Overview

While student achievement was good, students lacked a strong sense of agency and neither they, nor their whānau, were as actively engaged in learning as would be hoped.

Utilising experiential learning theory as an effective pedagogical approach to curriculum delivery within our innovative learning environment [led to] higher levels of student agency for all learners and the development of learner capabilities being prioritised within curriculum design by all kaiako. Exploring effective strategies to increase whānau engagement [resulted in] the development of authentic partnerships between kaiako and whānau … with the focus being on understanding of curriculum delivery and how best to support this at home.….

Project report

This project explored the impact of introducing experiential learning within classrooms and a model of distributed leadership across the staff. The combination has helped shift teacher pedagogy to a focus on the holistic capabilities valued by the wider community. The shift has required the development of shared understandings about what these capabilities are and the introduction of protocols and practices that foster teacher collaboration and school–whānau partnership.

The school learned that it is not just the physical environment that matters. Innovative learning environments require a shift in culture and the sharing of power and decision-making. To achieve this, teachers themselves need support to grow their capabilities and to be given agency to exercise them.

Inquiry Team

This inquiry was initially led by Nicola Mathwin and later by Jared Kelly. Their colleagues on the project team included Belinda Buchanan, Aine Elliott, and Vicki Mckenzie.

Expert support was provided by:

• Letitia Fickle (University of Canterbury)
• Chris Jansen (Leadership Lab)
• Barry Law (Otago Polytechnic)
• Tammi Martin (Leadership Lab).

The inquiry story

This whole school inquiry took place from February 2016 to December 2019.

What was the focus?

Pegasus Bay School opened in 2014 as the first purpose-built modern learning environment in Canterbury. However, while the physical environment was intended to foster innovation, the necessary pedagogy was lacking. Teachers tended to work in isolation and lacked a shared understanding of the pedagogical practices required to engage with students and whānau and foster student agency.

Staff turnover and the challenges of establishing a new school with a rapidly growing roll meant that this inquiry took time to get going. When it re-started, under the leadership of a new deputy principal, the focus was refined. As well as understanding what it is for teachers to work collaboratively with larger groups of students, the school wanted to inquire into what a capable learner looks like and how to create a holistic and strengths-based curriculum that aligned with the school’s values. The project team also wanted to foster an authentic partnership with whānau based on shared understandings about what successful learning looks like in an innovative learning environment (ILE). The initial inquiry questions were modified to become:

• How can kaiako develop their practice and pedagogy to support the development of student agency and learner capability?
• How can we increase whānau engagement to support student learning and agency in the ILE?

The team believed that this dual approach would help accelerate learning and achievement.

What did the teachers try?

The new approaches the teachers tried can be grouped into six themes:

• Generating a shared understanding of agency
  The teachers explored the concept of learner agency, developing a nuanced understanding that agency is about more than choice. It is about recognising and valuing what students bring to learning as part of who they are and their interactions with their environment.
  Teachers came to realise the need to foster agency through supporting students to reflect upon and develop understandings about their own learning development. Reflection was planned for as part of learning design, through setting aside time and developing banks of developmentally appropriate questions. Teachers supported students to consider their personal connections to learning, its impact on personal growth, and its links to broader contexts.
• Establishing a shared view of learner capability
  The school community re-visited its values, agreeing that they need to become part of students’ ‘ways of being’. The three core values for the school are now: ako, kaitiaki, and whanaungatanga.
  The school community also-reshaped the school’s mission statement to define the three capabilities of an ACT-ive learner, who is an adventurer, creator, and thinker.
  Teachers are expected to design integrated curriculum learning opportunities that are based on the school’s values and foster the social and emotional competencies associated with the ACT-ive learner capabilities, as well as physical and intellectual competencies.
• Shift towards a cohesive school wide pedagogy The most significant change was the adoption of experiential learning as a school-wide pedagogy. Experiential learning is a four-phase cycle (or spiral) that combines reflection with action and knowing with doing. For example, in the junior school, this is achieved through the introduction of play-based learning. Other parts of the school are using problem-based and project-based learning approaches.
  The school has drafted and is in the process of refining a framework for designing experiential learning opportunities that help students develop the ACT-ive capabilities.
• Clarifying what ‘whānau engagement’ means and its role in supporting student agency
  Teachers developed a deeper understanding of the socio-ecological and relational nature of learning. In response, the school sought opportunities to build partnerships with whānau that mean all the people around a child can contribute collaboratively to their learning and growth.
• Identifying strategies that enhance whānau engagement
  Partnership strategies have included creating a new role for a staff member to improve engagement and ensure interactions provide authentic opportunities for all to learn and deepen connections. Meet the Teacher evenings have become celebrations of learning. Students participate in parent interviews. Seesaw is used to enable students, at all levels of the school, to document and share learning. Whānau have real-time access to this and can engage with their children’s learning as it happens.
• Distributed leadership
  When the new project lead picked up the role in 2019, he started by leading reflection on the school’s vision and values. Teachers were encouraged to explore their own critical questions and bring their learning to the construction of a shared direction.
  Today, a leadership team, including at least one teacher from each syndicate, helps maintain cohesion. Another group of teachers form the experiential learning ‘Engine Room’. They are responsible for continuing work on designing the school’s shared pedagogical framework.

