The pathway to the knowledge society will be mostly through territory that is already known. Some of it, however, will be viewed for the first time on the horizon as we proceed. There is no other way forward. We cannot miraculously leap from the present to an as yet unknown future. For schools, the pathway has to be through the innovations that they make to enhance student learning and understanding. Such innovations will need to incorporate advanced research and practical knowledge into new and better understandings of best practice.
Schools are deeply rooted at the core of the emerging knowledge society. They have always been one of society's primary users of current knowledge. They are the creators of the new knowledge embedded in the learning of their students. Schooling is the engine of the future knowledge society— displacing the farm, the mine and the services sector as the primary infrastructure for building future generations.
The changing social and economic demands of schooling have been incorporated in a recent revision of the National Goals for Schooling for the Twenty-First Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]), endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. These National Goals for Schooling are an attempt to address the learning outcomes that students will require to be effective participants in the emerging `knowledge nation'. Education is recognised as the engine of the knowledge economy (Commonwealth Ministerial Council for the Information Economy, 1998).
The National Goals for Schooling (1999) now reflect the intention that schooling should provide the opportunity for students to fully develop their talents and capacities; gain a range of specific cognitive skills and knowledge; develop specific affective outcomes, such as self-confidence and high self-esteem; develop the capacity to exercise judgement; gain the knowledge and understandings required for citizenship; develop appropriate employment related skills and understandings; be confident, creative and productive users of new technologies; develop an understanding of the natural environment; and develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Specific curriculum goals include the attainment of high standards of knowledge and skills in a comprehensive and balanced curriculum; attainment of skills in numeracy and literacy; access to vocational learning programmes; and access to programmes and activities that foster and develop enterprise skills.
The development of policies and programmes to enhance the experience of schooling for young people has increasingly moved towards a three-stage model of schooling. Phase 1, covering approximately Years K-4, is focused on building the essential skills that young students need to acquire before they can become independent learners. Phase 2, approximately Years 5-9, is the period in which schools seek to develop students as autonomous learners. Phase 3, Years 10-12, is the stage in which learners are expected to have established themselves as self- directed learners who are purposefully enhancing their understanding of fields of knowledge that they choose to study to support their social, intellectual and vocational development.
This report is an account of the innovative state of schooling in Australia. It draws its evidence and inspiration from research into the work of 107 of the thousands of schools throughout the nation that are deeply involved in creating innovative solutions to the challenges and problems that emerge as the external world about them transforms from the post-industrial society into the knowledge society. The 107 schools were participants in the Innovation and Best Practice Project (IBPP), a project funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The innovations of schools represent the practical action taken to resolve identified educational problems and the development of strategies to address future directions. Many of these directions reach back into educational, social and political debates and conflicts that have slowly moved towards resolution over recent decades. The innovations also mine the seams of research findings in public policy and education over the last two decades. This chapter sketches the political and educational context in which the innovations took place, outlines the distinguishing features of the IBPP, and describes what has been achieved.
Regulatory and policy context
In recent years there has been a shift in the relationship between policy, regulation and management in most Australian government school systems. This has been manifested in higher levels of devolution of authority to schools and seen the emergence of self-managing government schools and increased levels of transparency in regulatory systems. The latter has resulted in more explicit definitions of curriculum expectations. It has also resulted in systems of accountability for student learning outcomes, including measurement of performance against national goals for schooling. At the same time, there has been a slow but perceptible shift in both government and non-government sectors towards greater transparency in the relationship between funding and the performance of schools.
For the last half century Australia has had one of the highest proportions of students being schooled outside systems directly managed by government. In 2001, almost a third of students undertake their education in what are referred to as non-government schools. The Commonwealth Government provides a substantial proportion of the funding for such schools. The availability of funding to establish schools outside the government sector has been accompanied by a heightened awareness of the way in which schools exist within a market, in the sense that they present alternative options for students and parents.
Increased devolution of management functions and budgetary authority to schools and more active choice by students and parents among schools and school programmes has increased the awareness in schools of the need to maintain standards and the quality of education. Because the innovations that schools develop are their responses to perceived challenges, innovation is a response to the context of schooling as we know it today—one, nevertheless, framed by the perceived challenges of tomorrow.
There has been wide-ranging debate over the last few decades about ways of enhancing the effectiveness and productivity of schooling. In fact, a whole field of research, known as `school effectiveness and school improvement', has sprung up since the early 1970s. A key element of the debate has addressed the issue of how best to organise schooling, particularly in government systems. Proposed solutions have sought to move schools to increased levels of self-management that provide them with greater flexibility to respond to local needs and to develop the best approach to their work of educating students.
The view of innovation as a solution to manifest problems that occur in school systems has been a recurring theme in Australian education over the last 30 years or so. When enjoined with the focus on `restructuring' that emerged over the last decade, the focus on innovation explicitly recognised the limits and constraints imposed by systemic regulations and practices.
In schooling, the primary resource is the people who bring their potential and capacities to the tasks of teaching and learning. Traditionally, schools have operated within tight procedural and regulatory constraints imposed by external regulatory systems. Such systems deal with entry to the profession, the curriculum, and control over resources, etc. There has, typically, been less external control over resources for non-government schools than for government schools. Hence, non-government schools have always had a degree of flexibility that government schools have not enjoyed. Non-government schools are not subject to the same multi-faceted directions from government authorities on how they can use their resources, although they can be subject to constraints of various degrees imposed by church and other governing authorities.
