting

168

N. Sunner et al.

Design The proposed design describes a longitudinal, quasi-experimental, and repeated measures strategy. A ‘baseline gathering’ year and an ‘impact measuring’ year bookmark the intervention period—a year of staff professional learning conducted during the building of the new centre. This gives the school a suite of information about teachers’ practices in a range of learning environments. While this chapter describes all three phases, the project’s COVID-forced extension means here we will report only baseline data. Aiming to collect data with both breadth and depth, the baseline year broadly map teachers’ understandings of space and how they relate to their pedagogies, with depth being collected through targeted single subject research with selected teachers during this year. Table 11.2 ‘fleshes out’ particulars of this overall design.

Variables The research has two key dependent variables, being student deep learning and teacher mind frames. Independent variables include the type of learning environment, differing pedagogies, and the impact of professional learning about ILEs on teacher practice.

Sampling There are two components to this study: (1) getting a broad picture of teachers’ mind frames, pedagogies, and spatial practices and (2) getting a rich understanding of how selected teachers’ practice in ILEs affects student deep learning and teacher mind frames. Consequently, the full School population is the ideal sample for broad mapping activities, while a purposive sample of teachers is better to address the second component. The purposive sample of teachers includes approximately 8 individuals, with the following characteristics: comprise 50% teachers who will eventually be based primarily in the new build, and 50% of teachers who won’t; be inclusive of both Junior and Senior School teachers; teachers willing to volunteer for the study, including having 4 lessons per year observed by a member of the spatial learning team from WAS. Sampling of students for the detailed investigation will be by convenience, that is, timetabled into one of the participating teachers’ classes. In the case of the Junior School teachers, their whole class will be invited to participate. For secondary students, one class for each teacher is to be followed throughout the year.

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

169

Table 11.2 Design and procedure Phase

Research aim

Data collection

Phase 1 (2021): baseline

From a spatial perspective, map teachers’ current understandings of Pedagogies (from the typologies) Teacher mind frames Classroom spaces (from the typologies) Examine select teachers’ practices in the current learning environments, with a specific focus on Student deep learning Teacher mind frames Teacher practices

Mapping of space, pedagogies, and mind frames (Murphy’s version) through a replication of ILETC survey 1 to all school staff Detailed investigation with select teachers across K-12, collecting Student perceptions (student deep learning survey + annotation about their perception of classroom spaces in relation to their learning) Teacher observation using Novum’s LEASA platform with an associated interview to unpack observation data Teacher mind frame survey

Phase 2 (2022–23): teacher professional learning

Examine how we can best prepare teachers and students to use the new build ‘well’, with a specific focus on the areas impacted by the build: Science Maths Resources

Run a series of preparation activities and get staff/student feedback, which may include: Prototyping Selective PD sessions Microcerts developed from ILETC Presentations—ILETC PhDs, selected key topics, student perspectives on using ILEs

Examine if the new spaces are ‘working’, in terms of Meeting the educational vision in the relevant areas Enacting the school’s pedagogical framework Supporting student deep learning Supporting teachers’ mastery of the mind frames

Detailed investigation with select teachers using the new spaces, collecting* Student perceptions (student deep learning survey + annotation about their perception of classroom spaces in relation to their learning) Teacher observation using Novum’s LEASA platform with an associated interview to unpack observation data Teacher mind frame survey Mapping of space, pedagogies, and mind fames through a replication of ILETC survey 1 to all school staff after they have had time using the new build*

Build Build Build Build

Phase 3 (2023–24): occupation

*

These activities may allow for some pre-/post-comparison of teachers’ spatial understandings as they relate to teaching and learning before and after the new build

170

N. Sunner et al.

Data Collection There are several validated tools that have the capacity to support data collection within this study. However, as a K-12 school it would be essential that the tools used could allow data collection from students of varying ages. Consequently, there was a need to adapt some tools or find equivalent data collection methods to ensure valid and reliable data were collected from junior school students. This work was done as part of the project conceptualisation period. The tools used to collect baseline data included: • Teacher Mind Frame Survey: a validated survey that assesses the 10 high-impact mind frames of teachers (Murphy, 2021). • Junior School Learning Approaches Survey: adapted by Morris and Imms for the second phase of the Vasse P2P project in 2021 (Morris & Imms, 2023), this survey includes deep learning items that are reliable for primary-aged students. • Senior School Learning Approaches Survey: Murphy’s (2021) learning engagement questionnaire was used as the base for this survey to measure deep learning through a tool validated for secondary students. • LEASA Observations: A tablet-based observational tool based on Byers et al. (2016) was used to observe teachers’ practices in their existing rooms, with a view to compare these observations to teaching once they had moved into the new building.

Data Analysis The analysis related to each question is detailed below. It was assumed that there would be a high probability of a non-normal distribution of data due to the small sample size for some components of the study (i.e. the focused observations). However, parametric tests were likely if the population data (i.e. student deep learning surveys) were normally distributed. As Phase 1 collected baseline data, the first year of analysis was largely descriptive. In future, difference between groups analysis will be used; however, these will not be used until Phase 2 or 3 when data are to be compared against the baseline.

Findings: What Have We Learned? The findings reported here are specific to Phase 1. The upcoming Phase 2 activities are briefly described at the end of this chapter, but at the time of publication Phase 2 has been planned, implemented but not analysed.

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

171

Student Repeated Measures Survey: Senior School The Senior School repeated measures 16-item ‘Learning Approaches Survey’ was adapted from Murphy (2021) and provided a robust portrait of student predication of key deep learning characteristics, summarised in Table 11.3. It did this through a comparative strategy—deep learning versus surface learning items. During Phase 1 the surveys were run each three weeks, with three iterations for some students and two for others due to interruptions caused by typical school activities. Table 11.3 Deep learning items for senior school Item

Intended factor

Factor 1 (surface)

1. I come to most classes with questions in mind that I want Deep answering

Factor 2 (deep) X

2. As long as I feel I am doing enough to pass, I devote as little time to studying as I can. There are many more interesting things to do

Surface

X

3. I like to be told precisely what to do in assignments

Surface

X

4. I prefer subjects in which I have to learn just facts compared to ones which require a lot of reading and understanding material

Surface

X

5. I see no point in learning material which is not likely to be in the examination

Surface

X

6. I work hard at my studies because I find the material interesting

Deep

X (neg)

7. When I read a textbook, I try to understand what the author means

Deep

X

8. I like to do enough work on a topic so that I can form my Deep own conclusions before I am satisfied

X

9. I find it is not helpful to study topics in depth. You don’t Surface really need to know much in order to get by in most topics

X (neg)

X

X

10. I try to relate what I have learned in one subject to what Deep I learn in other subjects

X

11. I think that teachers shouldn’t expect secondary Surface students to work on topics that are outside the set course

X

12. I like constructing theories to fit odd things together

X

X

X (neg)

X

Deep

13. I try to relate new material, as I am reading it, to what I Deep already know on the topic 14. I feel that nearly any topic can be highly interesting once I get into it

Deep

X

15. I find I can get by in most assessments by memorising key sections rather than trying to understand them

Surface

X

16. I generally restrict my study to what is specifically set as I think it is unnecessary to do anything extra

Surface

X

172

N. Sunner et al.

Reliability of the survey was deemed satisfactory; removal of any items did not improve alpha levels (eight items for deep learning = 0.774; eight items for surface learning = 745). Regarding the Senior School ‘surface learning’ factor, aggregation of all survey responses established a mean score for surface learning on the first occasion (M = 25.56, SE = 0.43) and on the second occasion (M = 25.53, SE = 0.38). A paired t-test showed no significant difference between testing occasions, 0.03, BCa 95% CI [− 1.11, 1.15], t(167) = 0.05, p = 0.958, indicating a stable baseline in terms of surface learning. Similarly, one tailed t-tests on Senior School ‘deep learning’ factors aggregation of all survey responses established a mean score for surface learning on the first occasion (M = 28.72, SE = 0.37) and on the second occasion (M = 28.39, SE = 0.36). A paired t-test showed no significant difference between testing occasions, 0.33, BCa 95% CI [− 0.80, 1.51], t(171) = 0.05, p = 0.557. Like the ‘surface learning’ factor, this indicates a stable baseline in terms of deep learning.

Student Repeated Measures Survey: Junior School As explained, Junior School students required an adapted deep versus surface learning survey as the ‘Learning Approaches Survey’ was designed for older students. Its 16 items were conflated into a shorter tool, and wording was adapted to suit younger participants. Its adapted factor structure (critical and creative thinking, classroom design for learning, and achievement directed learning) was felt to align more closely to WAS Junior School learning priorities. This two-tool approach to measuring surface versus deep learning was seen as appropriate as any postintervention scores two years in future would be applied to Junior and Senior School groups, not to individuals who might have progressed to Senior School during this time. Because of this adaptation, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted (Table 11.4) to ensure it was measuring robustly within a new setting. In essence, this factor analysis confirmed that while the Junior School questionnaire was adjusted, simplified, and realigned (differing factors) the Senior School deep learning survey items, the new questions were aligning satisfactorily with the issues the research question asked them to address. Regarding the Junior School survey scores on ‘Critical and creative thinking’ (a deep learning characteristic), mean scores on the first occasion (M = 23.39, SE = 0.496) and on the second occasion (M = 23.24, SE = 0.450) were consistent. A paired t-test showed no significant difference between testing occasions, 0.15, BCa 95% CI [− 1.06, 1.45], t(78) = 0.249, p = 0.804, indicating a stable baseline in terms of critical and creative thinking. Regarding the Junior School survey scores on ‘Achievement-driven learning’ (indicative of a surface approach preference), mean scores on the first occasion (M = 4.20, SE = 0.229) and on the second occasion (M = 4.30, SE = 0.195) were consistent. A paired t-test showed no significant difference between testing occasions, −

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

173

Table 11.4 Exploratory factor analysis: junior school deep learning survey Factor and description 1 Critical and creative thinking ‘I want my schoolwork to provide me with chances to show that I can overcome problems’

2 Classroom design

3 Assessment-driven learning

0.313

‘I would not take a risk on a class activity if it would spoil my chances of getting good grades at school’

0.743

I am afraid of failing at tests or assessments

0.419

I keep an open mind when learning

0.625

I enjoy thinking about complex problems

0.725

‘I like to come up with new or different solutions 0.729 to a problem, not just the obvious answer’ I enjoy it when learning challenges my thinking

0.841

‘I can easily connect different ideas when learning’

0.591

‘The design of my classroom helps me to work effectively with other students’

0.805

The design of my classroom helps me to solve problems outside my comfort zone

0.707

‘The furniture in my classroom helps me to try a range of solutions when working out problems’

0.655

0.10, BCa 95% CI [− 0.65, 0.39], t(78) = − 0.373, p = 0.710, indicating a stable baseline in terms of achievement-driven learning. Regarding the Junior School scores on ‘Classroom design to support learning’ (using the classroom to drive deep learning behaviours), mean scores on the first occasion (M = 10.59, SE = 0.325) and on the second occasion (M = 10.24, SE = 0.273) were consistent. A paired t-test showed no significant difference between testing occasions, 0.35, BCa 95% CI [− 0.46, 1.18], t(78) = 0.801, p = 0.425, indicating a stable baseline in terms of classroom design to support learning. While these data are complex, the key point was that in terms of deep and superficial learning, the WAS P2P project had a stable baseline score across both Senior and Junior Schools and achieved this across two tools that covered the same items but adjusted for these age groups.