What happened as a result of this innovation?

The project team describes three distinct shifts in teacher pedagogy through implementation of experiential learning:

• Teachers use effective questioning strategies to challenge higher order thinking and foster creativity.
• Teachers have shifted from leading the learning to facilitating learning.
• There is an emphasis on using reflection as a critical processing tool.

Students experience cross-curricular learning experiences that they find meaningful and engaging. They can see how learning applies to contexts beyond the school.

Students are developing the metacognitive skills necessary to be reflective learners, with or without the direct involvement of the teacher. They are developing holistically, understanding how the values and capabilities intersect for them to be successful learners and members of their community.

The staff has formed an effective learning community. Teachers reflect together on both the designed and the hidden curriculum. Some say they are aware of having adopted the same metacognitive strategies they have taught the students to enhance their own ability to process their learning.

Parents and whānau say they feel connected to each other as well as to the school. Rates of response to posts in Seesaw provide concrete evidence of their increased engagement in their children’s education and their sense that they are valued participants in the journey.

What did they learn?

The implementation of experiential learning pedagogy and the implementation of a distributed leadership model have proved transformative at this school. It has enabled the creation of an innovative learning environment that is lifting agency and engagement

The project team warns that theirs was a distinct journey. It has not all been easy, and the journey is ongoing. However, the school has a clear sense of direction and a strategy for further refining their pedagogy and making it sustainable.

Reference List

Akella, D. (2010). Learning together: Kolb’s experiential theory and its application. Journal of Management & Organization 16: 100–112.

Ayala, G., Yano, Y. (1995). Interacting with a mediator agent in collaborative learning environments. Symbiosis of human and artifact: Future computing and design for human-computer interaction, A20. Y. Anzai, K. Ogawa, & H. Mori (eds.), Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. Elsevier Science Publishers, 895–900.

Beard, C., & Wilson, J.P. (2018). Experiential learning: A practical guide for training, coaching and education. Kogan Page. 4th Edition.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cullen, J. (2005). The ethics of research in educational settings. Teachers’ work in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: Māori health development. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Education Review Office. (2008). Partners in learning: schools’ engagement with parents, whānau, and communities. Wellington: Education Review Office.

Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving schools. Second Edition. Westview Press.

Epstein, J.L., & Salinas, K.C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership 61, (8), 12–18.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2008). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? Journal of Educational Administration. 46(2), 229–240.

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Journal of Educational Management Administration and Leadership 32(11), Sage.

Harris, A., Andrew-Power, K., & Goodall, J. (2009). Do parents know they matter? Raising achievement through parental engagement. London, UK: Continuum.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review, 87(7-8), 62–9, 153.

Heikka, J., Waniganayake, M., & Hujala, E. (2013). Contextualizing distributed leadership within early childhood education: Current understandings, research evidence and future challenges. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. (41)30.

Hill, J. & Hawke, K. (1998). Aiming for student achievement: How teachers can understand and better meet the needs of Pacific and Maori students, SET 2 (4), 1–4.

Hornblow, R. (2016). Pegasus Bay Staff Handbook. Your A to Z survival guide for life at Pegasus Bay! pp.1–28.

Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education. Building effective school-family partnerships. New York: Springer Publishing.

Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2010). Parental involvement in secondary schools in NZ: Implications for school psychologists. School Psychology International, 31(5), 495-508.

Jansen, C., Conner, L., & Cammock, P. (2011). Leaders building professional learning communities: Appreciative Inquiry in Action. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy & Practice, 25(2). 41–54.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007) The relationship between parent involvement and urban secondary school student achievement: A meta analysis. Urban Education, 42(1).

Klemincic, M., Bergan, S., Primozic, R. (eds). (in press). Student engagement in Europe: society higher education and student governance (pp. 11–29). Council of Europe Higher Education Series No.20. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Law, B. (2005). Experiential learning in the context of educating for a sustainable future: is it an appropriate pedagogy for shifting teachers thinking and engaging learning? SET. 2005. No.3, pp. 15.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1–13. Wellington: Learning Media.

Mutch, C. (2005). Examining the ethical issues. Doing educational research: A practitioner’s guide to getting started. Wellington: NZCER Press.

Robertson, J,. & Timperley, H. (2012). Leadership and learning. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Tolich, M., & Davidson, C. (1999). Starting fieldwork: An introduction to qualitative research in New Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

For further information

If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leader, Jared Kelly, at principal@pegasusbay.school.nz