Policies, regulations and programmes of support developed for schools can be viewed within the context of change management strategies that are required to improve schooling to achieve The National Goals for Schooling (1999). Fullan (1993) has argued that an appropriate combination of pressure and support is required for this purpose. A `top down' approach of applying pressure without support can simply generate alienation and withdrawal, with superficial change occurring at best. On the other hand, support without pressure can lead to attempts at change that fail to tackle difficult core improvement issues. By using the opportunity of external change as a stimulus, and by taking advantage of external support and the evidence of good practice and research, schools can scrutinise and adapt external programmes to enhance the learning outcomes of their students (Hopkins et al., 1997). "What is required is a ...two-way relationship of pressure, support and continuous negotiation. It amounts to simultaneous top-down bottom-up influence." (Fullan, 1993; 38)
The challenge to continuing school improvement, however, lies not simply in individual initiatives. Cuban (1988) categorised efforts to improve schooling as first-order or second-order change. First-order change seeks to improve the effectiveness of schools "without disturbing the basic organisational features, without altering the way that students and adults perform their roles" (p.341). Second-order change aims to alter the fundamental relationships of a school, creating new goals, re-organising structures and creating new cultures. In picking up this theme, Fullan (1991) argues that we need to address more second-order changes if we are to improve education. These changes need to affect the practices, culture and structure of schools by restructuring roles and re-organising responsibilities, including those of students and parents.
Innovations are the `bottom-up' efforts of schools to put in place educational practices based on their understandings of best practice as evident in other schools or the research literature. Many innovations are multi-faceted and complex and aim to change fundamental practices and professional orientations in the school. This does not mean that `innovations' necessarily represent new ways of teaching or learning. They are better viewed as the process by which individual schools address the challenge of how they can create the best learning environments and strategies for their students.
A number of regulatory and policy developments over the last two decades can be viewed as increasing the pressure for schools to make second-order changes. Developments such as new curriculum frameworks, performance management strategies, benchmarking and accountability and school review programmes exert external pressure on schools to improve learning outcomes for students. In addition, there is evidence of substantial internal pressure generated within schools from the professional understandings of teachers and through their professional role of maximising the educational development of their students.
The educational research context
Schools make a difference
There is a substantial body of international research that provides clear guidance as to the sources and key factors within and between schools that influence their impact on student learning. The research evidence indicates that 8-19 per cent of the variation in student learning outcomes lies between schools with a further amount of up to 55 per cent of the variation in individual learning outcomes attributable to differences between-classrooms within schools in Western education systems 1. Up to 60 per cent of the variation in student learning outcomes lies either between-schools or between-classrooms. The remaining 40 per cent is due to the characteristics of individual students that influence learning outcomes (socio-economic background, ethnic and language background, family support for education, gender, etc.) or to random influences in school systems (Cuttance, 2001).
There is also evidence from the UK that the impact of differences in primary school effectiveness endure through the student's secondary school years. Students who attended more effective primary schools gained a boost to their achievement, one that was still evident in their examination results five years later at Year 10. This is independent of the effectiveness of the secondary school they attended (Sammons et al., 1995). Further, individual schools can be differentially effective in different areas of learning, even within the cognitive domain (Cuttance, 1998).
Parents view schools as having a broad role in supporting them to ensure the intellectual, affective, social, and physical development of their students (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000). The mission statements and aims of most schools usually reflect these broad aims.
School improvement and development
The following are the major dimensions of a general design for school improvement as described by Hill & Crévola (1997) and further elaborated on the basis of recent Australian research (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000; Hill & Russell, 1999):
- all improvement is set within a framework of teacher beliefs and understandings about their professional efficacy and the capacity of every student to learn, given the right support and learning environment;
- the school's leadership team creates a focus on effective teaching and learning through instructional leadership and coordination of school change and improvement efforts;
- clear standards that are benchmarked to external frameworks are set for what students are expected to learn and individual learning targets are established and used to monitor and report on the progress of each student;
- regular, frequent and systematic monitoring and assessment of the progress of all students is undertaken for the purposes of evaluating student progress, evaluating the effectiveness of teaching strategies and reporting to parents;
- teaching strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective are employed to create a learning environment that challenges and supports individual students to develop their understanding and enhance their cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities;
- the learning environment is designed to maximise the opportunity for students to engage in learning through flexible and appropriate school and class organisation;
- emphasis is given to ensuring that all teachers engage in professional learning through access to appropriate knowledge and that they have the opportunity to apply and develop that knowledge for the improvement of student learning;
- all students who experience difficulty in mastering learning in normal classroom contexts are identified and special assistance is provided through appropriate intervention strategies that aim to support their learning at a level that allows them to participate fully in classroom learning; and
- the school provides parents with advice about effective ways to support their child's learning through interactive and coordinated relationships between the home, school and community.
Effective school improvement can be enhanced by access to externally developed programmes of support to schools, specifically those that meet the following criteria (Kentucky Department of Education, 1997).
- The programme makes stringent demands on schools in terms of adopting and implementing the programme. The programme typically offers schools the highest level of service quality and has the strongest impact on improving student results.
- The programme sets demanding targets for student outcomes, which are based on a strong curriculum and accompanied by high quality professional development and technical support.
- The programme provides services that are highly developed and coordinated in the areas of instruction, methodology, assessment, on-site technical assistance and quality control.
- The programme places a strong emphasis on valuing the core content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers and enriches this as a focus of its service. That is, the programme is highly responsive to the specific professional learning needs of participating teachers.
- The programme places a strong emphasis on assessing the effectiveness of its implementation by requiring teachers to evaluate student learning as feedback about the effectiveness of teaching practice.
Effective learning
The literatures on learning and teaching have not always been able to be linked. Frameworks for researching the impact of schools have typically included constructs such as governance and school organisation; home educational contexts; school demographics and climate; design and delivery of curriculum and instruction; and teaching practices (e.g., Scheerens, 1997; Wang et al., 1993).
Behaviourist models of learning characterised much of the research from the 1950s to the 1970s. These emphasised quality of instruction through the cues impinging on the learner, the learner's act of engagement in the process, and reinforcement or rewards that encourage continuing effort over time (Walberg, 1990).
