Teaching as inquiry (TAI) as an integral part of The New Zealand Curriculum. It is a key part of teaching and self review processes, but many find it difficult to manage, because it feels too big – or they just don’t know how to start. It seems that in some schools teachers are just expected to critically reflect on their practice, as if this somehow this equates with TAI. It does not! There has been confusion about what TAI actually is or can be. This confusion has often been perpetuated by how TAI has been introduced in schools. Is it evidence-based teaching? Is it professional learning or is it researching your teaching or what? Most teachers in New Zealand know we need to start the learning process with what the learner knows and what their strengths and needs are, but how do teachers manage this to inform everyday actions as well as to inform professional learning and development? And how will undertaking teaching as inquiry actually help students who have disruptive behavior, complex needs, or impoverished histories? TAI was central to the methodology of a large Ministry funded PLD project. Secondary Student Achievement (Mau ki te ako) PLD has worked in over 47 secondary schools from New Plymouth through to Invercargill since 2012 (Conner, 2015). What we have learnt so far in the Secondary Student Achievement (Mau ki te ako) (SSA) is that TAI is more effective when a moral imperative has been clearly communicated and when challenges are discussed as part of the ongoing development of TAI. The moral imperative for TAI In the SSA project, the purpose of TAI is to redress inequity and to enhance the quality of teaching and learning simultaneously. It is positioned as a way of improving the life chances for priority learners because these groups are under represented in the NCEA achievement data, they have lower retention rates in the education system, and they are more likely to leave school with fewer qualifications (Ministry of Education, 2012). In this PLD intervention, subject-specific facilitators support leaders and/or teachers to create learning programmes and lessons that will inspire students and generate high-level engagement. By responding to the differentiated needs of students, teachers change an aspect of their teaching and observe and evaluate a range of outcomes for four to five priority learners, to keep the
scope manageable. Priority learners include; Māori and Pasifika students, students with special education needs, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and English-language learners (ELLs). Now in its 4th year of implementation, teachers/middle leaders are collaborating in teams within schools and inquiry clusters across schools. Our focus in 2016 is to identify the advantages of such collaboration and how the facilitators enable changes within these clusters as they focus on student needs. Any professional learning should benefit individuals, groups or schools by enhancing the quality of educational outcomes. We are obliged to make this happen. Therefore undertaking TAI must result in improved educational outcomes. Renewing and extending teacher knowledge, skills and thinking can occur through individual or collaborative efforts as Timperley et al, (2007, p.xiii) indicate between the ‘student, teacher and organization’. This means there has to be ‘learning both ways’. Challenges related to TAI? One of the challenges when introducing TAI is that some teachers confuse it with models of children’s inquiry learning. An important word in the trio, teaching as inquiry, is as i.e. teaching as a curious activity. To elaborate further on describing TAI, Halbert and Kaser (2012, p. 4) write: Inquiry is not about the pursuit of the perfect question or the next exciting project. It is about being open to new learning and taking informed action. Innovation is not about sprinkling initiatives like pixie dust, hoping they will stick nor is it about what is new and groovy. Innovation is about recognising that old forms are not working for all learners, identifying what the key needs of our learners are, and then creating new forms based on knowledge about what does work. TAI is an approach to teaching—not an add-on or something extra that teachers are expected to do. When implemented as part of teaching, it supports teachers to be more effective in planning, teaching and reflecting on what they do, because it requires a specific focus or decisions and actions. TAI is more of a focused mindset towards teaching, where students’ needs are central and refinements to teaching are continuous (Conner, 2015, p.1). It requires using evidence of learning progress for particular students to design next steps related to these students’
