Background to the Case Study School and the Academic Adviser (AcAd) Program

The school that was the focus of this research was an independent, P–12, co-educational school on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. It operated within a very competitive environment, with a large number of Gold Coast schools listed among the top OP and NAPLAN12 performers in Queensland. During the research period, the school was responsible for educating between 1250 and 1320 students, of whom around 10 per cent were designated as Full Fee Paying Overseas Students (FFPOS), although all the students who participated in the survey were classified as ‘domestic’. All students were involved in a range of extra-curricular sporting and cultural activities in addition to their academic courses.

The school was successful, as indicated by parent satisfaction surveys, academic results and the proportion of graduates who received offers at tertiary institutions, in its delivery of a traditional, so-called ‘industrial age’ (Fisher, 2010; Ramorola, 2013; Sturgis, 2015) approach to education. In 2012, as the principal of the school, and with the approval of the school board, I began to promote blended learning13 _{as an important step in the}

journey to personalise learning and meet the needs of individual students. The shift in the mode of delivery coincided with the development of a number of contemporary learning spaces, as can be seen in Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. These included a Foreign Language Centre; an Information Centre to replace the old library; an Arts and Applied Technology Precinct for Visual Art, Film and Television, Information Technology and Graphics; a Science-in-Action Centre; a Team Projects space; a new facility for Learning Enhancement (approximately 20 per cent of the students at the school received additional learning support); and a new space for students in Years 7–9 to undertake ‘station rotation’ activities.14 _{Work also began to develop a new analytics-capable LMS to house}

subject content and formative assessment items around this time.

12 _{OP was the name given to the ‘Overall Position’ that serves as a tertiary ranking system at the time the} research was conducted. NAPLAN is an acronym for National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy sat by all Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students in Australia.

13 _{Blended Learning was defined as a combination of digital and face-to-face delivery of an education} service in a ‘bricks and mortar’ environment.

14 _{Station Rotation is a form of blended learning in which students move through a range of learning} activities, which in the case study school included direct instruction and LMS based activities.

Figure 3.1 The case study school’s Foreign Language Centre

Figure 3.2 The case study school’s Science-in-Action Centre

Figure 3.4 The case study school’s Team Projects Space

Figure 3.5 The case study school’s Arts and Applied Technology Precinct

Figures 3.3 to 3.5 show a number of the learning spaces built in the case study school. These represent another element of the school’s attempt to transition to collaborative pedagogies applied in a digital technology-rich environment.

For administrative and staffing purposes, the Years 7–12 component of the school was organised into faculties: Arts & Applied Technology; English; Foreign Languages (LOTE); Humanities; Mathematics; Music; Physical Education; and Science. A Head of Faculty was appointed for each. The Careers Adviser and Vocational Education Coordinator also formed part of the curriculum team, which was managed by the Director

of Studies. The pastoral care team focused on the welfare of students. It included a Head of Program for Years P–3 and 4–6, Heads of Year for Years 7–12, the College Chaplain and the College Counsellor. The Dean of Students managed this team.

The school’s organisational architecture varied only slightly from the traditional model in 2012. Subject teachers were somewhat cocooned, with collaboration exercised in staff meetings and impromptu conversations in the staff centre, rather than in classrooms. The curriculum for Years 7–12 was definitely housed in subject silos and most teachers in this part of the school taught within their subject specialisation. Teachers wrote assessment tasks, graded the work submitted by students and wrote reports. The students’ dependence on teachers was exacerbated by the school-based assessment system, which effectively placed a ceiling on learning, because students knew their teachers wrote their assessment tasks so they did not have to cope with the element of uncertainty that accompanies externally developed and graded subject exams. However, this system was flagged for change to include an external exam component within a few years.

The blended model took root and grew in different faculties at different rates. Faculties were invited to select one or more blended models that, in their opinion, were most appropriate to their subject areas. Humanities and English adopted ‘station rotation’, while Arts and Applied Technology and Science adopted more of a ‘flipped learning’ approach. Mathematics teachers were very slow to embrace the change, and maintained their allegiance to instructivism throughout most of the research period. Art and Applied Technology (Visual Art, Graphics, Film & Television and Business) were frontrunners, followed by Humanities. As late as 2016, there was still little evidence of interdisciplinary learning activities or project-based learning, although this did change with the introduction of projects into Year 10 in 2016. The LMS was being populated, at rates that varied between faculties, with the assistance of specialist team members. There was a concern that, in some faculties, the LMS was being used more as support for students who missed classes or needed to review material than as a replacement for, or enrichment of, instructional time in class.

3.3.1 The Academic Adviser (AcAd) Program

The AcAd Program was launched in 2013, and was intended to bridge the academic and pastoral dimensions of the school, but the AcAds were not formally members of either group. They were employed as independent contractors who arranged to meet the students they were advising at mutually convenient times. For example, one of the AcAds, who lived in North Queensland since he had joined the program in 2013, conducted his meetings outside of school hours via Skype. There had been a small turnover in AcAd personnel since the program’s launch,15 but satisfaction among the AcAds was high (as evidenced by data in Chapter 4), and the school has had little difficulty in attracting new AcAds to the program.

The AcAd Program was introduced to promote self-regulated learning and enhance students’ learning power, which my executive staff and I identified as a priority because:

 Research associates increased self-regulation and learning power with improved academic performance (Zimmerman, 2002) and greater student engagement (Brophy, 2008; Fredericks et al., 2011).

 Self-regulation and learning power have been identified as important attributes of a ‘21st _{Century Learner’ (Soland, Hamilton & Stecher, 2013).}

 As previously noted, the vast majority of the school’s graduates undertake tertiary study and the leadership team wanted to equip them for success beyond school.

 It was felt that self-regulating students would be better equipped to succeed in a personalised learning environment, as students who could not self-regulate, and were not empowered to learn, might struggle in non-traditional settings (Lynch & Dembo, 2004).

These goals complemented the school’s intention to apply the economic principles of Division of Labour and Specialisation by employing an expanded team of educators (Carroll & Foster, 2009; Coggshall, Lasagna & Laine, 2009) as part of its strategy to personalise learning. If it achieved these goals, the students in the program should become

15 _{Three AcAds took maternity leave and one left due to ill-health. Others were recruited as the program} grew.

less dependent on their classroom teachers, notwithstanding the ceiling imposed by the outgoing school-based assessment system.

Initially, all students on scholarships were required to participate in the AcAd Program, while other students volunteered, or were volunteered by their parents/caregivers. The school paid the total cost of the program in the first year. The approach was refined in subsequent years because it was felt that students should ‘buy into’ the program rather than be compelled to participate. Parents/caregivers were subsequently asked to pay 47 per cent of the cost of employing the AcAds, with the remaining 53 per cent of the cost paid by the school. This was designed to allow for an increase in the number of students and to discourage students from missing appointments with their AcAds.

AcAds were selected on the basis of their history in working with students, their commitment to the need to promote greater levels of self-regulation in students, and their capacity to build trusting relationships with students in the program. Of course, they were also subject to rigorous checks regarding suitability to work with children. AcAds were expected to keep matters discussed with students confidential, unless the student granted permission for the material to be shared or the AcAd believed they were privy to information that needed to be shared in order to protect the child.16 AcAds met their students between fourteen and sixteen times during the academic year. Meetings were scheduled for 30 minutes, with an additional ten minutes allowed for the AcAd to maintain their records. They held at least one ‘round-table’ discussion with the student and the child’s parent(s)/caregiver(s) each semester. AcAds attended one full-day professional development meeting each semester.