174

N. Sunner et al.

Teacher Observations Results from the Teacher Observations using the LEASA tool during this baseline Phase require no analysis. Their task is simply to establish a profile of what the volunteer teachers are doing in their spaces during certain lessons. Because of this, we will only report an aggregated ‘whole-school’ summary (all teachers, and both Junior and Secondary School) of those teaching characteristics across four measures. These have been split into Term 2 and Term 3 summaries, and a full-year rating—the left-hand column. In terms of their teaching ‘mode’ shown in Fig. 11.2, teacher and student-centred approaches remained even in relation to each other and constant across the terms. Less structured (informal) teaching approaches were few, and no teaching was conducted outside the classroom. In terms of teaching styles, shown in Fig. 11.3, direct (or ‘chalk and talk’) approaches were common, roughly equal to interactive (teacher-focused instruction but utilising prompts). Facilitating learning through question-and-answer strategies and providing students with feedback on their participation and outputs was also strong. Class discussion was infrequent. Of interest was the difference between Term 2 and Term 3 scores on several the items, indicating a move later in the year towards more active student engagement, except for class discussion. In terms of how teachers used intra-class ‘communities’, shown in Fig. 11.4, a consistent trend of teacher-to-individual-student instruction remained consistent across the two terms. Breaking the class into smaller groups was not a strong feature, but it did increase into Term 2. ‘Whole-class’ instruction remained the predominant approach. In terms of the types of activities being generated by the teacher, shown in Fig. 11.5, the consistent trend was ‘applied’ learning—that is, facts being taught then transmitted into practical applications. More lateral applications of this

Fig. 11.2 Aggregated teacher observations: observed teaching mode

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

175

Fig. 11.3 Aggregated teacher observations: observed pedagogies

Fig. 11.4 Aggregated teacher observations: observed learning communities

learning (‘creative activities’) were not common; picture mapping, creating models, illustrating learning through exhibition, and the like did not change. As mentioned, these observations were not a judgement, rather they were a ‘mapping’ of what was occurring in the selected classrooms during lessons taught by certain teachers. They cannot be seen as typical of all classes in all subjects across all levels, but in terms of a baseline, the sampling will select similar situations during the post-project stage (Phase 3) to provide a before-and-after analysis of how these teachers were choosing to instruct in two differing learning environments.

176

N. Sunner et al.

Teacher Mind Frame Surveys The teacher mind frame survey was only conducted on one occasion (as a pre-test). Its data will be compared to a repeat survey at the end of Phase 3 to determine what changes on these measures have occurred. However, being a validated instrument used in other studies, it is possible to compare WAS data to a broader pool of teachers. Murphy’s (2021) Australian study has been used to contextualise the data received from WAS teachers. The Murphy data are useful in that it gathered responses from ‘traditional spaces’ teachers (n = 49) and ‘ILE’ teachers (n = 44), the assumption being WAS data (n = 25) should compare to the former. Table 11.5 shows that WAS teachers’ mind frames scores were already very high—the overall mean score was higher than both the ILE and traditional groups in Murphy’s study. However, the data point to areas that can be improved to further enhance midframes, including: • Engaging in dialogue, not monologue; and • Collaborating with teacher peers. These are of interest, as they correspond to the teacher observations that show the observed WAS pedagogies err towards teacher-centric, facilitated instruction.

Fig. 11.5 Aggregated teacher observations: observed learning activities

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

177

Table 11.5 Summary of teacher mind frame scores, WAS compared to Murphy (2021) WAS mean (n = 25) WAS std. dev. Murphy mean Murphy std. dev. I focus on learning and the language of learning

17.92

3.24

I see assessment as 21.88 informing my impact and next steps

4.07

I build relationships and trust

17.12

2.70

I engage in dialogue as much as monologue

17.96

2.54

I am an evaluator of my impact

17.16

I am a change agent

18.28

2.70 3.18

I collaborate with my 17.96 peers

2.30

I give and help students understand feedback

24.88

3.24

General (overall score)

153.16

15.03

Innov. 18.93

3.09

Trad. 17.06

2.61

Innov. 21.39

3.92

Trad. 20.50

3.76

Innov. 17.14

2.63

Trad. 16.76

2.30

Innov. 20.64

2.71

Trad. 18.57

3.00

Innov. 16.05

2.98

Trad. 16.22

3.25

Innov. 19.05

3.58

Trad. 17.35

4.19

Innov. 19.23

3.50

Trad. 17.92

2.67

Innov. 25.07

3.59

Trad. 24.27

3.17

Innov. 138.43

16.88

Trad. 131.35

14.82

Conclusions: What Are the Key Takeaways? The critical points from Phase 1 are as follows: The research team was able to document the needs and aspiration of the school and developed a coherent three-phase research plan to evaluate the impact of the new building on these aspirations. This plan arguably allows for pre- and post-build comparisons of: • Levels of student deep learning; • Teacher ‘beliefs’ (mind frames); and • Teacher practices (observation of pedagogies). The baseline data are proving stable—it will allow for valid comparison to similar post-project data. Importantly, it shows that WAS is coming from a position of strength in relation to teachers’ beliefs they can have high impact and in beginning to encourage deep learning attributes in its learners. Where there are outliers in the data (e.g. teachers feeling as though they engage in more monologue than dialogue), these data can help

178

N. Sunner et al.

the school’s spatial learning team to design professional learning interventions that are relevant to their context and well timed in terms of the school’s journey towards re-imagining how they use space effectively to drive their vision.

What Comes Next? Phase 1 is now complete. Phase 2 then focused on the interventions. These comprised a suite of ILE professional development modules developed by the LEaRN team, summarised below: • Module 1: Archipelago of Possibilities and the Teacher Transition Pathway: These aim to help teachers discover what it is important to them in terms of their teaching, and what factors they may need to consider as they prepare to transition to more flexible environments. • Module 2: ILEs and Student Learning and Don’t Just Stuff It: These look at how students use space to access deep learning and help teachers to visualise how classrooms might be arranged to support this type of learning. • Module 3: ILEs and Teacher Practices and ILE Typologies: This module is about teacher practices—what are the spatial barriers to teaching well in ILEs and how can we develop a common language around ILE characteristics? • Module 4: A Day in the Life of a Student: This activity maps a students’ routines in their learning environment to start to visualise how we can adjust teaching to accommodate individual needs and maximise use of spaces. These four modules were undertaken by the eight volunteer teachers who were observed teaching during Phase 2. They allowed teachers opportunity to envisage pedagogies made possible by the new spaces. Pre- and post-intervention analysis (Phase 3) of the eight volunteer teachers and the rest of the staff will identify what architectural qualities resonate with teachers’ perceptions of ‘ideal’ teaching and which correlate to changes in teacher mind frames and student deep learning. The overall analysis will provide data that informs WAS future building developments.

References AHISA. (2020). PISA 2018 characteristics of Australian students and schools: Sector differences. Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2019). A systematic review of the effects of innovative learning environments on teacher mind frames. University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. In B. Cleveland, H. Mitcheltree, & W. Imms (Eds.), What’s working? 2016: Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environmental evaluation, 77–87.

11 Creating a Whole-Staff Approach to a New Build

179

Education Council. (2019). The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. https://www. dese.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntweeducation-declaration Fullan., M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. Pear Press. Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change the world. Corwin. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning. Routledge. Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2018). 10 mindframes for visible learning: Teaching for success. Routledge. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools: ILETC Survey 1. https://www.researchgate.net/public ation/318723858_Type_and_Use_of_Innovative_Learning_Environments_in_Australasian_ Schools_ILETC_Survey_1 Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www. iletc.com.au/publications/reports Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2023). Plans to pedagogy activity report phase two: What impact does ‘innovative’ furniture have on student engagement and teacher practices? Edith Cowan University. Murphy, D. (2021). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne. http://hdl.han dle.net/11343/290169 Young, F. (2020). Learning environment affordances: Bridging the gap between potential, perception and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne. http://hdl.han dle.net/11343/271824 Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2019). The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: Educators’ and architects’ perceptions. Australian Educational Research, 47, 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-

Chapter 12

A Synthesis of Findings and Trends from Nine Teacher-Initiated Learning Environment Research Projects Wesley Imms and Julia E. Morris

Abstract Plans to Pedagogy supported nine school-initiated research projects, each addressing the participating school’s most pressing ILE needs. This is a unique representation of school types and circumstances—they came from two countries, from rural, regional and urban settings, low to high socioeconomic groups, secular and non-secular orientations, single and co-educational populations and a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. This diversity suggests the topics they choose to study are a valuable representation of what ILE issues schools are facing at present and at the ‘coalface’. This chapter summarises the topics that were chosen, the method that was used to address these topics and their findings. A synthesis of this information is viewed from the perspective of broader discourse analysis. This review highlights that the topics chosen—while unique to each school—carry strong commonalities. More specifically, the findings are common to those identified within international research into ILEs.

A Summary of the Findings and Approaches MacKillop Catholic College MacKillop Catholic College was concerned that their ILEs were proving effective but were not being fully utilised by the whole staff. Their intention was to explore how to leverage isolated good practices across the wider teaching staff. The strategy they used was using ‘exemplar’ teaching programmes to help other teachers consider ILE possibilities for more student-centred learning. This involved

W. Imms (B) · J. E. Morris University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Morris Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_12

181

182

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

them focusing on ‘mutuality’—those instances where innovative teaching practices supported students’ self-regulated learning, as well as where students’ learning approaches informed improved teaching practices. In essence, this was an ‘exemplar’ project that used school-generated evaluations of ILE practices that ‘work’, with the aim of influencing ongoing change in the school’s culture of teaching. It was a case study in its design. Chapter 3 describes their findings, in summary as follows: (1) The intention of an ‘osmosis effect’ across the school (whereby other teachers observed and recognised the benefits of ILEs from these examples and modified their own pedagogies) was not achieved (although the short timeframe was a mitigating factor). The project noted a continued reluctance by some teachers to adopt some of these strategies. However, positive effects were also noted. (2) The findings stated that while formalised professional learning was beneficial, of greater impact on teacher transition to ILEs was the informal learning and peer support that developed through the exemplar exercises and ongoing conversations. (3) The MacKillop project also identified that a characteristic of ‘good’ use of ILEs was the gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the student. (4) The development of the exemplars demonstrated that teacher ‘intuition’ works—with time and support, teachers have an innate sense of what can work to support students’ learning in ILEs.