More recent research has moved beyond a behaviourist view of learning to incorporate information processing approaches that view students as active interpreters and mediators of teacher behaviours (Wittrock, 1986). A key strand of this work has sought to explicate the mental structures and processes underlying simple and complex performance. Beyond this, constructivist approaches to learning focus on the way in which the social and cultural environments shape learning and understanding. Student perceptions, expectations, attitudinal processes, understandings, beliefs, learning strategies and meta-cognitive processes mediate achievement. A link is thus provided between the affective and cognitive dimensions of student thought processes (Wittrock, 1986).
Cognitive strategies that are deployed in the process of learning also influence students' motivation to learn and subsequent learning outcomes (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Monitoring by an individual of their own knowledge and cognitive processes draws on both meta-cognitive and affective components of thought processes (Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Flavel et al., 1981). Other factors also present in the immediate learning environment, such as student and teacher social interactions; social, behavioural, motivational and affective behaviours of students; student and teacher academic interactions; and the quality of instruction, also have a strong impact on student learning (Wang et al., 1993).
Some of the most powerful factors that have been found to influence learning are associated with aspects of meta-cognitive and cognitive aspects of students' learning capacities. Cognitive strategies such as elaboration (e.g., summarising, paraphrasing) and organising (making outlines, drawing up tables or charts) engage the student in the understanding of content at a deeper level of processing (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1994). In addition to such cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive strategies have been shown to be important for effective learning. These meta-cognitive strategies include setting goals and monitoring progress, choosing among alternative problem solving strategies, comprehension monitoring, strategies to facilitate generalisation of concepts, and strategies for managing and regulating effort, (Corno, 1993; Keating, 1990; Segal et al., 1985; Wang & Pallincsar, 1989; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
This extended framework for understanding learning is particularly salient as a basis for understanding contemporary issues, such as the schooling of adolescents. The middle-years of schooling is a period when students have to choose between spending time and effort on school subjects and giving attention to other activities. Hence, well-developed motivation, self-regulation and meta- cognitive capacities are required to engage successfully in schooling during this period (Pintrich & Garcia, 1994). Student perceptions influence self-regulation of behaviour and mediate their behaviours and outcomes.
A constructivist methodology of learning is likely to become more relevant as the process of learning is recognised as one of `working' with knowledge in order to understand it. Students will need to become meta-cognitively aware of the second-order skills that they require for the effective manipulation of knowledge. These patterns and models of understanding need to be understood in terms of the development of cognitive capacity and the effectiveness of qualitatively different approaches to teaching and learning at different stages in the development of the child's cognitive repertoire (Pellegrino et al., 1999).
Constructivist approaches to learning broadly have one of two foci. They focus either on a cognitive view of the construction of knowledge (cognitive constructivism) or a socially situated view of the development of understanding and learning (social constructivism). Cognitive constructivism has its roots in Piaget's later work (Piaget, 1987) and social constructivism draws much of its heritage from the work of Vygotsky (1978; 1986).
A significant, although controversial element of Vygotsky's seminal writings was his development of the construct of the `zone of proximal development'- extending from what learners can do independently, to the maximum that they can do with the help of the teacher and other features of the learning environment. Further development of this theory has incorporated the concept of `scaffolding' in the knowledge construction process. A key role of the teacher is to assist the student by providing scaffolding to act as a bridge from the student's current knowledge to new knowledge through a process of social- construction of embedded understanding, after which the scaffolding becomes unnecessary.
Kuhn (1999) represents cognitive constructivism through a developmental model of critical thinking. Her seminal work provides a basis for understanding the development of cognitive capacities from early childhood to adulthood. The most important competencies relevant to critical thinking are meta-cognitive, rather than cognitive competencies. The first-order cognitive skills that enable one to know about the world are different from meta-cognitive skills, which are second- order meta-knowing skills that address the issue of knowing about one's own knowing. The process of cognitive and meta-cognitive development is viewed within the context of the maturation of a person's thinking capacities from birth to adulthood.
In the early years of childhood, children's understanding of the universe of assertions that people make is that they are isomorphic with external reality. Young children generally do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that there could be more than one understanding of a particular event or object. As children move towards their teenage years, they develop the cognitive capacity to understand that assertions are themselves `belief states' and, as such, may differ among people. Part of the capacity acquired in this stage of development is that of learning to evaluate an assertion in the light of evidence——`What do I know?' and `How do it know it?' (Kuhn, 1999).
In the emerging context of learning in schools, students will have access to substantially increased amounts of information and other resources through the use of information and communication technologies. Hence, the acquisition of high-level evaluative meta-knowing skills and knowledge will become more critical in the learning process. Relatively more of students' time and effort will be applied to processes involving the meta-cognitive manipulation of knowledge (in Kuhn's terms, second-order processes) than to first-order processes of accumulating, storing and retrieving knowledge.
Effective teaching practice
Teacher practices are one of the primary elements of teaching, but there are also other components of classrooms that contribute to education and its effectiveness. These other features include curricula, classroom structures—such as groups, classroom management and educational goals. Educational goals are incorporated into the teaching and learning environment through curriculum and the instructional design of classroom activities.
A number of different frameworks have been employed in analysing the significant corpus of literature on the effectiveness of teaching environments. Wang et al. (1993), for example, used the classification of curriculum and instruction, curriculum design, and programme demographics as their framework for analysing the knowledge base of teaching. Within these categories they further classified classroom practices into classroom implementation support, classroom instructional strategies, quantity of instruction, classroom assessment, classroom management, teacher and student social interaction, student and teacher academic interaction, and classroom climate. They used this framework to synthesise and analyse almost two hundred studies of K-12 classroom learning in which the dependent variable was student learning outcomes.
