NZCER
You do the best you can. The difficulty is to individualise within an artificial (timetable) constraint. To meet the needs of students’ wishes, and the community, and collective agreements, is hard (Principal comment in 2018 National Survey, Bonne & MacDonald, 2019, p.53.) Space . . . structures the very way we think about learning, through physical, curricular and didactic structures such as classrooms, timetables and deadlines, which organise students in space and time and shape their learning experience, and through spatial metaphors such as distance learning and student-centredness. (Blasco, 2016, p.118)
we carried out some research for the Productivity Commission. They wanted to know more about the relationship between the subject choices that students make in their last years at school and their future work opportunities, in a world where these work opportunities are changing rapidly. That’s not a straightforward question to unpack! We began by gleaning insights from previous research reports. What we found probably won’t surprise you. There is a general bias towards university study as a post-school destination. This is the ‘well-lit’ pathway. Notably, the role of the timetable is integral to this bias:
There is a gap in the research literature where timetabling is concerned. It seems to be one of those aspects of a secondary school education that is largely taken for granted, part of the DNA of modern schooling. Yet several strands of our recent research have detected an appetite for change in timetabling structures and practices. In this article, my aim is to provide you with possible lines of professional inquiry if you are thinking about changing the timetable in your school. On the practical level, this article outlines different types of changes that could be made, and what they might be expected to achieve. I discuss insights and implications from such local research as exists. On a deeper level, I draw on the idea of ‘curriculum space’ (Blasco, 2016) to explore ways in which the timetable constructs students’ experiences of learning. I use the term ‘transformative’ to differentiate substantive changes to learning experiences from tweaks that solve practical problems while leaving traditional sorting and teaching practices, and assumptions about learners and learning, largely unchallenged.
Structures such as the school timetable underpin this bias by constraining the ways in which students can choose combinations of subjects as a programme of study. Advice given as choices are being made keeps the academic pathway well lit, at least for students considered capable of university study by their teachers and schools. Pathways to work or vocational learning are less esteemed and are typically promoted to students considered to be less academically able. This creates problems when assumptions are mismatched with actual demands. Examples include the agribusiness and engineering sectors. Both need highly qualified workers and those who can undertake work that does not need a university degree. (Hipkins & Vaughan, 2019, p.35)
The appetite for change Responses to NZCER’s 2018 survey of secondary school principals conveyed a sense of the appetite for change, but also implied that successfully making changes is likely to be problematic: 77 per cent of the 167 principals who responded said they had made some change to the timetable in the last 5 years. But some had not retained the changes they had tried. ■■ Many of those who had not yet made changes were considering doing so. ■■ 47 per cent of the principals (and 36 per cent of trustees) said that timetabling to support a growing range of student learning opportunities was a major issue facing their school. ■■
(Bonne and MacDonald, 2019)
Late in 2019 the timetabling issue again came sharply into view as
It is not just the structure of timetable that matters. The processes and practices that surround it can have a real influence on the way the timetable plays out. Changing one without the other is not likely to achieve the desired goal. This will be a recurring theme in what follows. Following from this first stage of the work, we conducted two focus groups with senior school leaders who have responsibility for timetabling and/or pastoral care and advice systems in the school (Eyre & Hipkins, 2019). It struck us that participants were eager to hear ideas about timetabling innovations that had been tried by others in the focus group. Some called the conversation valuable professional learning, even though our purposes were research purposes. Given the complexities we documented in the work for the Productivity Commission, this interest and attention to timetabling is hardly surprising. Leaders have much to juggle. Meeting the needs of diverse groups is challenging. Making timetabling changes is hard work and creates a lot of uncertainty. On top of all that, there are no guarantees of success. Is it worth it? This is the question I explore in what follows.