Methodist Ladies College MLC wished to ensure their well-established ‘key principles’ learning approach transferred (and would be enriched) through occupation of a new and substantial ILE facility. Their strategy was to observe and articulate the suite of ‘pedagogic encounters’ that had worked so well in the past and to transfer them to the more flexible teaching approaches made possible by the new development. This involved a group of teachers collectively agreeing on good pedagogic practices, mapping where and how these occurred in the traditional and the ILE setting, identifying the impact of the spaces on these practices and disseminating what they learned to the wider school teaching community. In essence, this was a ‘transition’ project, transferring (and refining) already good practices into an ILE setting. This was a case study in its design. What they found was: (1) Many good practices already exist, but these need contextualising in ILE environments. (2) A suite of six common ‘pedagogic’ encounters could be identified, and these could be linked to certain elements of physical settings—including the affordances provided by those settings. (3) Teachers valued the variety of opportunities diverse settings and affordances offered students. (4) While the learning situations varied across spaces within the new ILE build, what was common were student actions that mirrored the school’s key principles. (5) It was possible to classify many pedagogic actions and from them create common strategies. ‘Good’ practices differed teacher to teacher, but commonalities linked many of these together.

12 A Synthesis of Findings and Trends from Nine Teacher-Initiated …

183

Newmarket Primary School Newmarket were seeking data to determine how to use the school’s new (vertical) flexible spaces to encourage effective collaborative teaching and bring an enhanced ‘research-culture’ to teaching at the school. The strategy was to compare collaborative teaching approaches in a traditional classroom adapted for shared teaching with the new ILE, to identify common characteristics and to use these data to develop wholeschool professional learning. This involved using three methods to map actions and to build teacher skills in analysis of ‘in-house data’; interviews, observations and stopmotion videos. In essence, this was a ‘professional learning’ project, using existing good practices to underpin or guide, future changes in teaching practices. It was a case study in its design. What they found was that: (1) initially in the ILEs teachers mostly directed space use, but more balanced decision-making between students and teachers was seen over time. (2) The ILEs provided greater student agency, greater ‘flow’ between spaces and increased opportunity for effective collaborative teaching practices. (3) Opinions about ILEs were not consistent across all teachers; constraints included the disruption open spaces created for others and flexibility issues—the need to adhere to agreed teaching actions. (4) ILEs required the development of a shared understanding of goals and a need for teachers to develop ‘ownership’ and agency in ILE spaces despite their intention for multiple participants. (5) Good transition meant teachers acknowledging the risk ILEs placed on their classroom autonomy, but also using this knowledge to reframe what is ‘teaching’. (6) Leadership in schools is needed to create a culture of addressing risk and encouraging the consequent experimentation and reflection this created for teachers.

Luther College Luther College described their efforts to gather data on their teachers’ adaptation to a new ILE. Specifically, they wished to know what ILE professional learning had best effect, if this fostered teachers ‘spatial self-agency’, and if so, the degree to which this was sustainable. Their original strategy was to have a control and an intervention group but that proved unfeasible; instead, they focused on mapping teachers’ pedagogic developments over time using a repeated measures approach. This involved interviews and multiple observations of teachers ‘before and after’ occupying the new ILE; analysis was of changes in practices. In essence, this was a ‘mapping’ project, building evidence of how teachers intuitively re-conceptualised their teaching influenced by special arrangements and professional learning. It began as a quasi-experimental design but evolved into a case study design. What they found was that (1) early attitudes to preferred spaces tended towards traditional spaces with limited flexibility, but that teachers felt both fully open learning spaces and fully traditional spaces could impede good pedagogy. (2) The

184

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

time needed for teachers to adapt to more flexible learning environments was surprisingly quick, with the exception of fully open-plan spaces. (3) ‘Good’ teaching practices existed in previous traditional spaces, and it took little time for these to transfer to more flexible spaces. (4) Teachers used evidence of impact to refine practices; this spoke to issues of ‘sustainability’.

Henschke Catholic Primary School Henschke realised that despite a limited facilities budget, they could still utilise modest spatial changes to help develop quality teaching practices; their motivation was to see how this impacted student deep learning. As described in Chap. 7, their strategy was to implement a spatial-use professional learning exercise to see if this assisted more student-centred teaching practices. This involved using a control and an intervention group where only the intervention group received professional learning sessions and then an assessment of the professional learning impact through (a) a prepost survey and (b) repeated measure observations of teacher practices. In essence, this was a ‘professional learning’ project. It was quasi-experimental in its design. What they found was: (1) the professional learning strategies did increase teacher actions aimed at student self-regulated learning. (2) Teacher ratings of Hattie’s ‘highimpact teaching strategies’ increased for the professional learning group. (3) The professional learning programme, in conjunction with more flexible learning spaces, resulted in a significant increase in student deep learning.

Radford College Radford College recognised that staff were teaching differently in their newer more flexible spaces and wanted data to support their belief that collaborative teaching in flexible spaces benefitted their concept of a ‘Radford Learner’. Their strategy involved teacher action research driven by ILE professional learning. This involved using ILEs and furniture arrangements to target those pedagogies that focused on developing student deep learning. In essence, this was a ‘professional learning’ project, with an ‘impact of furniture’ aspect. It was quasi-experimental in its design. Their findings included: (1) improvements in ‘deep learning’ items within the larger student learning traits measurement tool, but no overall improvement. (2) Improvements in measurements of high-impact teaching (Hattie’s mind frames). (3) ‘Didactic’ or direct teaching increased. (4) Some teachers and students exhibited some resistance to more flexible learning, arguably due to well-entrenched school practices. (5) Change is slow in occurring in ‘successful’ schools like Radford, but an openness to exploring possibilities was evident.

12 A Synthesis of Findings and Trends from Nine Teacher-Initiated …

185

Vasse Primary School Vasse Primary School needed data to support a general perception that their use of innovative furniture positively impacted student engagement. This involved a repeated measures design across three terms, where furniture was removed then replaced. It kept all other variables controlled to ensure that any changes to student engagement or teacher practice was a result of the furniture. In essence this was an ‘impact of furniture’ project. It was quasi-experimental in its design. What they found was: (1) student levels of engagement did not change between the traditional furniture and flexible furniture arrangements. (2) Teachers believed that to maintain high levels of engagement, they worked significantly harder in the traditional arrangement than was required in the flexible furniture arrangement. (3) Students expressed definite opinions about what furniture they preferred. (4) Students believed their learning improved when they had choice of furniture.

Haeata Community Campus Haeata operated a very open timetabling strategy and wanted to know how students were using this freedom spatially. As described in Chap. 10, their very diverse and challenged student population needed a structure that allowed development of their learning dispositions. The strategy was to find out where students chose to work, with whom and why? This involved a repeated measures survey administered by teachers with students in years 5, 8 and 11. In essence this was a ‘mapping’ project. It was a descriptive statistical study in its design. What they found was: (1) students preferred to work in more flexible spaces, compared to specialist studios. (2) Flexible working spaces resulted in productive work as opposed to social interactions. (3) They preferred spaces that had less background noise and a sense of collaborative belonging. (4) A correlation existed between working in preferred spaces, meeting learning needs and developing levels of curiosity.

Whitsundays Anglican School Whitsunday Anglican School (WAS) was embarking on a rare infrastructure development and wished to evaluate its impact on student deep learning and teaching practices. Their strategy was to run a three-year programme to gather baseline data prior to the new build, use the build year for professional learning of selected staff and then on inhabitation, re-tested participants to see if the professional learning improved teachers’ use of spaces. They were specifically interested in how the professional learning and new building might shape teacher mind frames and promote student

186

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

deep learning. This involved a widespread survey and teacher observations in year one, in-depth teacher professional learning in year two and repeat survey and observations in year three. In essence, this was a ‘mapping’ project, but with a strong ‘professional learning’ element. It was quasi-experimental in its design overall, but with Phase 1 data using a descriptive statistical design. What they found, after completion of the first year of data collection (WAS began P2P later than the other schools), was: (1) The Senior School student deep learning survey established a consistent and thus robust baseline. (2) An adapted Junior School deep learning survey to address the younger cohort was validated. This measure also established a consistent and thus robust baseline. (3) The baseline teacher observations using the LEASA tool established a tendency for WAS staff to engage in direct instruction, with lower-than-average levels of student-centred pedagogies. (4) WAS teachers were less likely to engage (or be comfortable) engaging in collaborative teaching activities compared to other Australian teachers. However, this is an ongoing study—the other measures collected will only have relevance in the third year analysis, once teachers have inhabited the new building.

Trends in the P2P Project Findings In terms of P2P school project themes, four were ‘professional learning’, one was an ‘exemplar’ project in that it sought to isolate good practices into the wider school community, and one was a ‘transition’ project that supported ongoing school evolution into ILEs. Three were ‘mapping’ exercises that sought better understanding of what was occurring, and two were ‘impact of furniture’ projects that wanted to isolate and understand one variable among the many ILE issues that faced them.

The Chosen Topics and Methods Matched Schools’ Positions on an ILE ‘Journey’. Each of these projects illustrates schools occupying different stages of a journey (Imms & Mahat, 2020). The ‘mapping’ study schools were unsure what was occurring and needed that baseline information for future development. The ‘exemplar’ approach recognised good but isolated progress and wanted data to support ongoing spread of those good practices. The ‘professional learning’ projects occurred in schools at the stage of helping teachers refine practices, and the ‘transition’ project examined a unique stage of helping teachers move practice from one space to another. The ‘impact of furniture’ projects occurred in schools with established levels of success and a need to go further, to understand nuances of that success by using evidence.