The practices with strongest impact on student learning were classroom management, practices focused on the development of meta-cognitive and cognitive capacities, and student and teacher social interactions. The fact, however, that other factors such as design and delivery of curriculum and instruction, classroom climate, and school and classroom organisation had lesser direct effects on learning, does not mean that they are unimportant. The earlier set of factors that were found to have the strongest effects cannot be implemented in an environment that does not also have many of the factors that had a lesser direct impact on learning.
In general, `proximal' processes—those that are closest to students' educational experiences of learning—were found to have greater influence on student learning than those that are further removed from the process of learning. For example, simply developing new systemic policies or implementing new educational programmes does not necessarily improve student learning. This is because such programmes are dependent for their impact on a range of other factors that are more proximal to the learning process, such as how well the intent of the programme is implemented at the level of the classroom. Many teaching strategies that have been researched in the behaviourist tradition can also be interpreted as prime facie evidence in a constructivist framework also. For example, cues have been shown in a wide range of studies to have a substantial impact on student learning (Wang et al., 1993). Cues take many forms. These may include:
- brief overviews that abstractly relate new concepts or terms to previous learning to act as a scaffold between old and new learning;
- adjunct questions, which can be interpreted as a strategy for steering students into their zone of proximal development;
- the setting of objectives, guidelines, methods and standards to support student's self-regulation of their learning;
- the development of learning hierarchies by ordering facts, skills and ideas that logically or psychologically proceed others to enhance the development of second-order classification and problem solving capacities; and
- the use of ongoing assessment to benchmark student learning prior to undertaking new learning in order to support the development of student's self-regulation of their learning (Walberg, 1990).
Strategies to provide corrective feedback to students have also been shown to have a significant influence on student learning. Reinforcement can be immediate and direct in the classroom and includes acknowledgment of correctness and social approval. However, in many classrooms the main form of reinforcement is through marks, grades and awards, which assume that students regulate their learning in terms of intangible, long-term goals such as pleasing parents, further education and adult success. The main impact of reinforcement has been found to be in providing information rather than incentives (Walberg, 1990).
Student-centred teaching strategies, such as giving students a voice in choosing what to learn and involving them in planning and assessment processes, have been designed to improve cooperation, critical thinking, constructive attitudes and self-directed learning. Such strategies have been shown to have an impact on non-cognitive outcomes, such as student attitudes, creativity and self- concept, but at some cost to cognitive outcomes as assessed by achievement measures (Giaconia & Hedges, 1982).
Although no longer widely implemented in their original form, two models of teaching that have been shown to have substantial impact on student learning are Mastery Learning (Bloom, 1976) and Direct Instruction (Rosenshine, 1972, 1987).
The essential characteristics of mastery learning are a set of course objectives that students are expected to master at a high level; teaching units that address a specific and small number of objectives at any one time; teaching for mastery and assessing students at the end of the unit; and assessment of each student's mastery of the course as a whole on the basis of what the student has and has not achieved, rather than on how well the student has achieved relative to classmates. The model uses additional tutorial-based support for students who do not reach the target level of mastery when the unit is first taught. This adds substantially to the resourcing requirements of the method. The effectiveness of the model has been shown to be associated with the additional resources that are allocated to ensure individual students achieve at the mastery level (Kulik & Kulik, 1991) and the high level of congruence among the instructional components of the model (Guskey & Gates, 1986).
Recent models of literacy teaching that have been shown to be effective (Hill & Crévola, 1997) include key elements of mastery learning-in particular, high expectations for all students; a strongly sequential progression in skill acquisition; ongoing assessment and monitoring of the progress of individual students against a set of external standards; and additional support for students not achieving mastery at a high level in the context of normal classroom instruction.
Direct Instruction (Rosenshine, 1987) is based on a model that brings together the essential findings from process-product studies of classroom practice and its impact on learning outcomes. The key elements of the direct instruction model include:
- the daily review and checking of homework;
- teacher presentation of the material and illustration of concepts, etc. through the use of concrete examples and models;
- guided practice-that is, initial student practice takes place with teacher guidance and is continued with guidance until students gain the level of mastery that is required;
- the use of correctives and feedback to indicate to students when they have demonstrated that they have learnt something, and to assist them to achieve the correct answers;
- independent practice to consolidate student learning; and
- weekly and monthly reviews to assess whether students have learnt the material and concepts, followed by re-teaching of material that has been missed or for which there is evidence that students have not learnt the concepts or material.
Direct instruction has been found to be most successful with well-structured subject areas, such as Mathematics, which can be divided into small units that focus on specific knowledge and skills. It has also been shown to be particularly successful for disadvantaged students. More recent elaborations of the direct instruction model have sought to incorporate aspects of higher-order cognitive processes, such as learning strategies, problem solving and meta-cognitive behaviour. Such strategies can be incorporated through `modelling' and `scaffolding'.
One of the significant findings from other research is that highly structured teaching is more effective for less able students and that relatively unstructured teaching can be of benefit for more able students. Further, unstructured teaching is of most benefit to students after they have gained a good grasp of the skills required and an understanding of the structures they require to understand the substantive material that they are studying. This suggests that student-directed strategies may have a more prominent role to play in teaching students with more highly developed cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities, whereas explicit teaching may have a more prominent role in teaching students with less well- developed cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities. In an ideal context teaching adapts the degree of structure used according to the level of understanding and the state of cognitive and meta-cognitive development of the individual student. Typical teaching strategies generally fit between the extremes of high- and low- structure, although there is evidence of an imbalance in some classrooms towards an emphasis on the low-structure end of the spectrum (Pelligreno et al., 1999). The model of direct instruction is evident in some classrooms in teaching practice that is referred to as `explicit teaching', which provides an appropriate higher level of structure for part of the time.
Other key areas of practice and organisation that have been shown to have a significant relationship to student learning outcomes include student grouping, adaptive instruction, social environment, and computer-assisted instruction.