identified needs. Often these needs are context (and content) specific. This is understandable when student needs come first, since student needs (even for the same student) are highly likely to vary in different learning situations. In the SSA project, both oral and written success stories from teachers, facilitators and leaders provide examples of TAI to share (Conner, 2015). Success stories often relate to using more structured literacy tools embedded within specific content or contextual situations, more structured feedback to students by giving them hints and specific instructions about what to do next, using digital tools, more structured formative assessment, the inclusion of culturally responsive approaches and actively seeking children’s opinions about how they learn, to inform actions. But when focusing on specific children, as this model promotes, teachers need to be aware that solutions may need adapting and refining if they intend to transfer them to other situations. Although improving outcomes for children is the primary motivation for teachers, teacher change through TAI as professional learning, requires deep intellectual and emotional investments from teachers, and it takes time (Timperley, 2011). Teachers will have different previous experiences and capabilities related to evidence-informed and evidence-generating practices. This means different teachers may need different levels of support for TAI, which is not necessarily considered in PLD within schools. One of the challenges was to describe the contextual similarities and differences amongst the schools. We know from multiple international studies (e.g. Schleichner, 2013) that context is important for realizing the potential of pedagogies and their transfer to other contexts. Therefore there is a need to understand the context characteristics of the learning environment including the learners so that both successes and challenges can be identified. The same can be said about content. Seeking conclusions about effective pedagogies usually doesn’t take account of how appropriate the pedagogy is for learning specific content. Teachers and learners teach and learn something and there are specific approaches for particular content. This need is addressed in the SSA model by making use of subject specialists. Often teachers told us ‘they don’t know what they don’t know’ and ‘you can always learn new ways of doing things’. Ongoing support is considered an important enabler so that teachers are motivated to be persistent with continuous professional learning. After all, not all teachers are self-starting nor do they necessarily have the knowledge or skills they need. In terms of curriculum redesign, they may not know what possibilities they can choose from and they may not have access to research on how to use evidence to inform practice. School leaders may be able to provide this knowledge, but again leaders may need to seek external help and facilitation to provide such information. On-going facilitation and support is likely to be necessary but the need may fade as teachers become more confident. The challenge for schools is finding staff who are willing and have the skills to coach and mentor others. While success stories are useful, as examples of changes in teaching and students’ outcomes, the generation of them was most useful for the teachers, leaders and facilitators who created them. It is perhaps the process and the elements of the success stories, i.e. the situations, actions and outcomes in combination that make them powerful.
Meeting the needs of priority learners The New Zealand achievement challenge is well documented. Our Honorable Minister Parata has indicated that investing in the profession and leadership provides the best opportunity to address this achievement challenge. This is supported internationally by OECD commentary such as Schleicher (2013, p. 10–11) indicates that: Designing and developing innovative learning environments to meet such ambitions requires highly demanding teaching repertoires and for everyone to keep learning, unlearning and relearning. Continuous learning of all players and partners is a condition of successful implementation and sustainability . . . Deep shifts in mindset and practice and the capacity to keep the long-term vision in view are needed when the aim is transformation, even if the starting point may be incremental. Inspirational teaching seeks to assess a child’s needs individually and works with what each child knows already and what they are interested in. Ideally caregivers and members of the wider community also contribute to a wider understanding about children’s needs. The latter point is often not emphasized or valued enough. Good teaching affirms children’s successes and enables them to identify what they need help with. We found that when teachers take time and care for individuals’ progress, that some of the challenges in managing disruptive behaviour, identifying complex needs or supporting children from impoverished backgrounds, dissipate. The subject facilitators also develop and refine teachers’ and leaders’ understanding of cultural competence. For example, facilitators supported teachers to make sense of what the five cultural competencies (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2010) mean for specific actions in their learning areas and to develop curriculum materials to support some of these actions. This is an ongoing area of development. The senior leaders commented on the difference between teachers who had only just begun and those that had a couple of years’ experience with TAI. Therefore not only was time needed for initially conducting TAI but there was a developmental aspect that needs to be taken into account for implementing more effective TAI. Teachers within any school will be at different stages of development and ease with risk taking and using evidence for reflective practice. In very few cases, changes in teaching have immediate and obvious effects on student outcomes. However, when teachers sought evidence of how outcomes had changed, they became more convinced that their efforts were worthwhile. All the teachers interviewed in the case study schools commented on the importance of having a supportive school culture to make it safe for them as professionals to take risks in changing their teaching. When this developed, discussing the good alongside the not so good, became less risky. Developing a ‘learning together’ culture enabled teachers to gain confidence and competence with TAI. It is fair to say that the teachers’ capabilities and capacities to mentor others, to reflect and refine practice within and across the schools are still emerging. In Teaching as Inquiry with a focus on priority learners (Conner, 2015), the case studies illustrate how TAI was implemented at a school level and how leaders used specific levers to enable this. In general, teachers gained agency in their ability to make changes that were focused and manageable with four or five