12 A Synthesis of Findings and Trends from Nine Teacher-Initiated …

187

Of the nine P2P projects described in this book, four were case studies, four were quasi-experimental designs, and two used descriptive statistical designs. It was no surprise the latter were used in schools very much at the start of their ILE explorations (i.e. Whitsunday Anglican School and Haeata Community Campus); this method provided baseline data to audit their existing situation and to refine and support more focused ongoing enquiries. Case studies, by their very nature, describe isolated examples and do not attempt generalisability. They allow a school to ‘unpack’ what exists; these tended to be used in schools wanting more information on progress with their ILE strategies, those schools needing a localised but holistic view of ILE issues that spoke to staff (e.g. Methodist Ladies College, MacKillop Catholic College, Newmarket Primary School). Quasi-experimental designs provide precise information on well-defined topics. In P2P they occurred in schools that had already made ILE progress and were at a position of needing in-depth information on a specific ILE issue (e.g. Vasse Primary School and Radford College). Each of these methods serves a particular purpose, and it is worth noting the maturity of the schools’ teams in choosing an approach that reflected an understanding of who they wanted their results to speak to—colleagues, the school community and/or broader education audiences.

P2P Mirrors Larger Discourse Analysis This analysis of the P2P foci is important. Its identification of a small range of self-selected topics or issues by schools echoes findings from much large discourse analysis. The OECD (2013) have maintained a policy focus on teacher development over design, of matching student learning to spaces and of keeping what could be a mass of complex issues simple using sound definition analysis—qualities consistent with the P2P schools. In a more focused analysis, the Innovative Learning Environments and Student Experience (ILE + SE) Scoping Study (Imms et al., 2023) spent a year in conversation with over 250 world ILE experts asking what research is needed. That research identified four themes: design issues, teaching and learning issues, student health and well-being issues, and education and school systems issues. While these themes consisted of 20 topics, further examination by this international expert group narrowed those of importance to a small number; the need for proof regarding the impact of school design on affective and effective learning outcomes; the need to understand student engagement in ILEs; the need to understand how ILEs designs impact student experiences; and the need for knowledge about how ILEs impact student inclusivity health and well-being. An argument can be made that P2P’s ‘coalface’ issues are subsumed within these research foci. Importantly, while each project was unique with differing intentions and methods, this summary chapter highlights that Plans to Pedagogy, like international projects, has found that educators consistently focus on a few critical issues.

188

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

P2P Findings on Some of These ‘Core’ Issues. The common findings can be summarised as follows: • ILEs facilitate student agency (e.g. MLC, Newmarket, Vasse, Haeata). • Student-centred teaching strategies are harder to implement in traditional classroom settings (e.g. Luther, Vasse, Radford, WAS). • Deep learning occurs more readily in ILEs (e.g. Henschke, Vasse, Radford). • While formal professional learning is good, informal learning from peers is equally effective (e.g. MacKillop, Henschke, Radford). • Teachers are ‘already doing it’—many good practices exist, and programmes like P2P help teachers build an ILE context for their strong pedagogies (e.g. MacKillop, Luther, MLC). • ILE principles link easily to existing school-developed pedagogic strategies (e.g. MLC, WAS, Radford, Vasse). • Not all teachers agree on the benefits of ILEs, and diverse transition pathways are needed to meet teachers’ needs (e.g. Luther, Newmarket, Radford). • Change is mostly gradual (e.g. Newmarket, MLC, Vasse, Haeata). • Leadership has a direct impact on successful use of ILEs (e.g. Newmarket, Vasse, Henschke). Plans to Pedagogy offers a positive commentary on school-focused and run ILE research. It is noteworthy that busy teachers in schools identify similar ILE issues as large-scale international cross-sector world experts. This is encouraging—it speaks of a maturing dialogue in ILEs, where good thinking is identifying a few key issues, as compared to pursuing a myriad of unconnected issues. While the P2P projects are each small in scale, as singular examples with limited generalisability, this analysis supports the view that each contribute to a larger, focused conversation. The P2P projects illustrate a commonality between teachers working hard in schools to find out how spaces can impact student learning and large bodies like OECD who pursue policies that will impact this in future.

References Imms, W., & Mahat, M. (2020). Fourteen factors impacting teacher transition to innovative learning environments. In W. Imms & T. Kvan, (Eds.), Transition of teachers into innovative learning environments: A global perspective. Springer. Imms, W., Morris, J., Bradbeer, C., & Mahat, M. (2023). What should be the focus of next generation learning spaces research? LEaRN, The University of Melbourne. OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en

Chapter 13

The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects Julia E. Morris and Wesley Imms

Abstract In any research endeavour, you can lose partners. While the reasons vary, such instances can be considered lost opportunities for both researchers and partners. Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) had 12 schools sign contracts; during the five years of the project, three schools withdrew, and one was asked to leave. Embedded in this tale are valuable lessons for undertaking school research collaborations. This chapter explores briefly what is meant by failure, drawing on Edmonson’s concept of each occupying a place across a blameworthy to praiseworthy continuum. It goes on to describe the general circumstances of P2P’s non-completing school projects. It then unpacks the common issues that appeared to inflict each project, and from that hypothesise on ‘lessons learned’. The chapter finishes with a set of characteristics that arguably improve the possibility of active, energetic, and productive collaborations.

The Lost Ones Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) started in 2018 with ten schools signing 3-year contracts to collaborate with the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) on spatial issues relevant to their circumstances. That list grew to 11 the following year and later by one more due to a ‘rolling recruitment’ strategy. Now, after five years and approaching a conclusion made quite confusing by two years of COVID, the project has eight remaining schools. As we have discussed throughout the book, the opportunity for schools to undertake contextually driven research supported by a community of practice was a driver of P2P. However, despite the potential benefits of this approach in terms of driving research-informed school practice and the professional growth for participants (Campbell & Groundwater-Smith, 2010; Frost & Roberts, 2004; Godfrey, 2016), not all of the P2P projects finished their 3-year term. J. E. Morris (B) Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Morris · W. Imms University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_13

189

190

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

One P2P project (School A) ended before it started. Straight after signing the contract, the school had a change in direction and it quickly emerged that the P2P focus was no longer a priority. We regretfully but with full understanding closed the partnership. Another (School B) withdrew in the first year when a new principal felt that they could no longer provide staff allocation to support the initiative. A third P2P school (School C) was lost due to changes in leadership. For two years they had been active and constructive partners, their projects were soundly designed, and they ran well. They had a healthy and supportive relationship with their LEaRN academic ‘buddy’. The data they were generating was proving informative for their school’s development. Their spatial learning team attended each of our twice-a-year 2-day workshops and contributed strongly to our collegiate forward movement, and likewise, the school visits by the LEaRN researcher went well. It should have been a success story, but the school’s project could not survive the quite agonising loss of its principal, a person who had a controlling influence on what their P2P work was doing. One school (School D) was asked to leave, a quite unique situation. The reasons were complex, and no person’s fault. The issues included a huge upheaval in the school as building works progressed, a change in principal to a temporary leader who was not familiar with the P2P relationship, and a break down in transferring information. As a result, a lot was done to rebuild that core part of the P2P design— that is, the LEaRN researcher working in partnership with a small but motivated team of teachers—but when the school showed no sign of meaningful re-engagement, the LEaRN group felt it best for everyone to negotiate a withdrawal of the contract. One school (School E, not seen as a failure as such) ‘evolved’ away from P2P. Their work pre-dated P2P, but they joined the group and participated with enthusiasm in workshops and other events, providing valuable advice on how to engage in such collaborative partnerships. Their data was analysed and then put on hold. At the time of writing, the ‘pause button’ has not been disengaged and that is now unlikely to happen as the school’s needs and its key staff have moved on. However, a leading member of their team has adopted the data and is moving its focus with LEaRN academics through an alternative pathway. This chapter reflects on this attrition. It doesn’t aim to be a forensic analysis of what went wrong—privacy for the schools is a priority. It does however examine the characteristics of these non-completed projects and asks how we might use this knowledge to improve future collaborations between university researchers and busy teachers.

What Do We Know About ‘Failure’? You would already see we are not shying away from using the word failure. It’s a powerful term, carrying with it an association of fault. Few of us willingly tag ourselves this way, yet most would accept that ‘we learn from our failures’. So, there is a conflict in place here—on the one hand considering failure to be a part of the

13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects

191

natural state of things, while simultaneously seeking to disassociate oneself from its stigma. The literature doesn’t help us a lot here as there seems to be little written about the reasons some projects in a cluster do or don’t fail, perhaps because no academic wants to be seen as an expert on the topic. What is written, and of little use to us, are accounts that treat projects very specifically (e.g. ‘why an IT randomised study failed’ or ‘why a business development project failed’), or critique particular methodological strategies as indicators of failed studies (e.g. ‘why grouping variables in protein research doesn’t work’). The reality is that most academics (and leaders in schools) have a set of projects, initiatives or studies that didn’t make the distance. Gregory (2019) refers to them as ‘shadow projects’, as we all have these projects lurking in the background reminding us that we didn’t quite get it right. There are few articles that try to unpick these failures-to-complete beyond saying that the reasons were particular to very individualised circumstances; however, we feel that effort must be made to use the lost ones as a guide for future success—to corral these individualised experiences into a common message. Edmondson (2011) provides an avenue to do this. She claims ‘failure’ is misunderstood; while some are blameworthy in that the errors were foreseeable, other failures are praiseworthy—a cost of developing new knowledge. She has developed a nine-point scale to explain this—we have adapted her words to suit this chapter (Fig. 13.1), but the concept is all hers. ‘Blameworthy’ failures, located to the left in Fig. 13.1, are produced by poor design, poor application of process, and inadequate skills. ‘Praiseworthy’ failures to the right are the result of good trial-and-error, pushing knowledge, and testing boundaries. In this chapter, we have no interest in discussing the left-hand characteristics other than as a warning for future projects. Of great interest, however, is (1) what characterises any P2P projects that might occupy the left end of the continuum, and (2) how to redesign projects so (at worst) they sit at the right end. This chapter attempts to do this—to use our cases to identify the causes, practices, assumptions, flaws in project management, and other issues, so we learn to not repeat such errors. These lost ones have a great deal to teach us; by ignoring them, we lose opportunities to improve our practice.