The extent to which grouping is used depends on the curriculum and the degree to which teachers can adapt instruction to individual needs. The grouping of students is designed to deal with differences in the way students learn and the rate at which they learn. The effectiveness of grouping strategies is dependent on the availability of appropriately graded instructional materials and of establishing differentiated groups within the spatial constraints of the classroom (Janssens, 1986).
Grouping can take place between schools, within schools and within classrooms. Grouping between schools is exemplified by programmes that cater for students with particular educational needs and interests, such as specific vocational interests. Grouping between classes in schools is most often referred to as `setting' or `streaming'. Ability and mixed-ability grouping within classes is common in the primary years, but less common within the secondary years, although some theme-based learning and project-based learning in the secondary years can be viewed as a type of grouping. Whole-class mixed-ability instruction requires teachers to focus more on the average student or slightly below the average level of the class, which may disadvantage students who learn at significantly slower or faster rates. Hence, the use of within-class grouping is critical to meeting the needs of all groups of students.
Meta-analyses of the large number of studies of grouping indicate that there are substantial effects associated with this practice. Ability grouping has its strongest impact on attitudes and high ability students. Both multi-age grouping in reading and within-class grouping have been shown to have a moderate influence on learning. A strong effect has been found for `tutoring'. The strongest overall effect, however, has been shown to be associated with `acceleration' groups, particularly in the primary years. They also have a strong impact in the junior secondary school years, but only a moderate impact in the senior secondary school years (Walberg, 1990).
Adaptive instruction geared to the learning characteristics and needs of individual students has been shown to be more effective than whole-class instruction for both cognitive and affective outcomes. Adaptive instruction improves student learning, particularly when it includes instruction based on the learning characteristics and needs of individual students, when students work at their own pace, receive periodic reports of their mastery, plan and evaluate their own learning, and when alternative materials and activities are provided (Creemers, 1994).
The social environment of schooling has been shown to be of crucial importance, particularly in association with the use of cooperative learning strategies. Cooperative learning delegates some control of pacing and methods of learning to groups of students who work together. The synthesis of a large number of research studies has shown the impact of cooperative learning is strong (Walberg, 1990). The success of the strategy has been attributed to a number of factors including: relief from the exclusive teacher-to-student interaction of whole-group teaching; the time freed up for interactions with and among students; opportunities for targeted cues, encouragement, correctives, reinforcement and tutoring to encourage students to think about the subject matter; and the productive use of time.
Finally, the use of computers in learning processes has been shown to have a positive impact on learning outcomes for students. Most of the research, however, has been undertaken in the limited context of using computers to teach information technology skills and knowledge, and in using computers in programmed-instruction contexts. The strongest impact of computers on student learning in these contexts has been when they have been used for students with special physical learning needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Walberg, 1990).
Project description
One hundred and seven IBPP schools across Australia joined with a consortium of university researchers to evaluate the impact of the innovations they were undertaking to improve the learning outcomes of their students. The 107 schools 2 were selected from approximately 300 schools that submitted proposals to join the research. The schools selected for the project were provided with funding 3 to enhance the development of their innovation and to undertake research to evaluate its impact on student learning.
Each participating school produced a research report that described its innovation, evaluated its impact and assessed how successful the school had been in improving student learning outcomes. The project sought to understand how schools respond to both internal and external sources of pressure and support to improve learning and the nature of the evidence they can provide about the improvement of learning outcomes. The innovations selected for the project focused on significant groups of students across classrooms within each individual school. The research also sought to understand the role of organisational structures and flexible use of staff and resources in achieving improvements in student learning.
Schools also completed a common survey about their experience in undertaking their innovation. The survey required respondents to assess the innovation in their school. The survey inquired about the rationale for the innovation, the factors affecting the adoption of the innovation, flexible use of resources, the impact of the innovation, characteristics of the innovation and staff reflections of the innovation and the way in which it was implemented. One section of the survey asked participants to nominate factors that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the school's innovation.
The innovations focused on challenges and problems that had been identified by schools-with most addressing fundamental aspects of student learning. Many of the innovations addressed issues that have emerged in public and educational policy in a number of different contexts. These issues were manifested in poor literacy skills, lack of engagement in learning, and disaffection with schooling.
The innovations sought to augment instructional methods that have traditionally been teacher-centred with student-centred learning strategies. These were mostly based on a contemporary understanding of learning as a process by which students construct the framework in which they understand their world. Such approaches to learning presume an active and contextualised process that focuses on students constructing an understanding of their immediate world.
The innovations are the response of schools to a broader debate about the function and role of education. School staff have been a significant participating group in the public discourse. The innovations are their response as teachers and as the group that has the ultimate capacity to act directly in relation to identified problems and directions for improvement.
The evaluation expectations of the project demanded more than a report about the innovations. The project explicitly enunciated high expectations and used organisational processes to generate constructive pressure and support for the participating schools to provide sound evidence and undertake a thorough analysis of the impact of their innovations on student learning.
Schools were challenged by the evaluation expectations of the project. A significant proportion of the schools had some, but certainly not all, of the competencies and capacities they needed in assessing whether their innovation had been successful. The project report guidelines asked schools specifically to:
- describe and analyse the data and evidence collected;
- analyse the intersections and linkages between different aspects of the data or evidence;
- quantify the size of the impact—for different student groups, different areas of learning, and the level of improvement in learning outcomes;
- describe the range of relevant outcomes—e.g., learning achievement, attendance, participation, behaviour, attitudes;
- describe changes in classroom practice as a result of the innovation;
- assess the impact attributable to the innovation; and
- discuss whether, or to what extent, the impact could be attributed to other programmes and innovations also taking place in the school.