students. Teachers got on board much quicker with TAI when the subject facilitators supported them. Other enablers included school-wide processes such as providing time within the school day for discussions and linking TAI to school appraisal processes. This was viewed in some schools initially as a ‘stick’. Therefore how TAI is valued alongside the moral imperative to improve learners’ outcomes is extremely important. Role modelling by leaders was also received well when senior leaders participated in TAI themselves. It also alerted leaders to some process and organizational issues that could be modified. Summary In the first three years of this initiative the teachers, leaders, and facilitators identified many challenges in relation to their roles in implementing TAI (Conner, 2015). From a leadership perspective, the most effective leaders were able to navigate the following challenges more effectively. These were: 1. Clearly indicating to staff the moral imperative to drive accelerated progress and achievement for priority learners; 2. Insisting on evidence based decisions for planning and changes to teaching. This was often coupled to the schools’ appraisal processes.; 3. Shifting the focus from professional learning of the teacher to focus on what students need; 4. Evaluating teacher learning as it emerges and the next steps for promoting learning; 5. Providing time and support for teachers to identify gaps in their knowledge and understanding to help priority learners specifically. This also involved considering previous research and sharing understandings about culturally responsive approaches to teaching; 6. Acknowledging the ‘differentiated’ needs of both students and teachers as critical as a ‘one size’ fits all model fails to engage the adults in their personalised learning experience; 7. Finding ways to understand students needs and strengths prior to deciding on a PLD topic for a PLG or cluster; 8. Tracking and reporting of individual students’ progress enabled greater opportunities to acknowledge and to respond authentically to student ‘identity, language and culture’, for teachers to work manage the process and acknowledge both student and their successes.
About the Author Professor Lindsey Conner is the Director of the Science and Technology Education Research Lab at the University of Canterbury. Previously, Lindsey has been a teacher educator at the Christchurch College of Education and University of Canterbury, and a secondary school biology teacher and Head of Department. She has also been a national examiner, a developer and examiner of national standards assessments, and an international consultant on developing science curricula and assessment practices and development projects on teacher education. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the students, teachers, school leaders and facilitators who participated in this Mau ki te Ako Secondary Student Achievement project, their willingness to open their doors and share their experiences, insights and materials to support the wider evaluation and development of this initiative. References Conner, L. (2015). Teaching as inquiry with a focus on priority learners. Wellington: NZCER. Halbert, J., & Kaser, L. (2012). Inquiring learning environments: New mindsets required. Retrieved from http://youngreaders.ca/ downloads/CSE%20Seminar%20Paper%20214_U-1.pdf Ministry of Education (2012). The Case for System-wide Improvement for all Learners, Teachers and Leaders. Wellington: Ministry of Education. New Zealand Teachers Council (2010). New Zealand Registered Teachers’ Criteria. Wellington: New Zealand Teachers Council. Retrieved on 23 March 2014 from http://www.teacherscouncil. govt.nz/content/graduating-teacher-standards-english-rtf-38kb Schleicher, A. (2013). Ed., Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing Retrieved March 26, 2014 from http://www. oecd.org/site/eduistp2012/49850576.pdf.
The key findings of the project so far are considered in terms of the longer-term sustainability of TAI for enabling on-going improvement. Some of the teachers in the case schools have embraced TAI very well and now mentor and lead others. Teachers needed to try it out with support, refine their ideas and consider multiple forms of evidence as indicators of progress.
MAGAZINE
It took time and persistence, coaching, sharing and some risk taking. As a result, teachers said they have become more curious about students more generally. There is scope to develop more processes for sharing TAI especially as what seems to be helpful for priority learners also seems to support other students to learn as well.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
You can now access the current and past issues of NZ Principal magazine online You can search by magazine issue, article name or author visit www.nzprincipal.co.nz