Fig. 13.1 Qualities of failures (adapted from Edmondson, 2011)

192

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

Projects Do ‘Fail’, but Why? In 2020, the P2P research group in LEaRN published a paper (Blannin et al., 2020) that included a brief scoping of possible reasons why some of our projects fell away. Even at that relatively early stage of P2P, the group could identify three issues impacting the efficacy (or ineffectiveness) of the projects—leadership, relevance of the research to school practices, and the challenges and changing priorities of the school. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can add detail to those themes. Leadership was a central influence on the withdrawal of Schools C and D. In P2P, ‘leadership’ differed between the schools. In some, a central, authoritative school leader maintained control of the project; in others, leadership was held by a cohesive small team of teachers, and in some cases, an evolving leadership role between team members was used, depending on what task was on hand. It was our observation that the former leadership model was most prone to causing problems—not necessarily due to the quality of the leadership (in more than one school the principal’s position provided rich relationships with their staff and keen visions of the schools’ priorities). The problems occurred because principals are a mobile group of people, and occasionally on leaving, there was no leadership foundation in place for the P2P initiative they had nurtured. In addition, particularly in terms of School D, a temporary principal with a busy re-organisation agenda was opposed to the project and was able to effectively close it down. Another leadership issue was communication. P2P relied on a healthy ongoing conversation between the school’s spatial learning team and the university’s researcher partners. With one dominating central figure leading P2P, that flow of communication was not effective in some cases (School C) or led to misunderstandings (School D). In one example, a temporary principal was not briefed on their school’s P2P project for several weeks, creating a breakdown in the relationship, one that proved to be irreparable. Relevancy of the P2P project to the school’s practices was a second theme in failed projects. This was apparent in situations where the project and the spatial learning team were unable to maintain an enthusiasm with the wider school staff. Despite workshopping an ongoing dissemination programme with the spatial learning team, some schools experienced information ‘blackouts’ where outcomes of the P2P project were not shared, some staff were totally unaware of this work, and the potential of making outputs relevant to wider school practices was lost. In each of these cases, a secondary issue was present—a change in principals, a change in school ‘direction’, an ‘event’ in the school that dominated the staff and community for some time, and diverted attention from in-depth pedagogic examinations. A third theme mentioned in Blannin et al. (2020) was changing priorities. This occurred in Schools A and B (and to some extent School E). In each of these, the school had a rapid change in direction in terms of its educational vision, and the investment in examining the impact of their spaces on students’ learning was relegated by a new agenda. In each case, this happened in schools that were slow in developing their P2P programme—often due to changing spatial learning team

13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects

193

members. In one case, their team was too large, diluting its focus and sense of responsibility to advocate its findings. With no strong voice in the school to argue the relevancy of P2P in the new direction the school was taking, they were passed over for other initiatives. With the passing of time, these broad themes can be supplemented with a finer layer of analysis, issues that often cross over the topics just discussed. Five key themes emerged across Schools A–E: the design/teaching paradox, time, research skills, school culture, and unrealistic expectations.

The Design/Teaching Paradox Common to struggling P2P projects was a seemingly impossible disjuncture between the design of the spaces and the actions or practices that occurred within. In some cases, teachers grappling with spatial/pedagogic relationships had no vocabulary or concepts concerning the design of the spaces, creating a void that took time and effort to fill. In another case, the two were seen as being in opposition as teachers asked, ‘Who designed these spaces—what were they thinking?’. It seemed the spaces were simply ‘dropped in’. School-led research on the effectiveness of learning spaces struggled when there was no narrative about how teaching within their classroom design looked within their school context to act as a baseline for the P2P research project.

Time The struggling P2P projects also experienced a shortage of time. A consistent conversation (nationally and internationally) is the ‘overloaded curriculum’, with new priorities being added and few taken away. Amongst these critical duties, P2P needed to be realistic on who could devote focused time and for how long. Without release to facilitate meetings, project organisation and administration, and data collection, these vital parts of the projects were either poorly done or abandoned. The concept of the ‘spatial learning teams’ was, in part, intended to give priority to the project in the schools’ busy schedules, but when these teams were prone to ineffectiveness when they were not supported. This, we argue, is where School E sits. The project did not ‘fail’, but it is on pause and this pause has now extended over a period of time. A shortage of time has been affected by the school’s need to prioritise their response to COVID, and this may also constitute a change in priorities, but we believe the school’s desire to prioritise P2P is still there. The challenge of time is attributed to both the school and the researchers. LEaRN put P2P on hold during COVID and hasn’t pushed for schools to re-engage in research activities until they are ready. Time can contribute to a ‘lost one’ from the perspective of both the researcher and the school. If either party does not commit time to the project, the momentum can be lost.

194

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

School Culture Common to struggling P2P projects was school cultures that struggled (for a variety of reasons) to accommodate experimentation, visioning, and change. These are easy concepts to talk about, but difficult to put into action in busy, challenging schools, or with well-established staff who believed that they have already achieved success. However, these form the nucleus of growth in many institutions, and P2P was only one example of applying that thinking to improve learning. A common denominator across struggling P2P schools was difficulty in articulating what ‘good learning’ looked like, and without this baseline, staff were often unreceptive to how spaces can improve pedagogies and student learning.

Research Skills Another challenge was difficulty in accepting the value of good, applied research, or in accessing the skills needed to use research effectively. While P2P ran twiceyearly research seminars for spatial learning teams, and while many schools owned considerable research skills in their staffs, those who struggled seemed to be the ones who saw research principles as alien to teaching practices.

Unrealistic Expectations Finally, struggling P2P schools often held unrealistic expectations. For some, the presence of research partners from LEaRN suggested that those specialists would do all the works on the project. Another was they felt that the project could provide definitive answers to their pressing questions. Yet another was the expectation that they could fit this initiative into an already full agenda of activity without compromise. There was some truth to all these expectations; the LEaRN researchers were always available to advise and support and at times undertake difficult tasks like tricky analysis or drafting complex reports; the projects did often provide quite clear evidence that assisted further developments in the school, and there were cases where the projects managed to survive despite an already overcrowded timetable. The issue was the scale of these expectations. Successful schools often adapted and modified what they could achieve, while the lost ones often maintained hope beyond reality.

13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects

195

Strategies for Success (or the Usefulness of 20–20 Hindsight) Rather than ponder too long on why things fail, it’s time to discuss what the lost ones have taught us about the factors of success. We are focusing on three factors— evidence, relevancy, and support. The first contrast between lost and successful projects was the desire to build evidence. Increasingly, educators are being asked to use this to direct and support decisions about practices. For a long time, a type of standoff has existed where some educators believed that evidence was ivory-towered thinking, and they as practitioners were the true source of knowledge about good teaching. Likewise, many researchers saw their results as obvious and compelling and questioned why teachers did not apply them. This dichotomy has slowly eroded as research becomes more applied, and teachers become more reflective and increasingly desire good information about what works. The good P2P projects bridged this divide—being teacher-led but with research support and focusing on issues relevant to individual schools, they continued the growth of relevant, robust thinking about good teaching. They also became more interdisciplinary, with teachers realising that in order to build this evidence they needed the external support of specialists like architects, researchers, and manufacturers. The second contrast between lost and successful projects concerns a topic discussed above—relevancy. It was noteworthy that the P2P projects that were deemed successful sought answers specific to their context; while easier ‘common’ solutions could possibly apply to their learning environment issue, these schools designed, implemented, and analysed their projects with a keen eye to their own unique structure, operation, and teaching practices. This was also considered through the lens of their school’s unique culture and community. This was not the easy road to take, with one school having to negotiate with the parents about changes to routines, another needing to explain to their community why a previously successful practice was being changed. These frequently questioned and interrogated some basic tenets of the school’s teaching practices. But with a sound rationale, a well-considered design, and good dissemination back to the staff and community, these schools leveraged advancements the more common road could not offer. The third contrast between lost and successful schools was that while the successful teachers recognised their teaching excellence, they continued to seek growth. We know that this is typical of all good teachers, but in terms of innovative learning environments (ILEs, which is a relatively new field of conversation), a mindset of inquiry and looking for new possibilities is critical. We also know that teachers have an instinct for manipulating spaces to suit learning but as ILEs are rapidly developing, good teachers accept they need support to maximise these new spaces for better student learning. It is the coming together of these two elements— continuing to grow and accepting help, that characterise the essence of the successful P2P projects.

196

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

For the Next Time! If we were to create a checklist for what P2P has taught us about successful school-led research projects, it would be as follows.

Have a ‘Champion’ Allocate someone to be the driver of the project, someone who has a passion for the topic and can bring colleagues along on a rather lengthy journey. Ideally, as happened in one school, that person had time allocated to the project. In another case, the champion used the project to undertake a higher qualification. It has to be stressed these types of projects do take long-term commitment, and research has its moments of drudgery. Having someone to adopt, push, and nurture the initiative increases the chances of success remarkably. Having said that, make sure your champion is in for the long haul, or (at least) shares their enthusiasm so that all is not lost if they have to move on from the project before it is finished.

Keep Your Research Team Small Three or four people committed to the project are far better than a dozen colleagues who have no real ‘skin in the game’. Small teams bring a focus and dynamism to a project, they have greater flexibility, and they are more likely to form a special interest group. If run well, they create what we call an ‘osmosis effect’, that is, their energy engages the larger school staff. It builds transference of a successful initiative by attracting the attention of a slightly larger group who adopt and develop the concept further. Over time, this moves across large sections of the school, driven by relevancy—if it works for one teacher, it might well work for me. Teachers see how useful it is and want to try it for themselves.

Use the Experts While P2P focused on building research and evaluation skills within school teams, it was always recognised that ‘outsiders’, people with additional specialist skills, would be needed to assist at various times. That input was, commonly, at the project conceptualisation stage by helping the spatial learning teams to draw up a robust research protocol; during data analysis, when guidance was needed to make sure the results accurately summarised the data, and at documentation stages, such as writing up reports or the submission of publications or conference presentations.

13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects

197

However, the expert advice was also more widely used, with the LEaRN academic buddy being available to bounce ideas off, and to help refine developing research skills. The twice-yearly workshops helped with this, where one of the two days was devoted to methodological professional learning. The best P2P collaborators knew when to ask for help.

Don’t Get Complicated All projects grow as they are implemented. The best run P2Ps made a clear plan early and worked hard to keep within those parameters. This helped the work to not become unwieldy through gathering excessive data or data that wasn’t in alignment with the core project focus. Any ‘new directions’ were mapped and put aside for a follow-on phase. A clear plan with focused outcomes also helped to address any leadership or change in direction issues, as the scope and intent of P2P could be clearly communicated to incoming staff.

Give Yourself Time Time is such a difficult concept when doing projects like these. Too much time and you lose momentum, interest, focus. Not enough time and the spatial learning teams, and participants, become frustrated and poor results often eventuate. A common concept that emerged in P2P projects was designing them across phases. The first phase, usually a year, was often used to explore the problem, identify the need, and establish the parameters of what new knowledge would work best. It often trialled the data collection and analysis methods. It whetted the appetites of the wider community. Phases two and three were usually a refinement of that activity—sometimes delving deeper and with more focus on an emerging facet of the school’s situation. Sometimes, it used the first phase as baseline data to compare to interventions in future phases or led to a repeat of the same method with a broader sample in the school. Sometimes, it used that baseline as a springboard to explore a previously unconsidered idea.