Although schools found these expectations challenging, they tackled them with energy and keenness. Most were successful in this endeavour. The schools themselves wanted to know how successful their innovations were and valued the strong focus on the quality of the process. This gave them assurance that they would be able to learn whether their investment in the innovation was in fact achieving the outcomes they wanted for their students.
In addition to assessing the impact of the innovation on student outcomes, schools reflected on the processes of change. Through this, they developed understandings about the nature of their innovation, the school culture and conditions that facilitated the implementation of their innovation, what was required for the innovations to be sustainable over time, the process of innovation, and the nature of the specific innovation unique to each school. Successful innovations cannot be transplanted or `dropped' on schools; they do not start from the outside in but develop from the inside out. Schools grappled with many issues in developing and implementing their innovations. The project provided assistance to them in clarifying the outcomes they were trying to achieve for their students and in developing an evaluation process to determine whether their innovation was working, and in what way and to what extent. Through this process, schools learned more about themselves as organisations, about their students and the students' needs, about what does and does not work, and most importantly, through a focus on meeting student needs, they gained a deeper understanding of the nature of teaching and learning.
Schools were encouraged to design research frameworks that would allow them to provide information about the effectiveness of their innovations relative to other alternatives. A wide range of designs was used by schools, including experimental control groups; quasi-control groups; pre and post measurement designs; random and purposive sampling of students, teachers and parents; and needs analyses. The data collection and analysis strategies that schools employed were comprehensive. They drew from surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation schedules, computer system logs, achievement tests and public examination results, teacher/student journals, computer maintenance records, standardised assessment inventories, evaluations of student work, student/teacher self-evaluations, document analysis, and needs analysis. Schools made attempts to triangulate the different forms of data they had collected and used case studies, structured vignettes, written testimonials, etc, to provide depth to their analyses.
Most schools contracted a researcher to assist them with particular aspects of their project. A significant feature of the schools' relationship with the researchers they engaged was its contractual nature and the strong focus on the school retaining ownership of the innovation and research. The university research consortium responsible for the project conducted a number of workshops to assist schools to focus their research and to access the consultancy support that they required.
A significant influence on the process of analysis and emergent understandings was the fact that schools and not the researchers were expected to take control of the evaluation. The schools controlled the funds, they selected their consultant researcher—in consultation with project directors—and they monitored the quality of the research support provided. There was no point in a traditional research methodology in which researchers retain control when devolved self- management was itself at the core of the process of innovation. With this transfer of power, schools were able to ensure that the research was meeting their needs for information about the innovation, that it was telling them what they wanted to know for their school and their students.
This was a new research experience for many of the schools. They were more familiar with researchers having the evaluation skills, `doing' the research on them, and providing a report back to the school. This time, the researchers worked for schools by providing expertise for the development of high quality evaluation strategies-in the process, transferring skills in evaluation design, data collection and analysis and report writing to the schools. As one principal commented, "this was a school-driven R&D project that had access to the necessary infrastructure of professional research support".
The project gave schools full control over how they used their allocated funds. In addition to direct input to the innovation, some of the funds were used by schools to release teachers to meet and engage in professional discussions about their innovation.
A limitation of the project design was the constrained time available to demonstrate improvement in student outcomes. In the time available, some schools were not able to provide evidence of improvement although they were able to demonstrate intermediary outcomes, such as changes in teaching practice and student engagement. Unexpectedly, however, the expectation that schools would report in a limited timeframe provided positive pressure by encouraging schools to focus on action from the start. This pressure ensured the innovations were focused and that momentum was maintained. The constructive pressure that accompanied participation in the project was demanding. Schools, however, achieved more under pressure than they might otherwise have done.
The support provided through the project infrastructure assisted schools to meet expectations. In addition to their access to the expertise of consultant researchers, schools attended three workshops over the duration of the project, and could seek advice and support from a project manager allocated to them. The workshops provided opportunities for school representatives to share and interact with other schools in the project. The schools met at various stages throughout the project and shared their understandings about pedagogy—about understandings grounded in the reality of each individual school and its students. Teachers built on their already extensive professional knowledge and understanding to develop an environment of professional enrichment that maintained enthusiasm and motivation and provided opportunities to learn from each other.
A project website was established to foster networking, answer questions and provide resources or links to relevant resources. However, it was not widely used by schools once they had established their `live' networks with other participating schools. Although all but a handful of schools had access to the website via the internet, the communications connections were often fragile and access was not always located in the participating teachers' work areas. Schools preferred to consult directly with other schools or go directly to the research literature or their consultant researcher when they required new information and knowledge to support their innovation.
The findings reported in this report are an analysis and synthesis of the findings across the school research reports, the completed surveys, and follow-up visits made to selected case study schools. Appendix 2 provides further details of the methodology that has been employed in the research for specific chapters.
The Schools
Schools were invited to submit proposals to be considered for the project. Approximately one-third of the schools submitting proposals were selected to join the project. The selection of schools was stratified by the proportions of students in the government, Catholic and independent sectors nationally. The final group of participating schools included 67 from government sectors, 16 from Catholic systemic systems, and 24 independent schools. The proportions of schools in the various states and territories also guided the selection process. One-fifth of the schools selected described themselves as serving communities with a significant level of social and economic disadvantage. Approximately one- sixth of the schools indicated that their innovation was a direct response to a crisis or perceived threat to their viability.
Sixty-four per cent of the participating schools were located in capital cities. The year levels/grades that were the most frequently targeted by the innovations were: Year 7 (41 per cent), Year 8 (38 per cent), Year 9 (29 per cent), Year 6 (27 per cent) and Year 5 (26 per cent). The year levels least frequently targeted were Year 12 (10 per cent) and Year 11 (14 per cent) 4.
