“The football stadium as classroom: developing a curriculum for students at risk”

1. “The football stadium as classroom: developing a curriculum for students at risk” Eapril conference 2013 Biel –Switserland Marieke Fix, Henk Ritzen Lectoraat: Research group: educational arrangements in social context

2. Introduction • Being student in The Netherlands • Schoolsystem • Choices • Exams • Collaborationwith Jan Nijhuis • Goal of thispresentation

3. Context andproblem statement • Drop-out real problem • Personal (Van Elk, Lanser & Gerritsen, 2012) • Society (Oreopoulos, 2007; Webbink, Koning, Vujic & Martin, 2012) • Vocational Education Training centre (VET) • Solution • Not for all students! • Students at-risk • Role of Dutch government • Innovations • Playing for Success 15-23!

4. PlayingforSuccess 15-23 • Concept of playingforSuccess • English andmeantforpupils 9-14 yearsold • Fourregionsadapted a project for 15-23 yearsold • Spread out over Holland; Zeeland, Zwolle, Groningen, Twente • No urbanregions (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht) • The regionsdesigned curricula • Collaborationwith professional soccerorganizations • Collaborationwith VET • Collaborationwithregionalgovernment • Characteristicsof curricula • experiencing success will motivate • non-school way of approaching • curricula are linked with a top sport organization

5. Theoreticalframework • Drop out frompedagogical view • Personal risk factors (Oberon 2007) • Risk factors at school (Ritzen 2008) • Risk factors influencelearningprocess (nagativelyandpositively!) • Students at school • Drop out proces maybemanifested in twoways(Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000) • Schoolperformance • School engagement • Role of education • Educationcaninfluence performance & engagement (Hamre & Pianta, 2001,2005;Finn, 1989; Finn & Rock, 1997) • School performance influencesmotivation! (Keller, 2010) • Poor academic achievement is a predictor (Battin-Pearson,et.al 2000)

6. Theoreticalframework (2) • Curriculum perspective • Curriculum has different components • Spiderweb • Rationale • Pulling on one art of the web influences all other parts • Components materials, objectives, learning content, learning activities, role of the teacher, grouping, time, assessments, location Spider web: (van den Akker, 2003)

7. Theoreticalframework (3) • Teachers in the institutions for VET are (re)designing a curriculum together to achieve realization of that rationale. • Motivate and engage the students! • Teacher design teams are defined as: a team of at least two teachers who collaboratively (re)design curriculum materials, with the aim of improving or changing their own instructional practice (Handelzalts, 2009).

8. Research question • Central research question: What are the characteristics and effects of a curriculum in top sport context for students at-risk, which is developed in four regional teachers design teams. • This central question is divided in three sub-questions. • What are intended (by teachers) and actual characteristics of the developed curriculum in top sport context? • What are the characteristics of the students participating on the curriculum? • What are the effects of the curriculum on student’s engagement and student’s motivation?

9. Method • Goals and methods are embedded in practical educational situations of the participating schools and their partners • During 18 months the four different teams design a learning environment. • The teacher design teams will consist of at least two teachers and an academic educational expert, seconded by the chain partners concerning the target group. • In every region the intervention follows approximately a ten- week-cycle (meaning every ten weeks a new group participants will start (5 cohort per region, n=150). • Approximately 16 teachers are asked to join the study. • The researcher measures the interventions and studies the different students background variables.

10. Method (2) • Students and teachers are attached to a regional vocational education school • Because of ethical and social concerns students are not randomly chosen to join the study. For teachers the participation of the study is part of their project. • To answer the research questions qualitative and quantative data is collected • Literature study and semi structured interviews with focus groups will be done to answer question one (characteristics of curriculum). • To map backgrounds (question 2) a personal interview will be used. • Question 3: questionnaire student’s engagement (based on Waldrip; 2013 and van Uden, Ritzen and Pieters; 2014) before and after participating the intervention & questionnaire on motivation (based on Keller 2010) after participating.