Build a Community All research in schools should add voice to the community, informing leaders, teachers, and parents and carers about what is and is not working, and why. To do this, P2P worked hard to disseminate what was being found out. This was sometimes through school newsletters, short presentations to the staff, and more formal conference presentations or School Board presentations, or occasionally through book chapters like these. We developed ways to produce ‘activity reports’ that were

198

J. E. Morris and W. Imms

easily digested by busy people, and we cultivated a sense of spreading good and bad findings. P2P strived to not be invisible to its school communities.

A Final Word Some might say we have written in this chapter based on a false premise; what we are calling ‘the lost ones’ may not be that. The schools might easily see themselves as being pragmatic, moving to new horizons. Perhaps, this project was not for them, and they improved their school by being perceptive and re-allocating precious resources. These are fair comments, and if so, the key principle applies; we learn a great deal from the ones that didn’t work and if that helps others avoid committing to something they should not, the premise is worthwhile. However, while the authors could agree with the sentiment that leaving P2P was a correct choice, in some cases it still indicated failure. Edmondson’s model suggests that when the reasons for their project ‘not working’ fall into the blameworthy area some fault is justified, and there were actions that fell short of what was needed, thus resulting in unnecessary waste and lost opportunities. It needs to be stressed that the P2P project was not low cost; it took a lot of work for schools to secure the money, negotiate the contract, allocate people to participate, and to ‘sell’ the concept to their community. They knew in advance of the need to release teachers for 2-day workshops twice a year, to host visiting researchers twice a year, to prepare and submit documents, presentations, and to participate in discussions. These decisions were made with open eyes, which makes losing four schools not only a wasted investment, but also creates a ‘shadow project’ that lurks in the background as a failure. We have, purposefully, not critiqued Schools A–E across Edmondson’s model, because there is little to learn from attributing fault and extenuating circumstances always exist. Instead, this chapter aims to identify what we have collectively learned from what does not work. The ‘lost ones’ contributed to P2P in this way, and we acknowledge their input into P2P and the learning they have provided us. This chapter is also based on a second premise. We learn from praiseworthy failures. When the reasons for the failure fall into the praiseworthy area, they become a genuine part of the learning cycle that all schools, teacher, researchers should occupy. You can’t create new knowledge without some degree of risk, and that risk can often lead to lamentable but learnable failures. If we may coin a new term, they are learnworthy.

13 The ‘Lost Ones’: Lessons Learned from the Failed Projects

199

References Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. E., & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as embedded practitioner-researchers in innovative learning environments. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 10(3), 99–116. Campbell, A., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (Eds.). (2010). Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education. Routledge. Edmondson, A. (2011). Strategies for learning from failure. Harvard Business Review Magazine. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure Frost, D., & Roberts, J. (2004). From teacher research to teacher leadership: The case of the Hertfordshire learning preferences project. Teacher Development, 8(2–3), 181–199. Godfrey, D. (2016). Leadership of schools as research-led organisations in the English educational environment: Cultivating a research-engaged school culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 301–321. Gregory, K. (2019). Lessons of a failed study: Lone research, media analysis, and the limitations of bracketing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691 9842450

Chapter 14

A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project Sinan Kerimofski

Abstract The Australian Professional Standards require both teachers and school leadership staff to collect, use and evaluate data. These practices are particularly essential for leadership staff as evidence-based planning and policy-making is a critical part of the Principal Standard (AITSL, 2011). Whilst all schools generate and use data, working with researchers is another avenue to generating knowledge that complements existing data generated by everyday school practices. This chapter draws on the perception of an Education Department’s leadership expert about how an industry, school and university collaboration was undertaken to inform schoolbased decision-making. It provides one leader’s personal perspective on the benefits and challenges to engaging in formal research projects within a school and provides a reflection on how to navigate the process along the way.

Introduction School accountability is increasing (Keddie & Holloway, 2020) and data literacy has become an essential skill for teachers and leaders as they evaluate their practice and meet reporting requirements (Mandinach & Gummer, 2013; Schildkamp et al., 2019). Whilst engaging in research is one method to gather data and evaluate practice, it can be time-intensive for schools. It can also (often) be driven by external researchers coming into a school with an existing project, meaning that the data or feedback the school receives may be only tangentially linked to their own goals for school practice. Conversely, research that is designed with schools can lead to feedback that is authentic to the school context as the research responds to the environment and practices within (Leavy, 2022). The Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project includes several examples of how school-led research might be done, but all research has a cost to the school. Time and effort are needed to conceptualise, enact and then reflect on the research. Given schools are busy places, this time and effort can be hard to maintain (as described in Chap. 13). S. Kerimofski (B) Department of Education Western Australia, East Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_14

201

202

S. Kerimofski

This chapter gives a leadership perspective on the P2P approach, from one principal who undertook a significant quasi-experimental research design in their school. It shows the importance of having a champion for research within schools, and the importance of knowing your ‘why’.

Background Research and change are often linked. We do research when we want change, for example, finding a more effective method or practice (Cohen et al., 2011). We also know that research can require change as part of its process, such as manipulating the learning environment or using other intervention designs (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2006). Change management is a key part of leadership (Atasoy, 2020) irrespective of research; it is important to get buy-in for any change to maintain a positive school culture (Morris et al., 2020). Teacher professional learning also tends to be more effective when leaders promote a collaborative and collective approach to changing practice within schools (Admiraal et al., 2021). Having a clear shared vision can help leaders and teachers communicate the relevance of change, as change can be articulated in a way that aligns with the core vision (and core values) for the school (Admiraal et al., 2021; Bradbeer et al., 2019). Leadership can be understood as a continuum, from more transactional approaches that focus on coordination and supervision of schools to more transformative approaches that aim to understand individual staff and promote ongoing refinement of practice to improve the organisation (Atasoy, 2020). Whilst all approaches of leadership can lead change, there is a synergy between the positive change management description above and a transformative approach to leadership. A transformative leader is visible within the school and can support change by being responsive to the needs of school staff (Atasoy, 2020). Transformative leadership and change management are also essential to creating a positive school culture. Devos et al. (2013) describe how leaders form part of the social working environment for teachers and how social interactions between teachers and leaders create a school culture through shared values, beliefs and practices. Consequently, how leaders behave (e.g., how they interact with staff, the values they communicate through the projects they lead, etc.) has an impact on the overall school culture (Atasoy, 2020). When leaders are proactive and clear in communication, which is seen around the school and participative in their approach, school staff respond positively and culture is more positive (Morris et al., 2020). This feeds back into change management, as leaders know the culture of the school and can feel the impact of change on culture if they are visible and socially engaged with their staff. It also extends to data use, and leaders can be transformative if they help individuals to use data as well as make connect data across the school community to inform change (Schildkamp et al., 2019). Whilst all of these factors are important aspects to leading research in schools, we know that schools are complex places. There is a myriad of variables at play.

14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project

203

Consequently, this chapter centres on my reflection of P2P in my school—giving an overall account of my thinking around the study, interpretation of study and reflection on what I learned along the way.

Reflecting on P2P as a School Principal Richard Goyder (Ex CEO Westfarmers) was once quoted as saying two of the toughest jobs in the world are an Australian Football League (AFL) coach and a School Principal. Now I would have loved to have been an AFL coach, but instead I chose to be a primary school principal. Over the past five years, I have undertaken a journey of leading a school through transformational thinking in the learning space field. This took place at a rural school with 820 students, 100 teaching and non-teaching staff members in the Southwest of Western Australia. This is the story of my thinking and that journey. The role of the principal has changed immensely over the past 20 years. Varying styles of leadership have come and gone with the job description also changing exponentially over time. With the introduction of Independent Public Schools (IPS) in 2009, principals were granted higher degrees of autonomy in decision-making. This devolution and new accountability strategy has now spanned to over 600 schools across Western Australia. The role of the principal definitely changed with IPS as the principals became completely autonomous in the overall management and leadership of their schools. As an IPS school leader, I always aimed to have clear processes, procedures and solid alignment in place across all aspects of school management, including teaching and learning. Ensuring that these elements were consistent, clear and well known by all staff was crucial. Ensuring that they were predictable was also crucial. What I mean about that is, staff will know what will happen when a certain event occurs. For example, what happens at an assembly, or at recess or in a staff meeting. Having predictability builds trust, confidence and psychological safety for all staff.

Change As stated, IPS allowed principals to be bold enough to try things a little differently with support from staff and the school community. This change management process was difficult for many, as schools were accustomed to being dictated to in terms of procedural, operational and financial matters. Schools were empowered to change the way things were done with the locus of control granted to schools. There is a plethora of literature and research around change and how people respond to change. I believe, implemented poorly, staff feel change is ‘done to them’. When implemented effectively, staff feel change is ‘done with them’.

204

S. Kerimofski

Change is as much as unlearning old ways as it is learning new ways. With this in mind, I feel it is vital that change is implemented in a safe and collaborative environment. I often go by the 80/20 rule; that is, 80% of staff will adapt and cope well with effective change management processes. About 20% will not cope even with all the ‘bells and whistles’ bestowed upon them. That is a fact of life. The 20% may never accept the change but adapt after a certain period of time and extended support, or they may just leave that workplace. For principals implementing any large-scale change in schools is a difficult endeavour. Many staff would probably comment that they have seen all these before and be reluctant to buy in. Principals engaging in any change management need to have a definite ‘why’. We all know that change for change’s sake doesn’t work. Changing to assert positional power doesn’t work. Changing whole school processes because of one staff member doesn’t work. Changing whole school processes to avoid a hard conversation doesn’t work. The ‘why’ is all wrong in these cases. For principals to implement effective change in schools, the ‘why’ should always come back to the question, “What impact will it have on the students?” Will it have a positive impact on students? If the answer to that ‘why’ is yes, then change should be explored and implemented with fidelity. Principals also need to be very aware of change fatigue. If they chop and change processes, procedures and programmes every 6 months, then the change process will reduce its effectiveness over time as change fatigue sets in with their staff. This is because school staff are not as energised to support, implement or ultimately drive the change process.

Driving the Learning Space Change As a teacher, I really felt that my classroom environment played a huge difference to the students’ engagement and expected outcomes. If the students were in a space that was conducive to learning, suited their physical, social and psychological needs, then I was on to a winner! I would change my classroom spaces to include a variety of furniture and areas. I continued to maintain these same thoughts as I moved into school leadership. In fact, to support the argument, a colleague once said, “how is it we differentiate the curriculum for students having difficulties, but we don’t differentiate the spaces for students even though they are of different weights, heights and sizes.” Fig. 14.1 captures my thinking in terms of the differentiation of place for learning, based on this principle. I felt sitting students of different heights and sizes in standard classroom desks and chairs in rows stifled their creativity, comfort, overall student engagement and my ability as an educator to connect with them as students. As stated previously, I’ve held this belief for many years.