How timetabling helps shape students’ learning experiences Blasco, cited above, notes that the timetable shapes students’ learning experiences by the way it organises them in space and time. Let’s unpack this idea before going any further. Timetables with shorter learning periods build in regular changes of learning focus throughout the day. Learning is likely to be experienced as episodic, with the risk that the pieces appear disconnected unless something happens to create greater coherence. One possibility is that teachers make explicit links across subjects. Yet teachers’ responses to the National Survey suggest that this is not easy to do: in 2018 91 per cent of teachers said it was important or very important to ‘make explicit connections to learning from other subjects / learning areas’ yet just 47 per cent said they did so often or most of the time (Bonne & MacDonald, 2019, p.38). As we will see shortly, there are several possible approaches to achieving greater coherence via timetable changes. For now, I mark this as a potentially transformative goal for making changes. Students navigate subject/course choices via pathways that are open to them. Traditional timetable structures tend to be built around the needs of students on the ‘well lit’ pathway to tertiary study (Hipkins & Vaughan, 2019). Other students are slotted into the more limited number of choices open to them. This emphasis on academic pathways gives strong signals to learners (and everyone else in the school system) about being either an ‘academic’ or a ‘vocational’ student. Even if implicit rather than overt, such labelling risks typecasting students and limiting their own and others’ expectations of them. Thus another potentially transformative purpose for making timetable changes is to give greater parity of esteem and space to all types of pathways, while making choice combinations as flexible as possible. The types of outcomes envisaged for learning provide a curriculum-centred reason for wanting to make transformative timetable changes. Traditionally students have demonstrated their learning by showing what they know (declarative knowledge). Yet so-called ‘21st century curriculum’ commentary is clear that this is not enough. Students must also be able to show what they can do with what they know. To foster competencyrelated outcomes, how students come to know also matters (see Barnett, 2009). Pedagogy needs to change in ways that may not be easily accommodated in short, sharp blocks of learning time. The need for students to learn more about how we know what we know—so-called epistemic knowledge—is increasingly seen as necessary for all students. This type of transformative goal can be found in the OECD’s ‘2030 learning compass’ for example, on which future PISA assessments are likely to be based.1 Traditionally, timetables parcel learning into discrete subjects. Most do not make provision for interdisciplinary learning. Yet both disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning are essential for developing epistemic awareness and thinking skills. Students need to learn how knowledge is built by disciplinary experts, which should now be an explicit part of subject-based learning. But they also need to gain a sense of comparative similarities and differences across disciplines, which can only come from opportunities to explore them via deliberate juxta-positioning. This challenge goes deeper than creating coherent connections between subjects and implies a need for flexible and varied timetable structures, within each student’s overall programme of learning.
Creating a different learning aesthetic is yet another potential target for making transformative timetable changes. Blasco (2016) defines an aesthetic experience as one that invokes particular sensations, along with the meaning we make from those sensations. As one example of a traditional aesthetic, she identifies short, intense bursts of learning that students often experience as harried and leaving them little room to think (she would say they lack ‘cognitive space’). She talks about how such aesthetics can ‘seep’ across the day, influenced by: . . . how students experience a given time slot (e.g. a lesson) and how this is influenced by the density of the content delivered, its complexity and sequencing and the experiences that precede it and anticipation of those to come.’ (Blasco, 2016, p.126). Blasco is interested in ways to open up cognitive space, as well as what she calls autonomy-space and reflective-space. She sees all of these as necessary for innovative and creative thinking, and for developing learning-to-learn capabilities. She argues that it is necessary to think differently about those times in the school day that are traditionally seen as wasteful and inefficient. Some types of timetable changes could serve more than one of the above types of goal, depending on how they are implemented. In this complex context it is important to be clear which type of goal(s) you have in your sights, and to ensure this vision is shared and understood by all who must make the timetable work. With that thought in mind, I turn now to several possible types of change where there is at least some research-based evidence to consider. Creating fewer, longer, periods This type of change could potentially serve several purposes, and teachers in the same school might have different understandings of what is intended. For example, Alfriston College was established with a timetable that had a combination of 100-minute periods and more traditional 50-minute periods. Several years down the track, the school undertook a research project funded by the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI). Interviews with some of the foundation teachers surfaced different perceptions of purposes served by longer learning periods: maximising learning time while minimising the stress of constant changes during the day ■■ creating a classroom climate more conducive to in-depth learning ■■ providing the opportunity to include a greater variety of learning experiences within a lesson, including making greater use of ICT ■■ enabling better relationship-building between teachers and learners (Hipkins with Shanks & Denny, 2008). ■■
These purposes have the potential to work together to create pedagogical space for developing a wider range of competencies than might be possible in shorter time slots. However, a teacher who only understood the change in terms of efficiency (i.e. less time wasted in transitions) might not see this transformative possibility. A key finding of the TLRI research was that some teachers did not adjust their pedagogy when they were timetabled for 100-minute lessons. Not surprisingly, both they and the students in their classes struggled to use the extended time meaningfully.
