Background and Context for the Case Study

As outlined in more detail in Chapter 3, this research employed a case study approach, and was conducted in an independent, P–12, coeducational school in South-East Queensland, Australia. At the time of the study, the Years 7–12 component of the case study school was in the early stages of transitioning from a traditional architecture that revolved around the work of the teacher to a new ‘education team’ architecture that focused on the needs of the individual student. I was the Principal/CEO who reported to a College Board and worked closely with an executive team. The management team for

2 _{A change in the role of the teacher might also be necessitated by demographic changes that make} teachers an increasingly scarce resource, particularly in certain subjects and in remote areas (Carroll & Foster, 2009; OECD, 2003; Skilbeck & Connell, 2003).

the secondary years, where the AcAd Program operated, was divided into two groups: the Heads of Faculty and Subject Coordinators directly responsible to the Director of Studies for academic programs (course design, teacher performance, assessment, reporting and accountability); and Heads of Year, who were responsible to the Dean of Students for student welfare and behaviour management. Teachers and teacher aides reported to the Heads of Faculty, and teachers – the vast majority of whom were ‘tutors’ (homeroom teachers) – also reported to Heads of Year about low-level pastoral issues.

The range of subjects offered, the amount of time given to each at particular year levels, and the nature and timing of assessment, as well as the quality of education ‘in the classroom’, were determined by the skills and availability of the teaching staff. Classrooms tended to be cocoons where small groups focused for finite amounts of time on particular topics housed within distinct subjects. The emphasis in class was on knowledge and skill acquisition, with application and consolidation exercises often assigned as homework. The timetable, assessment schedules, length of the school day and length of the school year (number of days in session) were a function of the capacity of teachers at the school, industrial agreements relating to the work of teachers and other staff, and other externally determined policies and regulations – many as mundane as timetables for school buses.

The early stages of the transition involved:

 the development of a comprehensive LMS facilitated by a team of digital content coordinators under the leadership of a Director of e Learning

 the transformation of pedagogy from ‘instructivist’ to constructivist approaches

 the transformation of modes of delivery from one totally reliant on the physical presence of a teacher to one or more blended learning models

 the development of technology-enhanced learning spaces designed to facilitate collaboration, including a new Foreign Language Centre, an Information Centre, an Arts and Applied Technology Precinct, a Team Projects Area, a Learning Enhancement Centre, a Science-in-Action Centre and a redesigned space for station rotation activities for Years 7 and 8

 the development of a Data Dashboard, an extensive, easy-to-comprehend dashboard that profiled individual students

 the introduction of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as electives, and

 the introduction of the AcAd Program, which is the focus of this research. The case study school introduced its AcAd Program in 2013 in order to:

 promote greater levels of self-regulation, the benefits of which were identified by Bell and Ackroyd (2006), Cleary and Zimmerman (2004), Greene and Azevedo, (2010), Pintrich and De Groot (1990) and Zimmerman (2002)

 improve aspects of each student’s ‘learning power’ in order to provide them with benefits, such as those identified by Deakin Crick, Haigney, Huang, Coburn and Goldspink (2013)

 provide a link between the school’s academic and pastoral agendas, and

 reduce students’ dependence on classroom teachers by providing them a team of specialists and expanding their learning networks.

In a strategic sense, the AcAd Program was designed to equip students with the skills and dispositions to be independent learners and clear the way for the introduction of other aspects of the new architecture, including reframing classroom teachers as ‘subject coaches’ and introducing classroom teachers to the notion that they formed part of a team of educators working in the service of students. It also took the first steps towards personalizing the learning experience for the students in the program.

The AcAd Program was one dimension of a new organisational architecture for Year 7– 12 students at the school. In 2015, there were 127 students who volunteered to be in the program out of a total senior school population of 700 students. This was an increase from 96 students in the previous year. These students represented 18 per cent of the total student population, with slight variations between 2015 and 2017. The AcAds themselves operated as contractors who invoiced the school each fortnight for the meetings they conducted with their students. The cost of the program was shared by the school, which met 53 per cent of the cost, and parents/caregivers. Meetings between students and AcAds lasted for 30 minutes, but the AcAds were paid for an additional ten minutes for record-

keeping. Each student met with their AcAd on at least fourteen, but no more than sixteen, occasions during the academic year, which in practice meant one meeting each fortnight after students had settled into the year. AcAds were required to brief parents/caregivers once each semester, although they were expected to obtain each student’s permission before they shared information with their parents/caregivers3.

Each student’s learning disposition was assessed at the beginning of the year using the self-assessed Deakin Crick LeArning for Resilient Agency Profile (CLARA), which was the updated version of the Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (ELLI) developed by Deakin Crick, Broadfoot and Claxton (2004) to assess learning dispositions. Each student from Years 9–12 also completed the self-assessed Learning and Studies Strategy Inventory for High School students (LASSI-HS), developed by Weinstein, Zimmerman and Palmer (1988), to gauge their level of self-regulation. AcAds used these data to guide their conversations with students and focus on the dimension(s) that, in the opinion of the AcAd and the student, would render the student most benefit. CLARA and LASSI-HS were not used as sources of data for this research project.