14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project

205

Fig. 14.1 Kerimofski and Mansfield depiction of differentiation in regard to space

Upon taking up a Principalship at Vasse Primary School, I floated this idea and concept around to some staff, wondering if others felt the same way about the need to differentiate learning spaces. We researched various theories of learning spaces such as Thornburg’s primordial learning spaces (e.g. caves, mountaintops, campfires and waterholes). This was a starting point, but soon various teachers were off creating bespoke classroom environments all over the school. These classrooms moved away from the factory model structure with a teacher directing lessons from the front of the class, the students’ sitting in rows and only being allowed to speak when they put their hands up. Student voice was introduced into these classroom environments, and it was clear that this differentiation developed the sense of belonging and connection for many of the students in their classrooms. As the momentum grew, there was a need to formulate the ‘why’. Our ‘why’ was that the learning spaces were contributing to increasing student engagement. The change management process was in full swing with majority classes buying in and altering their classroom learning spaces. Once there was buy-in for the concept, the change process needed to be supported by administration and leadership. At an administration level, we employed the following actions: • The School Business and Operational plans included strategies around changing learning spaces. • Budgets were redistributed to support the purchase of furniture (as an effective and affordable way to create this change to space). • Lighthouse classrooms were established: i.e. classes that received some seeding funds to purchase flexible furniture (with three rooms initially selected by administration staff). • An application process to become a lighthouse class and receive up to $15 K was introduced.

206

S. Kerimofski

Fig. 14.2 Vasse Primary School adaptation of the Schlechty engagement model (Schlechty, 2011), adding empowerment

• A subcommittee to oversee the implementation of flexible furniture was established. This committee also selected applications for lighthouse classes. • Several professional learning opportunities were made available to staff. • The school used Schlechty’s model of engagement with the addition of empowerment as a discussion/reflection around student engagement to enhance the ‘why’ (Fig. 14.2). What is interesting to note is that for the first two years, this was a ‘buy in’ change strategy, in that teachers were not expected to all change their spaces. After two years, however, it was evident that everyone had added some items to their classroom which allowed choice and flexibility for students to select or personalise how they learn. I felt that some staff were reluctant at first to add flexible spaces in their room for fear of the loss of control. Having students all sitting at a standard desk in a standard chair has uniformity and a sense of control about it. However, as other staff experienced the enthusiasm and successes from changing their classrooms, more staff jumped on board. As a result, we formalised the inclusion of flexible learning environments into the 2019–2021 Business Plan.

The Missing Element Whilst the momentum of change was in full swing, classrooms looked amazing— students were reading on couches, doing their mathematics on writable desks and

14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project

207

even working under desks; there was one missing element. Where were the data to demonstrate it was making a difference? As a leader, I felt that we required some evidence to support our theory. I sought any opportunity to engage with academics who may have had previous experience with evaluating learning spaces. This proved problematic as there was minimal research in this area. In fact, Hattie (2009) had the only research close to discussing furniture and classroom spaces; however, it was around open versus traditional classrooms and suggested that the learning environment had an effect size of 0.01 (i.e. there was no evidence it made a difference to student outcomes). We weren’t looking at the open classroom scenario (the scenario that forms the basis of Hattie’s effect size), we were interested in whether specifically selected furniture made a difference to student engagement in a typical traditional classroom (our why). I was fortunate enough to present at a Future Schools conference where I was introduced to the Plans to Pedagogy (P2P) project. We felt we had found the right group of academics interested in addressing our question through data collection and analysis. We engaged the P2P team and were fortunate to be accepted into the project. This was an exciting phase of our journey as it would provide the staff with data to measure our ‘why’. We established a guiding issue to be explored: To what extent does furniture challenge teachers to teach better, and what effect does furniture have on students’ perceptions of their levels of engagement? We also co-designed our research questions which were: 1. Do levels of student perceptions of their engagement in learning correlate to types of furniture provided in their classrooms? 2. Do teaching styles (pedagogies) change with differing furniture arrangements? A P2P committee (spatial learning team) was established to oversee the research project. The co-designed project began taking shape with eight teachers nominating to participate. The committee, under the guidance of the P2P academic team settled on an A-B-A single-subject research design: A—Teachers/students work in their existing spaces. B—Teachers/students work with alternative furniture. A—Teachers/students go back to their original space. In this model, each class acts as one research subject, so any changes can be attributed to furniture (see the Vasse Primary School chapter—Chap. 9). This means we kept the same teachers, same students, same classroom and consistent curriculum—the only change we made throughout the year was the furniture in the classroom itself. There were five classes who volunteered to participate, including one class who acted as a control class (i.e. they had a mix of traditional and flexible furniture, and they did not shift over the course of the year). We had one class classified as having traditional furniture, three operating as flexible furniture classes, plus the control class.

208

S. Kerimofski

The research took place over three terms. In Term 2, the classes maintained their current classroom structure. In Term 3, they swapped from traditional to flexible or from flexible to traditional, depending on what type of furniture they started with. In Term 4, they returned to their Term 2 original classroom setups. Hence, the A-B-A process.

Leadership During a Research Project As a leader during this time of physical change, it was very important to play an active role in the process. Staff looked at me to provide guidance, direction and assurance. I was there to answer many questions from staff, parents and the wider community (i.e. the School Board wanting information on the purpose, objectives and direction of the project). I established a P2P team of interested staff and administrators who would oversee support and provide honest feedback into how the research was progressing. The team was also able to provide support to the teachers involved. The team became very valuable during the physical changing of the classroom furniture. They provided physical and emotional support for the teachers. The teachers’ tolerance levels were really tested at this point, as their classrooms were being totally swapped out from their ‘normal’ furniture to something quite different, which is really confronting for teachers who have spent time honing their practice in a particular environment. We fielded complaints from parents whose children had come home upset that they had to sit in the one seat all day. We fielded complaints from teachers who felt that the flexible spaces were providing too much freedom for the students, and they were all ‘out of control’. We had four students cry as they did not want to sit next to the students, they were placed next to for the term. It was a questionable time for us all and contrasted our usual positive environment at school. At this challenging point, it was important to revisit our ‘why’ and to stick to our ‘true north’ about the need to engage our students at a deeper level. Whilst there was still some uncertainty in the air amongst the chaos of furniture changing, this period soon settled, and the real research began. The research team commenced the first of the observations in the intervention phase. It was soon realised that there were too many inconsistencies with various leadership team members performing classroom observations. I redirected some funds to allow an aspirant leader to be released one day a week to undertake all the data collection, collation and analysis. Having the single source of truth allowed for a much more consistent approach to the research project. This was certainly a game changer at this stage of the project. It also allowed the aspirant leader to engage with a meaningful project with a view to lead to further leadership opportunities in his career. The data collection included: • Three student surveys a term using the Vasse Engagement Survey tool (designed by Dr. Morris based on existing validated tools).

14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project

209

• Annotated student furniture selection photo with two questions attached to each photo: What did you like about this item of furniture? How does this help you learn more effectively? • Three class observations using the Byers et al. (2016) observation metric and interviews with each teacher based on the observation outputs. • A Teacher Mind Frames Survey (Murphy, 2020) at the end of the term conducted by Dr. Morris and Associate Professor Wesley Imms. The biggest single influencing factor for me as the leader of the school was time. There are many external and internal pressures on leaders every day. Several Departmental commitments and requirements that are always present. This project could have certainly been perceived as ‘another thing on top of all the other things we have to do’. I had to not only maintain our why for getting involved but, more importantly, prioritise time to ensure that this change implementation would be successful. I believe that without this time commitment, this research project would not have had the impact that it did have. This included time to: • • • • • •

Release staff for various meetings or interviews. For updates to be provided to the whole staff during staff meetings. For updates to be provided to the School Board. To meet with parents who had concerns or questions. To write up pieces for the newsletter and other publications. To listen to staff about their wins, concerns and questions.

The research occurred over the year with results answering our questions and supporting the journey of changing our learning spaces to engage students and improve teacher pedagogy. In short, the prioritisation of the research was worth it. Throughout this journey, the leadership team had to play a very active role. Unlike other processes of distributed leadership, it was vital we were hands on during all stages of implementation such as physically moving furniture. By being so hands on, we provided a clear message to staff that we were heavily invested and supported the research project.

So, What Did I Learn? The change management process in any organisation can be and is difficult. Well throughout plans have the potential to go astray when you are trying to change people’s actions and behaviours. For change to be effective, the leadership relationship needs to be one of transformational not transactional. A clear ‘why’ needs to be established early and then clear processes by the leadership team mapping out the change process along with the support on offer needs to occur.

210

S. Kerimofski

Communication is the key ensuring reports which are shared along the way, and any updates occurring frequently. Keeping everyone informed and creating opportunities to share along the journey are the glue that keeps it all together. Lastly, it is vital to celebrate successes and achievements with all involved.

Conclusions This chapter has overviewed one Principal’s reflections on leading an innovative learning environments project within his school. It showed the positive impact of research on informing school decisions when research data are used to drive both individual and collective growths (Schildkamp et al., 2019). It unpacked some of the challenges that can be experienced, particularly in more intensive, interventionbased projects. It highlighted some of the key considerations that can help leaders move through research challenges—such as knowing your ‘why’ and providing clear communication. The literature identifies that principals and school leaders play a critical role in change management and the shaping of a school culture (Atasoy, 2020; Devos et al., 2013). In this reflection, participation in research was a change that informed the school’s way of working through evidence. They could use research from their own context to drive data-informed decision-making about future practices. This was made possible through leadership valuing the research and making this visible in their actions over the course of P2P.

References Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/194 15257.2019.1665573 Atasoy, R. (2020). The relationship between school principals’ leadership styles, school culture and organizational change. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 256–274. AITSL. (2011). The national professional standards for teachers. Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2019). A systematic review of the effects of innovative learning environments on teacher mind frames. University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. In B. Cleveland, H. Mitcheltree, & W. Imms (Eds.), What’s working? 2016: Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environmental evaluation, 77–87. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Conceptualizing changes in behavior in intervention research: The range of possible changes model. Psychological Review, 113(3), 554–583. Devos, G., Hulpia, H., Tuytens, M., & Sinnaeve, I. (2013). Self-other agreement as an alternative perspective of school leadership analysis: An exploratory study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(3), 296–315.