In 82 per cent of the participating schools the innovation aimed to improve learning outcomes across the board. However, as part of their whole-school approach many of the innovations differentiated their strategies for specific groups of students requiring additional support. These focused on improving outcomes for low achieving students (21 per cent schools), `at risk' students (19 per cent), students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds (14 per cent), girls (13 per cent), boys (9 per cent), and high achieving or gifted and talented students (11 per cent).
The learning outcomes that were the focus of the innovations included:
- engagement in and attitude to learning (78 per cent),
- core or foundational learning (60 per cent),
- ability to work collaboratively as a member of a team (48 per cent),
- self-esteem and identity (44 per cent),
- higher-order cognitive learning (32 per cent),
- social behaviour, discipline (29 per cent),
- participation in particular areas of the curriculum (25 per cent),
- subject-based knowledge (18 per cent),
- specific learning difficulties (17 per cent).
In writing this report, we have set out to provide a living account of the innovations in the substantive areas of literacy in the early years, mathematics, information and communication technologies, and the middle-years of schooling. These chapters are based on the schools that made one or more of these areas the focus of their innovation. There were innovations in other substantive areas, but insufficient numbers of them to be able to provide corroborated evidence about what worked across a number of schools. Some substantive curriculum areas were not represented in the project because they were absent or weak among the proposals from the schools that made application to join the project. It is notable that innovations in the curriculum areas of the arts, science and vocational education, in particular, do not appear to be the focus of high levels of innovation in schools. Or perhaps, schools do not consider such areas as important as those represented in the project.
In addition to the above substantive areas, the research findings focus on a range of school leadership and school organisational issues that were evident as critical success factors in the innovations. Leadership, instructional flexibility and issues in the management of innovation are the subject of later chapters. The lessons for practice and for policy are discussed as a conclusion to the report. The main features of each of the chapters are briefly outlined below.
Innovations focused on literacy in the early years
The high profile of professional and policy interest in literacy over the past two decades has culminated in the development of specific targets for the improvement of literacy in the early years of schooling. The literacy innovations were among the more rigorous and well constructed of all the innovations in the IBPP. They were more likely to draw on sound research evidence and well- developed professional practice in developing innovations that directly targeted student learning needs. They provide strong evidence of the power of using student achievement data as feedback to the teaching and learning process. Schools developed strategies to ensure that they closely tracked student progress and used this information to target their efforts to ensure all students were able to achieve at an appropriate standard. The projects had a very strong emphasis on teacher learning, often in a team-learning context and they provided parents with relevant information and advice so that they could in turn enhance their child's learning. These early literacy schools were well placed to demonstrate the impact of their innovations on the improvement of student learning outcomes.
Innovations focused on mathematics
A significant feature of the innovations that focused on the improvement of learning in mathematics was that they were much more likely than the literacy innovations to be confined to single classrooms rather than being the basis of a programme that was implemented across all classrooms at a particular stage of schooling. In a number of cases, the mathematics innovations and mathematics departments had decided to opt-out of other innovation and support processes in the school. Another significant difference compared to the literacy innovations was the very limited use of student assessment information to feedback into the teaching and learning process in the mathematics innovations. The innovations focused on improving affective aspects of learning in mathematics, that is, on the encouragement and development of positive attitudes and motivation in the learning of mathematics. Teacher professional learning was a strong focus of these innovations, but because they lacked the whole-school focus of the literacy innovations, they were not able to exploit the advantages of team-based learning and problem solving among teachers. Constraints imposed by the current curriculum frameworks in mathematics were a common area of concern to the teachers involved in the innovations.
Innovations focused on the integration of information and communication technologies
The schools that engaged in integrating information and communication technologies into school learning environments were mostly involved in either enhancing learning with ICT or through ICT. In the main, schools sought to address learning about ICT, believing that students would gain sufficient exposure to the technology to learn all they needed to know about it. The innovations were fairly evenly split between laptop programmes, on-line and internet-based learning initiatives, and the integration of classroom-based desktop computers and peripherals in learning environments. The schools demonstrated the impact of ICT on cognitive curriculum outcomes, meta- cognitive outcomes, affective outcomes and the development of social competencies. In many cases, the ICT innovations were also an integral part of a much broader framework to reform school organisation and learning environments to better meet the needs of individual students. A significant element of the use of ICT was its capacity to provide almost instantaneous feedback to the learner and to teachers about whether their practice was achieving its aims. Perhaps the most significant impediments to success in the ICT innovations were the problems schools experienced with the technical reliability of hardware and software, and the lack of bandwidth for connectivity to the internet in most schools.
Innovations focused on the middle-years of schooling
The innovations in the middle-years of schooling focused primarily on the re- engagement of students in their learning. They sought also to develop the skills and knowledge that students require to become self-directed, autonomous learners. The middle-years innovations were predominantly whole-school efforts to improve learning for students and, as with the literacy innovations, emphasised teachers working and learning together in teams. Many of the schools had moved away from the prescribed curriculum to a more generic curriculum that they referred to as a `thinking skills' curriculum. This focused on self-regulatory skills and knowledge, such as developing the capacity to manage one's work and working in teams, and the development of the second-order meta-cognitive skills required for `working' with knowledge. Most schools were able to demonstrate that students were achieving improved learning outcomes that were either the precursors to improved cognitive skills measured by current assessment programmes or improved affective outcomes for students. The research indicated that there were reasons to believe that many of the middle- years innovations would be sustained over the longer term.
Leadership and innovation
One of the dominant features of successful innovation across all domains was that of leadership. Individuals at the various levels of the school played critical leadership roles. The strategic leadership of principals was essential in almost every successful innovation. In many cases, principals were also the initiators and the driving force behind the innovation. Teachers also played critical leadership roles, particularly in terms of the instructional leadership required to establish and to develop the effectiveness of innovations. The driving professional passion of teachers was evident in many of the innovations. The research demonstrated that schools needed to have access to a critical level of high quality instructional leadership by teachers if they are to be successful in developing and implementing innovations that lead to substantial improvements for students. Successful schools had developed or gained access to leadership that focused on action, culture-building and organisation-wide learning.
