Background to innovation

1. DECD practitioner research in innovative schoolsPresentation to UniSA School of Education Research conference 14 November 2013Dr Susanne OwenPrincipal Officer DECD, Research and InnovationLeader Innovative Learning Environment project

2. Background to innovation • Creation and implementation of ‘new processes, products, services and methods of delivery which result in significant improvements in the efficiency, effectiveness or quality of outcomes…(and) the application of new ideas to produce better outcomes’ (Australian National Audit Office ANAO, 2009). OECD research (2011) • Traditional education not working (OECD/CERI, 2008; Bentley et al., 2006) • Innovative approaches needed for 21st century skill-building (Dumont et al., 2010) • Teacher role needing change (Dumont et al., 2010) • OECD Innovative Learning Environments project (ILE) involving 26 countries in 3 phases. 2011: 7 DECD sites Key innovation principles arising from Phase 1 research (OECD, 2011) • Make learning central, encourages engagement, and in which learners come to understand themselves as learners. • Is where learning is social and often collaborative. • Is highly attuned to learners’ motivations and emotions. • Is acutely sensitive to individual differences including in prior knowledge. • Is demanding for each learner but without excessive overload. • Uses assessments consistent with its aims, with strong emphasis on formative . • Promotes horizontal connectedness across activities and subjects, in- and out-of-school. Key areas for innovation : Learners, Content, Organisation of Learning, Resources and Teachers

3. Educational innovation models and characteristics LEARNERS New groupings, targeted for specific groups, learners define goals ORGANISATION Innovative approaches to scheduling, groupings, pedagogies, assessment & guidance • RADICAL INNOVATION • Significant shift in design • Swims against the tide • Starts with the future & works • backwards • Transformation? TEACHERS Teams & multi-disciplinary teachers, coach/facilitator role, other adults/peers RESOURCES Innovative uses of infrastructure, space, community and technology CONTENT New foci for content, 21C competencies, values, co-constructed curricula

4. Source: OECD, 2011

5. DECD innovation context • DECD is an invited education system in the OECD Innovative Learning Environments project (ILE) • 26 participating countries in ILE project including Austria, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Korea, Finland, Mexico (2 systems), Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Spain, Germany, US (Ohio), NZ, Switzerland (2 systems), Victoria & ACT (Australia) • 7 SA DECD sites have met international criteria for innovation (140 sites involved across 26 countries) • ASMS selected as one of 35 cases having detailed academic research undertaken • Other DECD schools/preschools also identified by department as highly innovative & part of innovation CoP

6. DECD innovation research & evaluation focus During 2012, DECD provided funds for small-scale practitioner-led research with academic support, to highlight the nature and impact of current innovative practices Aims of practitioner innovation research grants: • encourage and support practitioner-led research into innovation aspects currently underway; • build research knowledge and skills through collaborative practices and learning & foster partnerships for high quality research; • share outcomes and outputs of practitioner-led research regarding innovation Processes during 10 months: • Application by innovative schools for grant, selection, research training by UniSA, finalise research proposal, UniSA academic partner, progress report & presentations, • Final report: Flexible final report formats: eg 15000-20000 word reports, shorter 3000 word reports or a detailed poster. • Report & PowerPoint formats: innovation/school background context, research questions, method, findings, discussion, next steps/challenges & references.

7. Method for evaluation To what extent did practitioner research grants encourage and support practitioners in their innovations & research, build research knowledge and foster partnerships, and share outcomes about innovation. What are the benefits and challenges of practitioner research? • Progress & final research reports examination • Surveys following initial training • Research completion surveys • Principal discussions