To the list of purposes above, several more might now be added in the light of more recent research that has explored curriculum innovation: allowing two or more subject teachers to work together effectively in integrated programmes and/or a larger teaching space ■■ making experiences outside the classroom less rushed and more feasible ■■
An integrated curriculum has the potential to create space for both disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning experiences that build epistemic awareness and thinking skills. However, a recent inquiry into curriculum integration (McDowall & Hipkins, 2019) identified what we called a ‘knowledge/agency dilemma’. In brief, teachers struggled to balance democratic goals for integration (which allow students to pursue questions of strong personal interest and relevance) with the sorts of structured teaching needed to build the discourses and practices of the different disciplines being integrated. We concluded that ‘meeting the dual goal of student agency and knowledge building is a challenging undertaking for teachers even in the context of single-subject teaching’ (p.56, emphasis in the original). We concluded that teachers working with an integrated curriculum need greater support to teach in ways that make disciplinary knowledgebuilding practices more explicit. While investigating curriculum integration we heard about ‘toe in the water’ initiatives that did not require changes to the timetable and that were typically carried out by small groups of committed teachers. However, more ambitious changes
did require the support of the senior leadership team and the timetablers. In traditional schools (i.e., not new builds) changes needed to be made to allocation of rooms (side-by-side if larger spaces were not available). Sometimes changes also needed to be made in the allocation of teachers to timetable lines so that they could work together, or at least sequentially, with one class. This is important because the greatest professional learning benefits appeared to accrue when teachers were able to work together in the same space, observing each other’s expertise at work, and adding to their own expertise accordingly. But teachers also said that it was difficult to get timetable structures right first time—the need to tweak and try again was a recurring theme in their accounts. One specific aspect that needed careful consideration was the size of the learning group. If the class was too small the change could not be sustained because it could not be resourced. But if the group was too big teacher/student relationships began to suffer (McDowall & Hipkins, 2019). A recent TLIF 2 inquiry at Mana College explored the implementation of a ‘place responsive’ curriculum (Picken & Anderton, 2020). This transformative goal could focus on pedagogical, aesthetic, and/or epistemic reasons to change current practice. The TLIF inquiry soon revealed that placeresponsive learning contexts typically implicated several learning areas. Creating longer learning periods and implementing an integrated curriculum were some of the changes made in response to this realisation. Again it took several iterations to get supporting structures, including staff teams, working well. After trialling larger teams, each with four core subject teachers, the school settled on ‘natural pairs’—maths/science and English/
social sciences teachers taught integrated units, but they still planned together as teams of four across the core subjects. Treating some days differently This type of change can take various forms. One whole day a week might be dedicated to an integrated learning activity such as a student-led inquiry, while the other four days are timetabled as usual. This timetabling strategy has the potential to change students’ aesthetic experiences of learning by fostering deeper exploration (cognitive space), personal choice of inquiry approach and pace (autonomy-space), and more personally engaged experiences (reflective space). It also lends itself to the transfer of competencies developed in class to relevant community contexts. However, research shows that transfer is elusive—students tend to keep learning compartmentalised in the subject boxes of the timetable unless processes are in place to support them to make deliberate new connections (Manalo et al., 2017). I have not found any research about the relationship between what is taught on traditionally timetabled days, and what students do on their extended inquiry day. It seems to me that this is a question worthy of exploration. Allocating one day a week to individual inquiry has been