Instructional flexibility and innovation
Four types of instructional flexibility were the focus of specific innovations in the IBPP. Flexibility was gained through the use of sites outside of and different to schools, the use of student grouping for instructional purposes, flexible use of staff, and collaboration among schools through consortia that had been established for specific purposes. In many cases the strategies for enhancing the flexible use of resources, interpreted in the broadest sense, may not be viewed as particularly unconventional from a viewpoint outside of schooling, but they had to overcome significant challenges from established cultures and organisational constraints both inside and outside of schooling. In some cases there was a sense that schools had to go about their innovations quietly, so as not to raise the awareness of significant external bodies. In other cases, the innovating schools sought and were granted permission to step outside the formal or informal regulatory environment of their systems. The innovations show that if schools are prepared to formally or informally push the limits of the constraints that bind them, they can develop new ways of providing opportunities to meet the needs of students.
Managing innovation
Few schools indicated their innovations were the offspring of systemic programmes or influences. A strong finding of the research across schools was the significant association between the level and extent of innovation and the degree of self-management in school systems. In most cases, the schools were implementing innovations that made use of their capacity to direct their resources to the areas of greatest perceived need for improvement. Government schools indicated that self-management was a more essential element of their innovation than was the case in independent schools, mainly because the latter were simply not subject to the degree of constraint that the former faced. There was evidence in more than one-sixth of schools that their innovation was initiated primarily as a response to a perceived crisis or external threat to their viability. This response can be viewed, in part, as the product of market pressures on schools. A critical feature of many of the innovations was the school's access to the essential capacity to analyse data on its performance and research the effects of its innovative strategies. The IBPP highlighted the significant deficit of data analysis skills in schools across the nation and that few schools had access to the necessary analytical capacity either from within their own professional expertise or, in many cases, from external sources.
Lessons for practice
The innovations that the IBPP schools were engaged in show the substantial improvements that schools can make to student learning. The schools had identified aspects of their work and performance that needed substantial enhancement if it was to provide students with the opportunities to achieve their potential. The innovations focused on creating learning environments that could meet the learning needs of individual students, which, in most cases, involved a more student-centred approach. They also the focused on:
- harnessing ICT to enhance the learning environment;
- ensuring all students mastered the basic skills in the early years, so that they were equipped with the necessary skills to develop into self-directed learners;
- flexible and integrated use of grouping practices to support students not mastering their learning at the appropriate level through whole-class instruction;
- the development of a generic `thinking skills' curriculum for the middle-years; developing the critical role of leadership across all levels of the school, from the classroom to the principal; and, most fundamentally,
- ensuring that all actions were directed towards the improvement of student learning outcomes, by enhancing teacher skills in using data as feedback to the teaching process and for evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and innovations.
Lessons for policy
The IBPP school innovations were, in many cases, a response to externally and internally generated pressures to change current practices and arrangements to better meet the needs of students. The external pressures were influenced both by market forces and the professional and policy debate that has taken place, sometimes over decades. The internal pressures for improvement came from the professional commitment and beliefs of teachers that they could better meet the needs of their students. In many cases, schools were unable to find external programmes to support their innovation, a gap that was filled in part by the structure and support provided by the IBPP. Non-government schools and schools in government systems that had devolved the management of most of their resources were at a particular advantage, because they had a greater capacity to target resources in ways that supported their innovations. One of the most significant aspects of flexibility in this context was the capacity of schools to manage the recruitment, appointment and allocation of staff in ways that supported their innovation. The schools had little problem with the idea that evidence about the outcomes they were trying to achieve should be rigorously evaluated, although the specification of the outcomes, gathering of appropriate evidence about them and the analysis of that evidence proved to be a major challenge for many of them.
The chapters that follow provide strong evidence that our schools can respond to the challenges they face as we move towards a knowledge-based society. Innovation, itself, will be an essential element of the process in this transition period. The external policy, professional and market pressures and internal professional pressures on schools provide a framework that can be harnessed to support the process of innovation.
Although the IBPP schools had access to most of the essential skills and knowledge among their staff, the success of innovation in schools is significantly dependent also on the access schools have to external expertise, research knowledge and programmes that they can draw on for support. The IBPP schools were not always able to locate and access all the external resources they required. The structure of the project itself was a significant support to the teachers and principals involved in driving the innovations in their schools. The project provides strong evidence of the need to rethink professional development for teachers. Professional learning can only be achieved by teachers `working' with the knowledge that they are incorporating into their innovations. Teacher-based research and evaluation of their practice is a necessary component of successful school innovation.
The lessons for policy that arise from the IBPP include:
- the need for a more penetrating focus on teacher learning and the evaluation of its impact on student learning;
- recognition of the advantages of providing schools with greater local control over their resources; and
- recognition that government and the profession have a role in creating an external framework of constructive pressure and support to act as a catalyst for innovation.
Few of the IBPP schools were influenced by systemic programmes and policies to embark on their innovation, which suggests that the primary role of systems in innovation may be in the development of an infrastructure that supports schools to access the external resources of expertise, programmes, and knowledge that they require for innovation.
1 The evidence suggests that the variation in student learning outcomes that lies between schools in Asian school systems is considerably less than in Western systems, as low as 2 per cent, reflecting the greater uniformity of schools and teaching practices in Asian systems (Teddlie & Reynolds, 1999).
2 The 107 schools are listed in Appendix 1. Where reference is made to individual schools in the chapters of this report, pseudonyms are used.
3 Funding was based on school size and location and varied from $8,000-$15,000.
4 This data is from the school survey. Schools frequently targeted more than one year/grade level and improvement focus. Hence the percentages cited do not add up to 100 per cent.