8. Practitioner research topics relevant to innovation • How effective is a mentor program in developing enhanced technology skills and understandings that enable 21st century pedagogies to be developed amongst teaching teams? • What is the relationship between pedagogy, engagement and literacy? • What are the learning opportunities that open up through the use of digital gaming technologies? • If autonomous learning is a desired outcome for students, how do we intervene? With students? With teachers? • What impact has the introduction of personalised learning had on student engagement and the wellbeing of staff at Prospect Primary School? • How have changes in learning spaces impacted on learner engagement and wellbeing? How do the Learning Advisors’ beliefs about learning spaces drive their practice and impact on children’s wellbeing and engagement at BANB-7? • What does it mean for a student to ‘flourish’? (Are rates/levels of ‘flourishing’ different in AIL and Junior High? Why? What facets or features of the innovation or junior high models have the most impact on ‘flourishing’?. What is it we do in Yr 9 Academy of Innovative Learning (AIL) that makes the teaching and learning personalized? How does this differ to the Junior High model? • How does reconceptualisation of the physical space transform pedagogical practice and impact on relationships and student learning? • What pedagogical practices have a positive impact on student learning outcomes in Maths? • How can we use student voice, leadership and mentoring to develop a culture of resilience in adolescent learners? • Can we design learning experiences with our children that mindfully and explicitly shape and develop their Executive Function?

9. Findings for practitioner research evaluation (General) • Various ways of working in academic-practitioner situations: initial training support; developing research proposal; data collection, analysis & report writing • Positive impact of research innovation grant & work in schools (sharing with other school colleagues & networks; evidence & innovation credibility, time, grant accountability; funding for teacher release & to fund additional academic work) • Partnerships and skill building about conducting research (mentor guidance, published papers, research manageability) • Challenges for practitioners & academics: time to meet, trust, varying perspectives & acknowledging respective expertise of those involved

10. Positives • ‘This grant provided time to put aside the busyness of working in a school to concentrate on something that we recognised as having importance to our community. Time to cycle through a process of reflect, focus, talk, plan’, • ‘We loved being part of this project and felt our learning was extended by the skilled support (and in the end, patience and understanding) provided by the team in DECD. This kind of support is critical to push boundaries in education in the current context’. • ‘We valued the opportunity to be able to focus more closely and in a professional manner on our work. It prompted us to be clearer about the evidence we needed to have to support our innovations which we see is essential to our work and to any future initiatives’. • ‘Credibility to our task – Mentor support – keeping us on task and time due to our commitment to the research grant’ • ‘Working in collaboration with an academic researcher. Published paper and presentation to staff as an outcome- making sense of what I do at school on a daily basis as an innovative technologies teacher’ • ‘This enabled us to formalise our ideas and focus our practitioner inquiry into effective pedagogy for our school context’

11. ‘It validated practices and processes already in place’ • ‘Enabled in depth exploration of the relationship between wellbeing, engagement and the environment’ • ‘Support to undertake the research itself in the form of resources. Opportunity to present findings which ensured we followed through with the work. Sharing our ideas and processes for research with our colleagues’ • ‘Great model to use in future for us as a school, high class research support for our innovation, funding was flexible and enabled us to do important work for our students’ • ‘A research mentor was extremely valuable to guide and ensure validity of the project. Being a grant created a commitment to the project’ • ‘ We were able to get contemporary data to support establishment of future strategies’ • ‘Innovation is such an important area and needs ongoing funding and support. We have really benefitted from involvement in the project and would be happy to be contacted for more details’

12. ‘This session helped us to stop, focus, learn from others and consider the context of our inquiry. We did some reshaping of our inquiry focus after this session, for example, we tightened up some of our data collection processes’. • ‘Training and info sessions were not as useful as they could have been- they presumed people did not know things that schools are quite expert in’ • ‘It gave me a totally new perspective on research techniques’ • ‘Reviewed our understanding of the various research processes. Gave us time to work as a team to determine which research mode would suit our project best’ • ‘Created confidence that we were on the right track. Ensured that we did not bite off more than we would be able to cope with’ • ‘a key activity for our professionalism is that we are giving careful thought and resources to gathering relevant and credible data to inform our practice and work to reform schooling’ ‘Funds were used to employ a researcher who was able to bring academic gravitas to the project’ • ‘We learnt a great deal from this aspect and shared learning with all school leaders and staff’

13. Challenges Time, communication constraints, trust, differing focii • ‘we were not able to access our academic because we couldn’t make contact, but later because we became immersed in the project’ • ‘not enough time’ • ‘Consider who is contracted to support school based inquiry. Academics do not always have an understanding nor appreciation of the context of school based research and this shows in their expectations as well as guidance’. •   ‘timelines have been tight for us as we are working on big changes in a new complex site with competing priorities’