adopted by a number of new-build schools, as part of their establishment planning. Even when starting with a ‘blank slate’, it is not easy to get the processes that support this structure right first time. A few years ago, I had the privilege of documenting a series of rolling changes made by the foundation teaching team at Albany Senior High School as they worked to implement this type of timetable structure (Hipkins, 2011). This work clearly illustrated why making the change work as envisaged must extend well beyond just putting the actual structure in place. The processes that support students to stay on track and make pertinent learning connections are also critical. During the focus groups conducted for the Productivity Commission, we heard about an interesting arrangement in which Wednesday acted as a sort of ‘pivot’. Everyone was at school that day but on Monday and Tuesday some students on vocational pathways were learning in a tertiary setting. Their school days were Wednesday to Friday and all their school-based learning was timetabled for those days. In a mirror-image arrangement, other students were at school Monday to Wednesday and out in a tertiary setting on Thursday to Friday (see Eyre & Hipkins, 2019, p.21-22, school 2). This is a creative response to the pathways goal, allowing students to build programmes that include vocational learning without sacrificing the time they need to learn traditional school subjects. It would be interesting to find out, further down the track, if this arrangement has positively impacted parity of esteem for different pathways. Yet another variant is that one or more whole days might be carved off episodically (say once a term), typically to offer learning experiences that cannot be readily accommodated in a conventional timetable structure, or within conventional subjects. Some years ago, I provided support for Alfriston College’s TLRI research. One component was the investigation of students’ learning experiences during ‘3-day learning episodes’ at the end of each term. Again we found that support structures were critical—in this context we created a set of learning design principles for teachers to use as they planned their episodes. The team leading the work wanted to ensure that every student was offered a worthwhile aesthetic learning experience—one that demonstrably contributed to the school’s wider curriculum and
values. Without design support, there was variation in how well this intention was met (Hipkins et al., 2010). Interestingly Alfriston College discontinued the 3-day episodes when they integrated learning across multiple subjects. This change took the form of a series of rolling changes, beginning initially with just Year 9. The integration initiative was the subject of their more recent TLIF inquiry. One key finding from this inquiry was that: School structures (including whole school timetabling, leadership, meeting structures, prizes and awards) had to change several times to enable and support the new Year 9/10 programme. Without structural changes, an innovative curriculum will not be sustained beyond a small group of keen teachers and their students. (Watt & White, 2018, p.5) I have already suggested that processes such as advice and guidance need to be adjusted to ensure that timetable changes successfully meet their intentions. Alfriston’s TLIF inquiry expands this insight to show how other structures might also need to be adjusted to ensure success. One specific example is that across the 2 years of the inquiry the middle-management leadership structure morphed several times to arrive at a combination of teachers who could work effectively together to support the design and delivery of an integrated curriculum across a wider team of teachers.3 In conclusion Three key messages stand out to me from the diverse change efforts and inquiries I have reviewed: 1. Be very clear about your purposes for making changes to the timetable. What do you hope to achieve and why do you think the change matters? 2. Lay the groundwork carefully. Ensure your intentions are understood and valued by the wider teaching team. It is highly likely that teachers will need to make some changes to their practice if the initiative is to succeed and be sustained. 3. Carefully review the structures and practices that support the timetable and be prepared to make rolling changes as consequences unfold. References Barnett, R. (2009) Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4)), pp.429-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902771978 Blasco, M. (2016). Conceptualising curricular space in busyness education: An aesthetic approximation. Management Learning, 47(2), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507615587448 Bonne, L. and MacDonald, J. (2019) Secondary schools in 2018: Findings from the NZCER national survey. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/ publications/secondary-schools-2018-findings-nzcer-nationalsurvey Eyre, J. and Hipkins, R. (2019). Subject choice for the future of work: Insights from the focus groups. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/ Documents/72e89a35dc/Insights-from-focus-groups-NZCER. pdf