11. Research model Participants: school career, social cultural background Regional context: ROC, stakeholders, BVO, Playing for Success 15-23 Actual curriculum enactment materials, objectives, learning content, learning activities, role of the teacher, group, time, assessments, location Student’smotivation Student’s engagement Curriculum design materials, objectives, learning content, learning activities, role of the teacher, group, time, assessments, location

12. Results (background) • First sample of participants is collected now. These students are participating the curriculum at this moment. • Results from exploratory research (N=36) that was done, indicated that participants in the four different regions can be compared to each other. In Zwolle the participants were younger compared to the other regions (Zwolle: 14,8 ; Zeeland: 17,5 years, Twente: 18,5 and Groningen 18,6 years old)

13. Results (characteristics) • Semi-structured interviews were in exploratory study conducted with students, teachers and managers to identify their views about students at risk, their intended curriculum, the collaboration with the football organization, the relationships within VET to address students and in general the classroom practice and internships • Participants:8 teachers, 4 project leaders and 4 managers • Differences between regions are visible in time of the curriculum (20 till 50 days), learning activities as realization of internship, school tasks and sport (data presented at national meeting of Playing for Success 15-23). • In this contribution Zwolle will be pointed out compared to other regions on the subjects of the spider web

14. Results (2) • Objective: Care for students struggling at school. Target group are students at risk. All four projects focus on empowering these students and giving them a positive experience in order to motivate en engage them for preventing ESL.   • Learning time :In Zwolle the participants are still at school, two days per week the pupils are participating the curriculum supplementary to school.. Collaboration and co-creation are necessary to design a powerful curriculum in Zwolle. • Learning content: In Zwolle part of project time is reserved to do homework, in order to prevent pupils from falling behind.   • Learning activities: Zwolle and Zeeland has a strong focus on the pedagogic function of sport, in this two regions the curriculum is connected to sport education of the ROC.

15. Results (3) • Location:In Twente and Groningen the curriculum is offered in a football stadium. In Zwolle and Zeeland the curriculum is placed in a top sport hall.   • Grouping: The group is an important method to be motivated and engaged. Therefore team spirit and groups processes are an important subject within the curriculum. In Zwolle participants are wearing the same clothes. • Assessments: In all regions the program has a final assessment. In Groningen students are also composing a portfolio. No school exams are part of the curriculum. • Role of the teacher: Teacher’s role in the project is based on equality. Teacher’s role in Zwolle is a double role. The teacher is connected to the project as well as to school.

16. Results (motivationand engagement) • Motivation and engagement are measured using two different instruments. Engagement questionnaires are scattered and the first measure has taken place. • Because the questionnaire is also filled in at the end of the ten weeks cycle, no results are available yet. • Motivation is measured at the end of the curriculum. No results are available in this research phase.

17. Conclusion • Research is in collecting phase, results interpret very carefully. • Reasonable to compare participants in different regions to each other. • Same target group, four different interventions • The curricula has a comparable start, • role of the teacher, • non-school approach • inspiring location • The actual curriculum (that what happens with students) however is different due to contextual differences.

18. Discussion • Research connected with practice • Good practice utility • Changing context with unexpected limits and situations • Control group • Recurrent design • Non- school approach • accent in curriculum doing homework

19. Finalquestions • How can we in collaboration with the managers develop a training program for the teachers with training components which are regional specific and practice-oriented. • That improve teaching and learning for developing educational trajectories for students at risk • Teachers should become more strategic learners. • How can managers organize and facilitate this training program in their own school organization? • How the manager (as research facilitator) can help organize research for example in finding respondent groups and participants. • Design of curriculum can influence research results, for example when the curriculum has a flexible start and finish, measurements before and after the intervention is more difficult to realize. • How to spread information come from research into the school. • How can researcher and manager collaborate to anchor the result of design based research in school teams and school policy.

20. Interaction • Making groups (country mix!) • Discussion: • Implementation of the curriculum in your home country • Woulditwork or notwork in your country? • Are theiranyexamples of projects in your country concerningearly school leaving?