14. Discussion & next steps • Practitioner research grants encouraged and supported practitioners in their innovations & research, built research knowledge and fostered partnerships, also sharing outcomes about innovation • 2013-14 additional grants for practitioner research: academics involved in training day & in preparing research proposals • Attendee survey was extremely positive about joint work & increased quality of research proposals

15. References • Australian National Audit Office. 2009. Innovation in the public sector: Enabling better performance, driving new directions. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. • Bargal, D. 2008. Action Research: A paradigm for achieving social change, Small Group Research, 39:1, 17-27. DOI:10.1177/1046496407313407 • Bentley, T. 2000. “Learning beyond the classroom”. Educational Management and Administration. 28(3):353‑364. • Bentley, T., Daigle, R., Hutmachter, W., Shapiro, H. and Ungerleider, C. 2006. “Reflections on the practice and potential of futures thinking”. In OECD Think Scenarios, Rethink Education. OECD Publishing: Paris. (pp.183‑200). • Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press. • Darling-Hammond, L. and Richardson, N. (2009) “Research review-teacher learning: What matters?” in, Educational Leadership, 66 (5), 46‑53. • Department for Education and Child Development. (DECD). 2012. Policy and Communications Innovation Unit Practitioner Orientation Dayhttp://www.innovations.sa.edu.au/files/links/Practitioner_Orientation_D.pdf • Dumont, H,. D. Istance, D. and F. Benavides (Eds.). 2010. The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. • Education Northwest. 2012. What the research says (or doesn’t say).http://educationnorthwest.org/news/1093 (accessed 20 December, 2012). • Goodnough, K. 2004. Fostering collaboration in a school district–university partnership: The teachers researching inquiry‐based science project, Teaching Education, 15:3, 319-330. DOI: 10.1080/1047621042000257243. • Gravani, M. 2008. Academics and practitioners: Partners in generating knowledge or citizens of two different worlds?, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24:3, 649-659. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.008. • Heron, J. 1996. Cooperative Inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage. • Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. 2000. Participatory Action Research, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, p. 567-605, Sage Publications: London

16. . • Kemmis, S. 2001. Educational research and evaluation: Opening communicative space. The Australian Educational Researcher, 28(1), 1-30. • Koshy, V. 2005. Action Research for Improving Practice: A Practical Guide. Paul Chapman Publishing: London. • McTaggart, R. 1989. Principles for participatory action research. Paper presented to the BerEncuentro Mundial Investigation ParticiparivaManigua, Nicaragua. 83-92. • Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development. (OECD). 2011. Innovative learning environment – A Leading OECD/CERI Program. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). May. • Owen, S. 2005. Emerging trends in teacher professional development within a career continuum. Doctoral thesis. http://newcatalogue.library.unisa.edu.au/vufind/Record/855538 (accessed 6 March, 2012). • Owen, S. (2012). ‘Fertile questions,’ ‘multi-age groupings’, ‘campfires’ and ‘master classes’ for specialist skill-building: Innovative Learning Environments and support professional learning or ‘teacher engagers’ within South Australian and international contexts. Peer reviewed paper presented at World Education Research Association (WERA) Focal meeting within Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference, 2-6 December: University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. [online]. URL: http://www.aare.edu.au/pages/static/conference.aspx?y=2012&s=50&so=&f=1. • Reason, P. 1995. Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage. • Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. SAGE Publications: London. • Roper, L. 2002. Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaborations, Development in Practice, 12:3-4, 338-345. DOI: 10.1080/0961450220149717. • Somekh, B. & Zeichner, K. 2009. Action Research for educational reform: remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts, Educational Action Research, 17:1, 5-21. DOI:10.1080/09650790802667402 • Stenhouse, L. 1975.An Introduction of Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman.

17. Dr Susanne OwenPrincipal Officer, Research & InnovationLeader: ILE project & DECD innovationE: susanne.owen@sa.gov.auPh 8226 3677Academic Developer, University of South AustraliaE: susanne.owen@unisa.edu.auPh: 8302992