Hipkins, R. and Vaughan, K. (2019). Subject choice for the future of work: Insights from the research literature. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.productivity.govt. nz/assets/Documents/3d0d213c1e/Insights-from-researchliterature-NZCER.pdf Hipkins, R. (2011). Learning to be a new school. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/ publications/learning-be-new-school-building-curriculum-newtimes
School Bells and Buzzers Made in the USA
Hipkins, R. with Denny, M.; Shanks, L. and White, K. Designing effective extended learning episodes: The Alfriston College Experience: A summary. Teaching and learning Research Initiative. http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9255summaryreport.pdf Hipkins, R. with Shanks, L. and Denny, M. (2008). Early experiences of longer learning periods at Alfriston College, set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 44-48. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/ nzcerpress/set/articles/early-experiences-longer-learningperiods-alfriston-college McDowall, S. and Hipkins, R. (2019). Curriculum Integration: What is happening in New Zealand Schools? New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/ Curriculum%20Integration%202018-2019.pdf Manalo, E., Uesaka, Y. & Chinn, C. (eds.) (2017). Promoting Spontaneous Use of Learning and Reasoning Strategies: Theory, Research, and Practice for Effective Transfer. Routledge. Picken, A. and Anderton, M. (2020). Can a place-based curriculum raise achievement? Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/ tlif-teacher-led-innovation-fund/teacher-led-innovation-fundtlif-project-summaries-2018/can-a-place-based-curriculumraise-achievement Watt, M. and White, K. (2018) Re-imagining teaching and learning in year 9 and year 10 at Alfriston College. Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/ tlif-teacher-led-innovation-fund/teacher-led-innovation-fundtlif-project-summaries-2018/re-imagining-teaching-andlearning-in-year-9-and-year-10-at-alfriston-college http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-andlearning/learning/knowledge/Knowledge_for_2030_concept_ note.pdf
TLIF is the Teacher-Led Inquiry Fund. TLRI is the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. A key difference is that TLRI projects must be partnerships, usually between tertiary researchers and practitioners. By contrast, TLIF projects are controlled by the school leading the work, with support from an external adviser. Alfriston College’s early TLRI was unusual in being awarded to a school, and they have more recently also completed a TLIF project.
Karyn White, personal conversation
Postscript NZCER is working on a project that explores timetabling in secondary schools. They would love to hear from schools that have innovated with timetable structures and processes to better meet the needs of their students. Find out more and register your interest in participating on the project website at: https://www.nzcer.org.nz/ research/it-s-time-transformational-timetabling-practices
With the built-in remote scheduling function on the Netbell products, it is super easy to expand your timed alert and school bell system. • Control and program your bells easily from a PC • Simple to set up and program • Easily extendable • Free software is only needed to set up the schedule – doesn’t need a dedicated PC
The Challenger 1000 with Speaker, Microphone and Stand – all ready to go, freight to your school included. This PA system package combines the best sounding portable PA system in New Zealand with a wireless microphone and speaker stand. Fully featured, top quality, easy to use, reliable and this package includes a stand, weather cover and handheld wireless microphone. Built-in trolley and powerful rechargeable batteries so you can take it anywhere. $1995+gst for the wireless PA system package at this link: https://www.edwardsnz.co.nz/product/ challenger-1000-with-mic%2c-speakerstand-and-cover-11089.htmx
$19gs9t 5 +
Call Now 0800 433927 sales@edwardsnz.co.nz edwardsnz.co.nz