14 A School Leadership Perspective on the Plans to Pedagogy Project

211

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Keddie, A., & Holloway, J. (2020). School autonomy, school accountability and social justice: Stories from two Australian school principals. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 288– 302. Leavy, P. (2022). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications. Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30–37. Morris, J. E., Lummis, G. W., Lock, G., Ferguson, C., Hill, S., & Nykiel, A. (2020). The role of leadership in establishing a positive staff culture in a secondary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(5), 802–820. Murphy, D. J. (2020). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290169 Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., Ebbeler, J., & Pieters, J. M. (2019). How school leaders can build effective data teams: Five building blocks for a new wave of data-informed decision making. Journal of Educational Change, 20, 283–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09345-3 Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. Wiley.

Chapter 15

What Has Plans to Pedagogy Taught Us? Wesley Imms and Julia E. Morris

Abstract The nine school-focused chapters provided ample evidence of each project—what was done and what was learned, with key research findings summarised in a final overarching chapter (Chap. 12). This chapter summarises the learnings from these projects, and the overall Plans to Pedagogy approach. It presents the contribution of the book to the field, and suggests some ways of working that have proved successful in supporting school teachers and leaders to explore learning environments issues within their unique settings.

Effective School-Based Research Projects The nine school-focused chapters provided ample evidence of each project—what was done and what was learned, with key research findings summarised in a final overarching chapter (Chap. 12). But what has P2P taught us about the teacher/research synthesis, and the methods used to arrive at these findings? This book has focused on applied research, gathering evidence that addresses real and current learning environment issues. It has described participatory research, done in collaboration with teachers in nine schools as co-researchers. The stories differ between each, because no two schools are the same. This ‘localised’ focus is important; while broader innovative learning environment research helps us understand the bigger picture, P2P provides a window into the reality of applying knowledge back to the coalface. This includes mechanisms needed to make this work, the limitations that exist, what is needed to sustain this specialist focus in a busy school, and in the case of the ‘lost ones’ what makes such work unmanageable. Most importantly, the nine school stories illustrate a varying degree of successes, sometimes advancing schools’ knowledge and practices substantially, and sometimes only modestly. This W. Imms (B) · J. E. Morris University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Morris Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. E. Morris and W. D. Imms (eds.), Teachers as Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7367-5_15

213

214

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

is a reality of research; while we wish for ‘big results’, we are also interested in the marginal, where the data shows only small improvements. And we accept the failures; what doesn’t work is as informative as what does. The P2P schools have spanned an impressive cross-section of our learning community—from rural to inner city, private and public institutions, faith-based and secular schools, single-sex and co-educational schools, across low and high socio-economic communities, and mono-cultural to very diverse school populations. What is this marvelous cross-section of schools telling us about the qualities that typify effective university/teacher research partnerships? Three common conversations from teachers and designers run across these P2P stories. The first concerns teacher and schools’ common desire to gather evidence about what does and does not work. This is consistently the motivation schools and teachers cite for participation in what is a lengthy and time-consuming exercise. They articulate the need to build evidence about what is happening, and how this knowledge directs future ideas and strategies. The teachers realise they needed specialist support such as architects, interior designers, researchers to build this evidence; P2P provides a structure for this to happen. The second common conversation centres on the issue of ‘relevancy’. The workshops and other P2P community events showed that some common solutions to ILE challenges do exist. However, they also stress that everything must be looked at through the lens of each schools’ unique structures, policies, and teaching practices. We must understand and react to the unique school cultures created by schools’ students and teachers. If collaborative research does not work in tandem with a school’s vision, practices, and goals, and if it does not align with the unique cultures of practices that exist in each school, it lacks the vital connections needed to have impact. It is this relevancy that underpinned the projects. Last, the P2P conversations reinforced the reality that teachers own an instinct for how classrooms work physically, built over years of good practice. For some time, the commonly heard anecdote was that teachers were not adapting to ILEs, and they were retaining ‘old’ practices in ‘new’ environments. But, together with other research, P2P is showing that this is not what is being asked; the conversations embedded in these P2P stories is not of change, but of refinement. They speak of ILEs empowering teachers to move from good to even better teaching. The other reality is that teachers need to be part of this thinking; with our rethinking of school design (ILEs), teachers need work like P2P to assist them use the remarkable benefits such spaces provide for their pedagogies—both in terms of how it can add to their pedagogies, as well as how these spaces can give students greater agency in their learning. The message from P2P schools is that ILEs are helping us reimagine and refine our teaching. They do not automatically cause this to happen simply because of their design—to the contrary, effective strategies are the product of a lot of work—but they do provide us affordances that promote more student-centred learning. In other words, they are not a catalyst for moving from ‘traditional’ to ‘new age’ teaching, that is a myth, but they are an agent for change. They provide teachers another effective tool to help them move towards their ideal pedagogy.

15 What Has Plans to Pedagogy Taught Us?

215

Characteristics of Effective School-Based Learning Environment Research For this to work, however, teacher experiences in P2P tell us six things which are needed. They need a school team who are willing to conceptualise—from well in advance of any work on the actual building—how that space is supposed to work educationally. What sort of learning is desired? They need architect teams who are willing to ‘bring the school staff along’ as they design, to help them focus on how the design will support the educational vision of the school. Teachers need a mix of both school and designer inputs to maximise spatial pedagogies after the building is complete. They need to understand the affordances offered through the design of the spaces, and school leadership support to align their resulting pedagogies considering the school’s educational vision. They need a staff who are open to rethinking pedagogies to make the most of the future design. These are teachers who know what type of learning they want. Therefore, they are receptive to exploring what types of spaces are needed. They need the support of internal ‘spatial learning’ teams. Teachers’ time is fully booked, so schools need to give the right people the right space to help guide the whole staff—thus P2P’s use of small 3 or 4 people ‘spatial learning teams’. Finally, they need access to good research skills either drawn from the school staff or externally sourced from trained researchers acting in a partnership role. Research expertise is needed because cementing positive actions into ongoing practice requires good measurement of impact. This evidence must be used to direct future thinking and experimentation and be disseminated widely to the school community and the wider educational audience. This approach to having teachers determine how learning environments need to work isn’t for everyone. It requires the certain set of ‘school capacities’ just mentioned. But this book helps tells that story; teachers, architects, school administrators and researchers working in tandem can, as a team, make the most of innovative learning environments.

The Bigger Picture At the time of writing this book, the original cohort of co-researching schools are nearing completion of a very COVID-disrupted set of research projects. However, with P2Ps ‘rolling recruitment’ approach, other schools are still in-progress. The P2P project is not yet complete, and it continues to teach us new things about effective research into learning environments. The earlier part of this conclusion spoke of the nuances of participatory research methods, what teachers taught us about doing this type of research. However, this conclusion also speaks of the future. P2P continues

216

W. Imms and J. E. Morris

to provide new knowledge about using learning environments well. In combination, the nine schools provide significant information on the bigger picture benefits from university/school collaborative research projects like P2P. Some key points are explained below.

The Importance of Networks Teachers know full well the usefulness of learning from what others do. This is, in essence, what make professional learning sessions work well—when teachers tell stories about what works well, and what does not. Spatial learning is no different. The networks that were built during P2P remain in place, but while communication will drift away with time, the lessons learned will remain. The workshops that were run during the three years allowed teachers from a variety of backgrounds to collaborate and learn skills, examine issues, develop strategies, and compare findings. These are lessons that are hard to forget. The examples their peers presented allowed teachers to find ‘like’ situations that reinforced or challenged their own thinking. Conversely, it introduced teachers to schools with quite different cultural groups, educational visions, and spatial issues, and through this exposure to extend their understanding of the horizons of learning environment issues.

The Power of Localised Knowledge The usefulness of P2P lay, in part, in its ability to focus on the issues that mattered most to teachers, within their specific school contexts. The issues were determined by the staff, they assisted in designing the research method, and they assisted in data collection and analysis. They supported the dissemination of findings back to the staff, and wider. They used the findings to support changes within their school. What was clear was that the findings carried a currency for staff that arguably superseded more generalised, wider research findings. The messages from the research were particular to the educational problems they were facing at that time. This ‘localised knowledge’ factor provided school leaders with authentic examples that facilitated evidence-based discussions about teacher practices and student learning relevant to their school. The range of topics illustrates this localised focus—from adjusting furniture within fixed ‘single cell’ classrooms, to structuring professional learning with staff on use of ILEs, to assisting staff participate in the conceptualisation and design of large new builds. It is this generation of ‘localised’ knowledge that has been missing for too long. Rather than relying on external experts and consultants to build this knowledge, the P2P schools illustrate how teachers can design and implement powerful studies that underpin better pedagogies.

15 What Has Plans to Pedagogy Taught Us?

217

Empowering Teachers as Spatial Researchers A third contribution was the realisation by teachers they could be effective researchers within their own school. The empowering of teachers to identify spatial issues within their school was significant. The methods that were then co-designed with LEaRN colleagues were, in the main, not complicated yet achieved the outcomes that were required. Add to this the fact teachers collected the required data, and participated in data analysis, this paints a picture of skills’ development not normally undertaken in schools. Such was the consequent sense of ownership of the results, and teachers’ depth of knowledge of the data, that dissemination of the findings back to practices was empowering; they used their data to drive change relevant to their own students.

What Doesn’t Work The book is also about learning from failures. Not all case studies withstood the realities of juggling teaching and research. Each of the case studies that withdrew taught a valuable lesson, to the degree it warranted a separate chapter in this book. The P2P researchers learned a great deal from them about how to structure sustainable participatory research approaches. Fellow schools learned a great deal about how to manage pressures that accumulate and end in a project being unfeasible. The reasons for these withdrawals from P2P ranged from loss of key people (the ‘churn’ factor) to loss of momentum, to schools changing their direction and making the research redundant. Each told a story about the importance of good decision making at the beginning of a project.

Contributing to the Broader Field The final word must be, appropriately, about these schools’ impact well beyond their walls. What was commonly discussed at the workshops and during school visits was the way these localised findings each contributed snippets of knowledge back to the larger educational field of research into ILEs. Because the schools ran solid research projects, the findings are not anecdotal but are actual proof. While their focus was very site specific, there are teachers elsewhere who see the alignment of the P2P school issues with their own. While the collaboration between schools and researchers was critical, others see opportunities to do the same, thus opening new doors. These were modest projects run well, but their scale and scope aren’t the critical factor. It is understandable that we all feel the ‘big’ findings matter most. This is in some ways true, but also the reverse—many modest findings accumulate to grow our understanding of using ILEs well. This book is one example of this. In its entirety, this is a unique book from teachers to teachers, assisted by researchers who know learning environments and what it’s like to teach.